Loading...
CC - Item 3B - Public Hearing on Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01 at 8408-8418 Garvey AvenueROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 31, 2022 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATION 22-01 AND ZONE VARIANCE 22-01 8408-8418 GARVEY AVENUE SUMMARY Garvey Garden Plaza LLC has submitted a Modification and Variance application requesting to amend Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a six-foot high block wall along the front 20 feet of the south property line. The fully constructed block wall is six feet in height and exceeds the maximum height of forty-two (42) inches. Per RMC Section 17.120.100(C), the proposed change may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with Chapter 17.120. The subject site is located at 8408-8418 Garvey Avenue (APN: 5283-005-028) in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design overlays (C- 3/RC-MUDO/D-O) zone. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Class 1 of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Accordingly, Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01 are classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at the southeast corner of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue and consists of six tied parcels totaling approximately 49,484 square feet. AGENDA ITEM 3.11 City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 2 of 10 Aerial View of Project Site On June 9, 2015, the City Council approved Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development consisting of 46 residential apartment units (seven of which are low-income units), with 11,860 square feet of commercial floor area. In addition, the City Council granted a density bonus with two concessions to deviate from the development standards. The City Council Staff Report, City Council Resolution 2015-29, and City Council Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015, have been included as Attachments `B", "C", and "D", respectively. The development is fully constructed and according to Building and Safety Division records, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. Per RMC Section 17.28.030 (D)(1 1)(a), six-foot high masonry wall is required along the property line of any lot where construction of any residential/commercial mixed-use development is adjacent to property zoned and or used for residential purposes. The said wall, however, is limited to forty-two (42) inches in height where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes. In addition, the wall shall have a decorative texture that matches the walls of the development. The applicant is requesting an exception to the decorative wall texture requirement and maximum 42 -inch height in the 20 feet front yard setback area requirement, as noted above. As depicted on page 3, the applicant has fully constructed the six-foot high, beige -colored block wall along the south property line, which complements the primary color of the mixed-use development. City Council Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 3 of 10 Although the wall is not decorative in texture, the applicant has constructed a large landscape planter that runs throughout the majority of the south property line wall. The landscape planter is also heavily landscaped with various plant materials, which softens the appearance of the block wall. Landscape Planter Along the South Property Line Based on the code, the height maximum for the first 20 feet of the south property line is 42 inches. As depicted below and in Attachment "E", the applicant is requesting to maintain the constructed, beige -colored six-foot high block wall along the first 20 feet of the south property line. Constructed beige colored six-foot high 1� block wall West View of Block Wall Site Plan The applicant has indicated that the six-foot high wall at the 20 -feet front yard area was constructed as a preventative measure to protect tenants, patrons, and residents of the mixed-use development. In addition, maintaining the wall at six feet in height would serve as additional measures to screen the mechanical equipment from the abutting residential properties directly south of the mixed-use development, as illustrated on page 4. Constructed beige -colored six-foot high block wall within the first 20 feet of the south property line (Variance to maintain) _ rr — West View of Block Wall Site Plan The applicant has indicated that the six-foot high wall at the 20 -feet front yard area was constructed as a preventative measure to protect tenants, patrons, and residents of the mixed-use development. In addition, maintaining the wall at six feet in height would serve as additional measures to screen the mechanical equipment from the abutting residential properties directly south of the mixed-use development, as illustrated on page 4. City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 4 of 10 South View of Block Wall Furthermore, the six-foot high block wall would not affect the line of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the property or adjacent residential property as the mixed-use development was approved with a 12 -foot -wide public realm consisting of a seven -foot -wide detached sidewalk (clear zone) and a five -foot -wide parkway (amenity zone) adjacent to all streets. As depicted below, the width of the sidewalk provides sufficient clearance for vehicles entering or existing the adjacent residential property along the south property line. The higher block wall would also assist in noise abatement from vehicles entering and exiting the property. Visibility of Vehicles Exiting the Site Visibility of Vehicles Exiting the Adjacent Residential Property City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 5 of 10 Modification to Design Review 14-03 — Proposed Amendments The applicant's request to maintain the height of the constructed block wall at six feet instead of reducing it to forty-two (42) inches in the 20 -ft front yard area will require the following modifications to Condition of Approval No. 1: Design Review 14-03 is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E", dated April 21, 2015. Thefencing and wallsfor the development shall be constructed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E'; dated May 12, 2022. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. Zone Variance Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.020, a Variance is required for any development that is not consistent with applicable development standards or other regulations of [the Rosemead Zoning Code], with an exception of Minor Modifications, which are processed in accordance with Chapter 17.142. The applicant is requesting exceptions to Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.28.030 (D)(11)(a) and (b), to maintain the beige -colored block wall at a height of six feet within the 20 -foot front yard area, instead of reducing it to forty-two (42) inches, where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Modification 22-01 Per RMC Section 17.120.100(0), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.1001, or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. RMC Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the City Council (original approval body) may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove any application based on the following criteria: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. The applicant is not modifying the design of the mixed-use development. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 6 of 10 maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. Granting the wall height at six feet would assist in providing additional mechanical equipment screening. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. The applicant is not modifying the exterior design of the mixed-use development. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is fully constructed and continues to be in harmony with the new mixed-use developments within the general vicinity. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development was constructed as originally approved by the City Council. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is fully constructed and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, and luminaires will remain as approved. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. The constructed six feet high block wall will not interfere with automobile and pedestrian circulation as sight distance requirements are still met. Zone Variance 22-01 Per RMC Section 17.140.010, the purpose of a Variance is to give the City Council (original approval body) authority to allow an exception to certain development standards prescribed in the Zoning Code when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of [the Zoning Code] occur by reason of a strict interpretation and enforcement of any of the provisions of [the Zoning Code]. Per RMC 17.140.040, all of the following findings shall be made by the City Council (original approval body) in conjunction with the approval of a Variance: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district. Recommended Finding: The subject site is one out of three residential/commercial mixed-use development sites within the vicinity that have recently completed construction or is under construction. Out of the three mixed-use developments, the subject site is the only site that is slightly irregular in shape and is the only property where the driveway for the abutting residential use is not directly adjacent to the property line of the mixed-use development. For this reason, the applicant is requesting exceptions to RMC Section 17.28.030(D)(11)(a) and (b), to maintain the beige -colored block wall and the height of the constructed block wall at six feet instead of reducing it to forty-two (42) inches, as vehicles City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page S of 10 exiting the mixed-use development or the abutting residential property would have full visibility of all approaching pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district. Recommended Finding: The mixed-use development is newly constructed. As a preventative measure to protect tenants, patrons, and residents of the mixed-use development, the applicant constructed the six-foot high beige -colored wall. The mixed- use development was required to provide a 12 -foot -wide public realm consisting of a seven -foot -wide detached sidewalk (clear zone) and a five -foot -wide parkway (amenity zone) adjacent to all streets. Due to the width of the sidewalk, the six-foot high block wall would not impinge on visibility for vehicles and would provide sufficient clearance for vehicles entering or existing the adjacent residential property along the south property line. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. Furthermore, although the wall is not decorative in texture, the block wall is beige -colored and matches the building. The applicant has also constructed a large landscape planter that runs throughout the majority of the south property line wall. The landscape planter is also heavily landscaped with various plant materials, which softens the appearance of the block wall. C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Recommended Finding: Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, as the six-foot wall serves as mechanical screening and noise barriers for adjacent residential properties to be south of the development. In addition, the development provides a 12 -foot -wide public realm consisting of a seven -foot - wide detached sidewalk (clear zone) and a five -foot -wide parkway (amenity zone) adjacent to all streets. Due to the width of the sidewalk, the six-foot high block wall would not impinge on visibility for vehicles and would provide sufficient clearance for vehicles entering or existing the adjacent residential property along the south property line. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. Furthermore, although the wall is not decorative in texture, the block wall is beige -colored and matches the building. The applicant has also constructed a large landscape planter that runs throughout the majority of the south property line wall. The landscape planter is also heavily landscaped with various plant materials, which softens the appearance of the block wall. City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 9 of 10 D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. Recommended Finding: The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the decorative wall texture and wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. The request does not affect the use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2022-32 with findings (Attachment "A"), and APPROVE Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01, subject to the 11 conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. FISCAL IMPACT None. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT None. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 - foot radius public hearing notice to forty-three (43) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on May 19, 2022, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. City Council Special Meeting May 31, 2022 Page 10 of 10 Prepared by: Anme Lao, Associate Planner Reviewed by: A�-R- Lily Videnzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Attachment A: Resolution No. 2022-32 with Conditions of Approval Attachment B: City Council Staff Report dated June 9, 2015 (without attachments, which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) Attachment C: City Council Resolution No. 2015-29 with Conditions of Approval Attachment D: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated June 9, 2015 Attachment E: Modified Architectural Plans, dated May 12, 2022 40 Attachment A Resolution No. 2022-32 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 22-01 AND ZONE VARIANCE 22-01, EXCEPTIONS TO RMC SECTION 17.28.030(D)(11)(A) AND (B), TO MAINTAIN THE BEIGE -COLORED BLOCK WALL AND THE HEIGHT OF THE CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT SIX FEET INSTEAD OF REDUCING IT TO FORTY-TWO (42) INCHES. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408-8418 GARVEY AVENUE (APN NO. 5283-005-028), IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-0) ZONE WHEREAS, on April 28, 2022, Garvey Garden Plaza LLC submitted a Modification and Zone Variance application requesting exceptions from the decorative wall texture requirement and wall height requirement of forty-two inches along the south property line by maintaining the fully constructed six-foot high beige -colored block wall; and WHEREAS, this property located at 8408-8418 Garvey Avenue is located in the C-3/RC- MUDO/D-0 zone; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the City Council approved Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development consisting of 46 residential apartment units and 11,860 square feet of commercial floor area; and WHEREAS, Section 17.120.100(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for authorizing changes to an approved project by the original review authority; and WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Design Review; and WHEREAS, Section 17.140.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Variance; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Sections 17.120.100(C), 17.28.020(C), and 17.140.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council (original review authority) to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Modifications and Variances; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2022, 43 notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01 at its special meeting on May 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony and all other information presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01 are classified as Class 1 Categorical Exemptions, pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 22-01 in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. The applicant is not modifying the design of the mixed-use development. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. Granting the wall height at six feet would assist in providing additional mechanical equipment screening. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. 2 FINDING: The mixed-use development is fully constructed, and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued on March 10, 2022. The applicant is not modifying the exterior design of the mixed-use development. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The mixed-use development is fully constructed and continues to be in harmony with the new mixed-use developments within the general vicinity. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The mixed-use development was constructed as originally approved by the City Council. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty- two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. FINDING: The mixed-use development is fully constructed and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, and luminaires will remain as approved. The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the required wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed block wall along the south property line at six feet high. The constructed, beige -colored six feet high block wall will not interfere with automobile and pedestrian circulation as sight distance requirements are still met. 3 SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Variance 22-01 in accordance with Section 17.140.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (such as location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, etc.) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning district. FINDING: The subject site is one out of three residential/commercial mixed-use development sites within the vicinity that have recently completed construction or is under construction. Out of the three mixed-use developments, the subject site is the only site that is slightly irregular in shape and is the only property where the driveway for the abutting residential use is not directly adjacent to the property line of the mixed-use development. For this reason, the applicant is requesting exceptions to RMC Section 17.28.030(D)(11)(a) and (b), to maintain the beige -colored block wall and the height of the constructed block wall at six feet instead of reducing it to forty-two (42) inches, as vehicles exiting the mixed-use development or the abutting residential property would have full visibility of all approaching pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning district. FINDING: The mixed-use development is newly constructed. As a preventative measure to protect tenants, patrons, and residents of the mixed-use development, the applicant constructed the six-foot high beige -colored wall. The mixed-use development was required to provide a 12 - foot -wide public realm consisting of a seven -foot -wide detached sidewalk (clear zone) and a five- foot -wide parkway (amenity zone) adjacent to all streets. Due to the width of the sidewalk, the six- foot high block wall would not impinge on visibility for vehicles and would provide sufficient clearance for vehicles entering or existing the adjacent residential property along the south property line. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. Furthermore, although the wall is not decorative in texture, the block wall is beige -colored and matches the building. The applicant has also constructed a large landscape planter that runs throughout the majority of the south property line wall. The landscape planter is also heavily landscaped with various plant materials, which softens the appearance of the block wall. C. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. FINDING: Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, as the six-foot wall serves as mechanical screening and noise barriers for adjacent residential properties to be south of the development. In addition, the development provides a 12 -foot -wide public realm consisting of a seven -foot- wide detached sidewalk (clear zone) and a five -foot -wide parkway (amenity zone) adjacent to all streets. Due to the width of the 13 sidewalk, the six-foot high block wall would not impinge on visibility for vehicles and would provide sufficient clearance for vehicles entering or existing the adjacent residential property along the south property line. In addition, the higher block wall would abate noises caused by vehicles entering and exiting the property. Furthermore, although the wall is not decorative in texture, the block wall is beige -colored and matches the building. The applicant has also constructed a large landscape planter that runs throughout the majority of the south property line wall. The landscape planter is also heavily landscaped with various plant materials, which softens the appearance of the block wall. D. The requested Variance would not allow a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. FINDING: The applicant is only requesting to deviate from the decorative wall texture and wall height of forty-two (42) inches where it abuts the required front yard setback on the adjacent property zoned or used for residential purposes by maintaining the fully constructed, beige -colored block wall along the south property line at six feet high. The request does not affect the use. SECTION 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01, to deviate from the height requirement of forty-two inches for the construction of a colored six-foot high block wall along the first twenty feet of the south property line. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 31s` day of May, 2022. Polly Low, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2022-32, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 31 s` day of May, 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" MODIFICATION 22-01 AND ZONE VARIANCE 22-01 8408-8418 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5283-005-028) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL May 31, 2022 1. Design Review 14-03 is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E", dated April 21, 2015. The fencing and walls for the development shall be constructed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E", dated May 12, 2022. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Modification 22-01 and Zone Variance 22-01 (Project) shall be in compliance and remain in compliance with all applicable Conditions of Approval for Design Review 14-03, in addition to the Conditions of Approval for project. 3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans. All conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead ("City") a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date. 5. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10 -day appeal period of Project. 6. Project is approved for a period of one (1) year. The applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30 -calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 7. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 8. Project is granted or approved with the City and its City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the 7 modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City and its City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 9. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 10. The applicant(s) shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved project, including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, and Health Departments. 11. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. E3 0 Attachment B City Council Staff Report Dated June 9, 2015 (Without attachments, which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER � DATE: JUNE 9, 2015 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 8408 GARVEY AVENUE Summary Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at the southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on May 18, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission removed condition of approval number 47, since the project does not involve a tentative map, and added two conditions of approval. The first condition required a post traffic study. The second condition prohibited restaurant use in the building due to parking restrictions. Once these changes were noted, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-07, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (Attachment "A"). The Planning Commission Staff Report, PC Resolution No. 15-07, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "B", "C", and "D", respectively. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment "G") for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial study has found that there are less than significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed mixed use is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, ITEM NUMBER: 4 b City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 28 Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, HydrologyMater Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities/Service Systems. However, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, to which the Applicant has agreed; the less than significant impact will be reduced to a level that is less as determined by the Lead Agency. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30 -day public review and comment period from April 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Agency comments and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by CEQA guidelines, is attached to this staff report for your review. If the Commission recommends this project to the City Council for approval, the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and also recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Initial Study was undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have less than significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a Lead Agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is considered a project of statewide, regional or area -wide significance and could affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the following actions are taken: 1. The City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. The City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2015-29 with findings, subject to the ninety (90) conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and 3. The City Council ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project. Property History and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Deka Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site totals approximately 49,484 square feet and is currently developed with three (3) commercial buildings, four (4) residential buildings, and a parking lot. A covenant and agreement was recorded by the property owner on February 16, 2011, which held the six (6) parcels as one (1) parcel and restricts the owner from selling, transferring, or in any way severing any portion of the properties independently from the remaining portions of the property. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 28 Northwest View Project Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a four-story, mixed use development with 11,860 square feet of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors, comprising 51,930 square feet, for a total built area of 63,790 square feet. Of the 46 units, the project proposes seven (7) low-income apartment units. An outdoor seating area and central garden for residents is proposed on the second floor. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the open space areas. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. The project requests (Attachment "E"), and City Staff recommends, a density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state law to allow density bonuses up to 35 percent. In accordance with SB 1818, the Applicant would be required to provide affordable residential units in order to qualify for this density bonus. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.84.010 requires the City Council approval for projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, subject to the provisions of Section 17.84.130. For this reason, the applicant has submitted a Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement attached as Attachment "F. Under the existing zoning, the project site can accommodate a maximum residential density of 34 units. Therefore, the construction of 46 units would exceed the permitted residential density by approximately 35 percent. The Applicant has chosen to provide seven (7) low-income apartment units, which satisfies the State law requirements. The project is requesting two (2) concessions to allow the development as proposed. The first concession will allow four (4) stories at forty-five (45) feet, rather than the three (3) stories at forty-five (45) feet. The second concession will allow the building residential1commercial ratio to consist of 81.4 percent residential and 18.6 percent commercial, rather than the sixty-seven (67) residential and 33 commercial split under the zoning. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 28 Site & Surroundina Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C-3 MUDO- D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Mixed Use: ResidentiaVCommercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential East General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial West General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) Zoning: C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed use project. The Residential/Commercial Mixed use Development Overlay Zone allows the Planning Commission to grant approval of a well-designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses, however, since this project is requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, the City Council must approve the project. Lot Size 30,000sl. 49,484 s.f. Floor Area Ratio 1.6:1 (max allowed) 1.29:1 (FAR) 12'-0' with T-0" wide sidewalk Public Sidewalk 12'-0' with T-0" wide sidewalk (Gear zone) and 5'-0" (dear zone) and 5'-0" wide wide parkway (amenity zone) parkway (amenity zone Front Setback Zero Zero (0) feet Interior Lot Line May be zero (0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet Zero (0) feet Setback if more than zero (0). City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 28 Side street None Zero (0) feet Setback Rear Abutting Residential 10'-0" 55'-6" Setback Height Three -stories with a maximum height of forty-five (45) Four -stories and forty-five (45) feet feet *Requesting concession Establishing a height of fifteen (15) feet above the Requirement met. Please see finished grade of adjacent residential property line and illustration on Elevation Plans in Variable Height located twenty-five (25) feet from the rear property line, Attachment "J" on pages A-3.1 and a sixty (50) degree incline plane is projected that A-3.2. establishes the height limitation. Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling plus one (1) guest 98 parking spaces Parking parking space per two (2) dwelling units 'Density bonus allows of (Residential) Total Required: 115 parking spaces to 9 required parking spaces to 92 spaces parking spaces Parking Retail and Office: One (1) parking space per two (Commercial) hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor space 48 parking spaces Total Required: 47.4 parking spaces Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent (%) of required off-street parking. 14 bicycle parking spaces (13.84 =14 bicycle parking spaces) Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.f./dwelling unit (6,900 s.f.) Common Open Space: 9,560 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f/dwelling unit 2,760 s.f. Private Open Space: 5,857 s.f. Building 81.4% Residential and 18.6% Commercial 67% Residential and 33% Commercial Commercial Residential Ratio I 'Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial The floor plans submitted with this application show ten (10) tenant suites, totaling approximately 11,860 square feet that will be utilized for retail and office uses. The project is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the commercial use, as shown in the table on page four and on the development plan. Residential A total of 46 apartment units are proposed within this development. The manager unit is located on the first floor and all other units will be located on the second through fourth floors of the building. The second floor includes 14 apartment units with a recreation room, the third floor includes 15 apartment units, and the fourth floor includes 16 apartment units. The unit floor plans submitted show two -unit types (Unit A and 13), from two-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 950 square feet to 1,250 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet(s), storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 28 Proposed Landscaping and Fencina: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as "Exhibit J." New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas and landscaped islands within the surface parking lot areas. Additionally, the central garden provides added landscaping. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. The Applicant is proposing to construct new decorative perimeter block walls along the south, east, and some areas of the west property lines. Parking and Circulation Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. The Applicant is proposing surface and one level subterranean basement parking. A total of 146 parking spaces would be provided, which includes 48 spaces for commercial and office parking and 98 spaces for residential parking. Through the request of density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is requesting a reduction in residential parking from 115 parking spaces to 98 parking spaces. The maximum standards for residential parking are: • One (1) onsite parking space for up to one (1) bedroom. • Two (2) onsite parking spaces for up to three (3) bedrooms. • No requirement for guest parking. In addition, the proposed project will also include 14 bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by VA Consulting, dated February 2015, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon ten (10) nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: 1. San Gabriel at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 2. San Gabriel Boulevard at 1-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled); 3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); 6. Walnut Grove Avenue at 1-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled); 7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 8. 1-10 Eastbound off -ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized); 9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and 10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fem Avenue (signalized). Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 28 project will have less -than signification traffic impacts. The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable, and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission had concerns relating to post traffic once the project is completed. For this reason, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval which requires a post traffic study (Condition of Approval Number 30). Proposed Architecture: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modem, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest comer of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Liahtina New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height. • Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 8 of 28 Soils Report The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site as one subject to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to the consequences liquefaction. The City's independent geotechnical and engineering geology consultants have reviewed the revised report and have deemed it acceptable as presented on 2011. The report is relied on by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation measures have been required to address its concerns. Auencv Review Comments Comments were received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) during the 30 -day public review and comment period. Caltrans had concerns relating to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) not including a complete cumulative analysis of projects within the area, specifically, the proposed Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project and the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan in the City (attached as Exhibit "G"). The Environmental Consultant for this project, Phil Martin & Associates has reviewed Caltrans comment letter and has determined that the Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel project is a pre - application and a formal entitlement has not been submitted for this project. In addition, the project location is too removed from the Garvey Garden Plaza project to generate traffic that could have cumulative impacts. Phil Martin & Associates has also determined that the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan project was filed after we started the preparation of the MND for the Garvey Garden Plaza project. Thus, it is not a requirement to include the project in the cumulative analysis. Furthermore, the Garvey Avenue Corridor Specific Plan EIR will include the Garvey Garden Plaza project in its cumulative traffic analysis so the cumulative traffic analysis of the two projects will be adequately analyzed. The LACFD comments were related to the project and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit "H"). Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.28.020(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade or landscaping. Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 9 of 28 the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staffs determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 10 of 28 building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and This proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 11 of 28 The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modem, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On May 28, 2015, thirty-six (36) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader. Pr ar� Submitted by: Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez Associate Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 2015-29 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval) B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 18, 2015 C. Planning Commission Resolution 15-07 D. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated May 18, 2015 E. Letter of Request for Density Bonus F. Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement G. Caltrans Comment Letter H. Los Angeles County Fire Department Comment Letter I. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program J. Architectural Plans Attachment C City Council Resolution No. 2015-29 with Conditions of Approval RESOLUTION 2015-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5283-005-028). WHEREAS, on January 30, 2014, Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC submitted a Design Review for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, located at 8408 Garvey Avenue; and WHEREAS, 8408 Garvey Avenue is located in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone; and WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(A)(1) & Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove design review applications; and WHEREAS, Section 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the City Council to approve projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Design Review 14-03 was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Design Review 14-03 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2015, thirty-six (36) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the special public hearing for Design Review 14-03, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 14-03; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed Design Review 14-03, Mitigated Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 14-03 in accordance with Sections 17.28.020(C) and 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staffs determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City s tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. The architectural style of the building is modern, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the 3 potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modern, characterized by mufti -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front facade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The project includes a density bonus application. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the adoption thereof. 4 PASSED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles of the State of California on June 9, 2015. m� cep Margaret'Clark, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2D15-29 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14.03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIIJOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE PROJECT INCUDES A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN:5283.005.028) was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 9th of June, 2015, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: None , N0: a. NJI.J. c.C9, Gloria Molleda City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" (CC Resolution 2015-29) DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL June 9, 2015 Design Review 14-03 is approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "E", dated April 21, 2015. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. Approval of Design Review 14-03 shall not take effect for any purpose until the Applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions, within ten (10) days from the City Council approval date. 3. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed within ten (10) day from the approval date of Design Review 14-03. 4. Design Review 14-03 is approved for a period of one (1) year. The Applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30 -calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Design Review 14-03 has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 6. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. Design Review 14-03 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the modification of existing or imposition of new conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Design Review 14-03. 8. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees, are paid in full. 11. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s), including but not limited to all improvements required to file a final tract map and the filing and recordation of that final map. 12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 3/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior to installation. 13. All requirements of the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holidays without prior approval by the City. 15. The Planning, Building, and Public Works staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 16. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 17. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 18. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval all trash enclosures prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self -latching. 19. All off-street parking shall comply with the relevant section of the Rosemead Municipal Code applicable as of the date these Conditions of Approval are adopted. The parking area, including loading and handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 20. The Applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 21. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right of way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening prior to installation. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer/Applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions or an Affordable Housing Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney must be recorded against the seven (7) affordable apartment units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for low income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915. In addition, in an effort to respond to the needs of City residents before nonresidents and to provide affordable housing, the Applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead residents priority in obtaining an affordable unit. 24. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC&R's prior to issuance of any building permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage. 26. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 27. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six (6) months of the leasing period to incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces. 28. The exterior walls of First Floor shall consist of anti -graffiti coating. 29. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, and Public Works Department. The Construction Management Plan shall address noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. 30. A post traffic study shall be submitted to the Planning Division within six (6) months from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The post traffic .study shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant at the expense of the applicant (Added by the Planning Commission on May 18, 2015). 31. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Mitigation Measure Conditions Aesthetics 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height. • Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed fighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above. Air Quail 33. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non- toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Geology and Soils 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 35. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal - OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or lead paint. Hydrology and Water Quality 36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to 10 reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 37. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first % of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. 38. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install a planter box along the southern project boundary with capacity to filter the first % inch of project generated storm water prior to its discharge into Delta Avenue. Noise 39. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as follows: • There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. • Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line. • Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use (residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the implementation of the following conditions: • All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. o Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and the noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. o Haul truck and other construction -related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted to the same hours specked for the operation of construction equipment. o To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 40. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less. 41. Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 56 feet of the nearest adjacent residential structures. 11 Public Services 42. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District. 43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead. Transportation/Traffic 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access and site distance. 45. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8'6". 46. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas. Utilities and Service Systems 47. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low -flow water fixtures. Engineering Conditions of Approval General 48. , A Topographic survey indicating the proposed tentative tract map should be submitted for approval. This should indicated right of way dimensions, existing sidewalk dimensions, street dimensions, street cross sections at Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue, utilities, etc. 49. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained if the improvements are not installed. Otherwise, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 50. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees. 51. A dedication to the City of Rosemead shall be required to widen the public right of way along the entire frontage of Delta Avenue, as well as at the radius cut- off at the South East Comer of Delta avenue and Garvey Avenue. The applicant shall engage a licensed land surveyor (or Civil Engineer authorized to practice 12 land surveying) to prepare the legal descriptions and documents required for the proposed right of way dedication, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Land Surveyor, and shall pay all costs for plan checking, etc. 52. The catch basins fronting the proposed project shall be modified, to provide automatic retractable screens to screen storm water from trash, etc. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All new on-site storm drainage systems shall be designed to retain the first 3/4 inches of storm water runoff and to prevent cross lot drainage and comply with all storm water regulations. 53. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Department. Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 54. A grading and drainage plan must provide an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. 55. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. 56. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post development versus pre development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Method. 57. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 58. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the City's review, please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number. Road 59. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above -ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the parcel. 13 The drive approach is intended to serve, and is designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 60. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 61. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property line. 62. Remove and replace sidewalk from property line to property line, minimum seven feet wide. 63. Remove and replace existing curb ramp per ADA compliance. 64. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 65. Remove, relocate and construct any driveway approaches conflicting with this development. 66. Construct five (5) feet landscape parkway along Delta Avenue. Install eight (8) 36 inches parkway trees as indicated on the plans. No landscape parkway along Garvey Avenue, only sidewalk and install four (4) 48 inches box parkway tree as indicated on the plans. All street trees shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Urban Forester. Street trees shall be planted in a manner that provides a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from any existing or proposed sewer laterals to be used to serve the project. Sewer 67. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 68. Prepare and submit a sewer calculations analysis for sizing of proposed laterals including capacity conditions of existing sewer trunk line. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Guidelines. 69. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Utilities 70. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 71. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 14 72. Traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue will be required (if necessary). 73. Existing street lights are not shown on the proposed project plans, nor are proposed street lights shown. A street lighting plan shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development and to obtain the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall bear all costs to provide street lighting, etc., if required. In addition, all utility services to serve the proposed project shall be placed underground. Geotechnical Conditions of Approval 74. The consultant shall be on site during temporary excavation for basement walls and shoring installation. 75. Consultant shall review and approve all shoring system monitoring as recommended in report. 76. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing/retaining wall backfill testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth of overexcavation as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report should include results of shoring monitoring. Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval Land Development Unit: General Requirements 77. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. 78. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 79. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. 80. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Departments apparatus way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all is portions .of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 81. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 82. Fire Department's requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. 83. Fire sprinkler systems are required in all residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Water Requirements 84. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specked distances. d. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the comer and midblock. e. A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. 85. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Access Requirements 86. Turning radius shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 87. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building as measured 16 by an approved route around the exterior of the building when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department vehicular access road is more than 30 feet high or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. 88. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit's comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time. 89. The Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD) of the Los Angeles County Fire Department advises that the projectsite should be assessed and/or mitigated under environmental oversight of an authorized government agency and obtain a clearance letter and/or a "No Further Action" (closure) letter prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. 17 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 9, 2015 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 8408 GARVEY AVENUE Summary Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at the southeast comer of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on May 18, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission removed condition of approval number 47, since the project does not involve a tentative map, and added two conditions of approval. The first condition required a post traffic study. The second condition prohibited restaurant use in the building due to parking restrictions. Once these changes were noted, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 15-07, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-29 (Attachment "A"). The Planning Commission Staff Report, PC Resolution No. 15-07, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "B", "C", and "D", respectively. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment "G' for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial study has found that there are less than significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed mixed use is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, ITEM NUMBER: City Council Meeling June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 28 Northwest View Proiect Description The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a four-story, mixed use development with 11,860 square feet of retail/office space on the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors, comprising 51,930 square feet, for a total built area of 63,790 square feet. Of the 46 units, the project proposes seven (7) low-income apartment units. An outdoor seating area and central garden for residents is proposed on the second floor. New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the site and throughout the open space areas. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. The project requests (Attachment "E°), and City Staff recommends, a density bonus under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state law to allow density bonuses up to 35 percent. In accordance with SB 1818, the Applicant would be required to provide affordable residential units in order to qualify for this density bonus. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.84.010 requires the City Council approval for projects requesting density bonuses, concessions, and/or incentives, subject to the provisions of Section 17.84.130. For this reason, the applicant has submitted a Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement attached as Attachment "F Under the existing zoning, the project site can accommodate a maximum residential density of 34 units. Therefore, the construction of 46 units would exceed the permitted residential density by approximately 35 percent. The Applicant has chosen to provide seven (7) low-income apartment units, which satisfies the State law requirements. The project is requesting two (2) concessions to allow the development as proposed. The first concession will allow four (4) stories at forty-five (45) feet, rather than the three (3) stories at forty-five (45) feet. The second concession will allow the building residential/commercial ratio to consist of 81.4 percent residential and 18.6 percent commercial, rather than the sixty-seven (67) residential and 33 commercial split under the zoning. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 28 Side Street Setback None Zero (0) feet Rear Abutting Residential 10'-0° 55'-6" Setback Height Three -stories with a maximum height of forty-five (45) Four -stories and forty-five (45) feet feet *Requesfing concession Establishing a height of fifteen (15) feet above the Requirement met Please see finished grade of adjacent residential property line and illustration on Elevation Plans in Variable Height located twenty-five (25) feet from the rear property line, Attachment °J° on pages A-3.1 and a sixty (60) degree incline plane is projected that A-3.2. establishes the height limitation. Two (2) parting spaces per dwelling plus one (1) guest 98 parking spaces Parking parking space per two (2) dwelling units *Density bonus allows deviation of (Residential) Total Required: 1.15 parking spaces required parking spaces to 92 parking spaces Parking Retail and Office: One (1) parking space per two (Commercial) hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor space 48 parking spaces Total Required: 47.4 parking spaces Bicycle Parking Ten (10) percent (%) of required offstreet parking. 14 bicycle park ng spaces (13.84 =14 bicycle parking spaces) Open Space Common Open Space: 150 s.fJdwelling unit (6,900 s.f.) Common Open Space: 9,560 s.f. Private Open Space: 60 s.f/dwelling unit 2,760 s.f. Private Open Space: 5,857 s.f. Building 81.4% Residential and 18.6% Commercial/ Residential I 67% Residential and 33% Commercial Commercial Ratio I *Requesting concession Proposed Floor Plans Commercial The floor plans submitted with this application show ten (10) tenant suites, totaling approximately 11,860 square feet that will be utilized for retail and office uses. The project is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the commercial use, as shown in the table on page four and on the development plan. Residential A total of 46 apartment units are proposed within this development. The manager unit is located on the first floor and all other units will be located on the second through fourth floors of the building. The second floor includes 14 apartment units with a recreation room, the third floor includes 15 apartment units, and the fourth floor includes 16 apartment units. The unit floor plans submitted show two -unit types (Unit A and 6), from two-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 950 square feet to 1,250 square feet of living area. Each unit contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet(s), storage, washer and dryer, and private open space. City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 28 project will have less -than signification traffic impacts. The City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable, and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 18, 2015, the Planning Commission had concerns relating to post traffic once the project is completed. For this reason, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval which requires a post traffic study (Condition of Approval Number 30). Proposed Architecture: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modem, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest'at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modem design aspect for this mixed use development. Lighting New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height. • Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 9 of 28 the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staffs determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City's tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses noise and lighting mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a mixed use development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue. . The architectural style of the building is modem, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 11 of 28 The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modern, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagadd has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest corner of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed use development. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On May 28, 2015, thirty-six (36) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public locations, onsite, and published in the Rosemead Reader. P ar -02 Lily T. Valenzuela Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Submitted by: Michelle Ramirez Community Development Director A. Resolution 2015-29 with Exhibit °A° (Conditions of Approval) B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 18, 2015 C. Planning Commission Resolution 15-07 D. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated May 18, 2015 E. Letter of Request for Density Bonus F. Proforma and Affordable Housing Agreement G. Caltrans Comment Letter H. Los Angeles County Fire Department Comment Letter I. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigabon Monitoring Program J. Architectural Plans City Coundl Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 13 of 28 date, time, and location of the special public hearing for Design Review 14-03, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 14-03; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed Design Review 14-03, Mitigated Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES, AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 14-03 in accordance with Sections 17.28.020(C) and 17.84.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staffs determination will improve the aesthetics of that intersection and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging mixed use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City services and the City s tax base. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; ' City Council Meeting June 9, 2015 Page 15 of 28 FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building fagade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The architectural style is modern, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the use of a plaza corner element at the northwest comer of the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural interest to the design, such as landscaping throughout the development site, metal trellises on the top floor, wrought iron balconies, contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer to highlight the commercial entrances on the north and west side of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural elements echo the modem design aspect for this mixed use development. Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Delta Avenue. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 14-03 for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, subject to Attachment D City Council Meeting Minutes Dated June 9, 2015 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.CORPORATION, AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING JUNE 9, 2015 The Rosemead City Council Closed Session Meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:05 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Alarcon and Ly ABSENT: Council Member/Board Member Low 1. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Richman announced that the City Council would recess to Closed Session to conference with Legal Council on the following issue: A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation 1. City of Rosemead v. Beneficial Patient Group, Inc. et al.; Los Angeles County Superior Court Case EC 063589 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65956.9 (d)(1) City Council recessed to closed session at 6:06 pm. Regular Business Meeting Minutes City Attorney Richman announced that no reportable action was taken in closed session at which time Mayor Clark called the joint meeting of the Rosemead City Council, Housing Development Corporation and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—was led by Council Member Ly INVOCATION — was presented by Mayor Clark PRESENT: Mayor/Chair/President Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-ChairNice-President Armenta, Council Members/Board Members Alarcon, Ly; Council Member/Board Member Low was present via teleconference. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery -Scott, Public Works Manager Sullivan, City Clerk Molleda. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 1 of 24 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Brian Lewin announced that the City of Alhambra would be holding its annual 710 Day on June 10, 2015, on the comer of Valley Boulevard and Fremont in Alhambra to raise awareness that July a was the final day to receive public comments on the 710 Freeway EIR/EIS alternatives. He advised what events would take place. He also advised an additional public hearing would be held on Saturday, June 20'" at V.W. Griffith Middle School Auditorium, 4765 E. 4'" Street, Los Angeles, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3. PRESENTATIONS Muscatel Science Olympiad Team Jim McGoy thanked the City Council for honoring the Muscatel Olympiad Team who won its 11th Los Angeles County Championship Title and its 8h California State Championship Title. The team also competed at the United States National Science Olympiad National Tournament last month, and placed a overall out of 60 competing teams and also medaled in ten out of 25 competition events including a team record of three First Place event finishes at the National Finals. He introduced four of the coaches who displayed three trophies the team earned and introduced the team members. The City Council presented each of the student team members with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger and paused for photographs with the team, coaches and school principal. Thereafter, the City Council acknowledged the Science Olympiad Team and expressed pride in .,. the Team's accomplishments. Scholarship Recipients — Rosemead Residents The City Council recognized three students from Rosemead High School who were recipients of scholarships. Michelle Ong received the Cal SOAP Scholarship and would be attending UCLA in the fall; Allison Nguyen received the UC Berkeley Regents Scholarship and would be attending MIT in the fall; and Joseph Pham received the EI Monte Unified School District Scholarship and would be attending California Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo in the fall. The City Council presented each of the students with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger and paused for pictures with the students. Mayor Pro Tem Armenia expressed her pride in the students and hoped the students would aspire to become the City's future leaders. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 —Amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Regulations for Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive public comment; (2) Approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and (3) Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 24 Move to INTRODUCE FIRST READING, by title only Ordinance No. 951, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES City Planner Sheri Bermejo provided the staff report advising this was a city -initiated amendment to revise some of the regulations in the City's nonconforming ordinance. She explained the ordinance was originally drafted for the purpose of allowing the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 Zone lots that include existing legal nonconforming structures. She advised the item was presented to the Planning Commission on April 6, 2015 and upon hearing written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission directed staff to omit the language that would actually allow the addition of new and nonconforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots. They directed staff to bring back the revised ordinance on May 18th, and at that meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an amendment without the proposed standards allowing the addition of the new structures on properties with existing legal nonconforming structures. After a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Bermejo advised the City Council that since the Planning Commission's decision on the ordinance at their May 1 B'' meeting, the Mayor discussed the issue with City staff and the Mayor would like the Council to be aware that she was in favor of the original proposed ordinance. It was the Mayor's opinion that if a residential exception were to be adopted, it could be reviewed within a year to see if it created any unintended consequences. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing Huey Chea addressed the Council explaining his inability to build a new home on his large lot because his existing home did not meet the code. He advised that the new home would be in the front of the lot and the old house would not be seen. He hoped the City Council would amend the code so he could build a new structure on the empty portion of the lot without having to tear down his small home to do so. Molly Sun explained to Council that in order for them to conform to the code, the existing home which was 900 square feet, would have to be cut in half. She stated at the time they bought the home, it was conforming and they did not have the money to build. Now that they were able to get a loan, the City changed the code and they could not afford to make the changes to the existing home so they could build a new home. A gentleman (name inaudible) addressed Council regarding mixed use, zoning issues and lot sizes. Huang lam bought a lot that was 60 x 220 and allowed two houses, but the City changed the zoning and he could no longer have two houses on his lot. City Manager Allred interjected that residents could still build two houses on a 12,000 square foot lot. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 24 Mr. Chea addressed Council to explain what Mr. Lam was trying to explain to Council. Brian Lewin expressed his support of the ordinance as it was presented to the City Council. He felt that if people were going to be allowed to build two houses on lots of that size, the condition that existing houses on the lot be brought up to code was good because it allowed the City to improve its housing stock. He felt the ordinance was a benefit to the City and he asked the Council to approve it as presented. Molly Sun addressed the Council again expressing her disagreement with Mr. Lewin's comments. There being no further comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly asked staff what the previous code was that members of the audience alluded to; if their lot was nonconforming but had the setbacks were they allowed to build a second unit or not. Ms. Bermejo explained that the Zoning Code prior to the comprehensive update did not allow the addition of additional units. The standards were vague and allowed exemptions that could be approved by the Community Development Director but there were no findings that could be made. The language was reviewed with the City Attorney and it was decided that standards be included in the ordinance to protect the City. She said it could be that the code was interpreted unevenly in the past but as soon as the attorney brought it to staffs attention, staff no longer made exemptions. The City Council and staff entered into a lengthy discussion regarding the legal nonconforming structures, the language in the comprehensive Zoning Code Update and allowing for r exemptions. Ms. Bermejo stated that there was a provision in the current Zoning Code through the comprehensive Zoning Code update. She cited an example of a home that was built too close to a property line, it would be taken care of administratively with the Community Development Director through a minor exception process In which the adjacent property owners were noticed. Mayor Clark expressed her desire that the language deleted by the Planning Commission be placed back into the ordinance for a year, revisit it and see what unintended consequences might happen. She felt that was fair to the people who bought before the code was changed so they could build that second house and not be deprived of building a house they saved their money to build. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta commented that she did not think the City changed the rules, the City updated its zone and in updating the zone, things changed. Council Member Law said if Council included the language that the Planning Commission omitted, it might increase additional units. After talking to some residents she realized a lot of residents who might want to remodel and don't have a lot of money to change their existing home to comply with the current code so they can remodel. She realized the goal was to have all residences be conformed to the current code in the long term. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 24 Council Member Steven Ly expressed his understanding of the issue and recommended allowing for minor exception, but only under certain conditions. One, because a setback affects the neighbors, the neighbors would have to sign off on it; and two, it would require Planning Commission approval in a public hearing. He thought that if those two conditions were made a part of the minor exception, he would be comfortable with putting a minor exception based on those criteria. Community Development Director Ramirez advised the City Council that both of the suggestions made by Council Member Ly were already in the minor exceptions policy. City Attorney Richman advised this was within the City Council's powers if that was the process by which the City Council wanted to allow nonconforming uses to be approved, then it was legal. Thereafter, Council discussed this issue in depth including various ways in which neighbors' signatures of approval could be obtained and the need to go before the Planning Commission for approval; the responsibility of the City Council to adjudicate land use matters; and the Council's desire to balance what was best for the City with the rights of the residents, and reviewing the ordinance in a year to determine it any unforeseen problems resulted from adding the language back into the code. Community Development Director Ramirez, added that if this was the direction of the City Council then staff would like to have the neighbors' signatures be a notarized statement that they were the actual owners, to prevent the possibility of forged signatures. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenia to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2015 and to bring the ordinance back allowing for minor exceptions with the approval of the neighboring property owners and Planning Commission approval at a public hearing. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Alarcon, Low, Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. B. Design Review 14-03: Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed Use Project 8408 Garvey Avenue Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive public comment; (2) The City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-29, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE PROJECT INCUDES A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN:5283-005-028); and (3) The City Council adopt the Mitigation Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project. Rosemead City Council Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 24 Associate Planner, Lily Valenzuela presented the staff report indicating Garvey Garden Plaza has submitted an application requesting Development of a residential/commercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 square feet of retail/office space and 46 apartments. She noted that parking was proposed on the surface and one level of the basement parking. She said that access would be provided off of Delta Avenue. The project included a density bonus under Senate Bill 1818 and was located at the southeast comer of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a mixed use and design overlay) zone. She recommended the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, adopt Resolution No. 2015-29 with findings and subject to 90 conditions; adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of determination for the project. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mike Lewis representing the applicant, highlighted the project. He emphasized the residential was rental units not for sale. The size of the lot was approximately 49,000 square feet, 1.1 acres after a four foot dedication for Delta Avenue. He noted the commercial area was almost 12,000 square feet of space, which provided the required 48 parking spaces. He brought copies of the elevations for the City Council to review. The residential portion of the building was 46 units, 27 of which were two-bedroom units, 18 were three bedroom units and a one - bedroom manager unit. The required parking for the residential was 92 spaces and they were proposing 98. He emphasized the project was an affordable project in that seven of the units were available for rent to low income individuals or families with a density bonus of 35%. He advised the affordable component of the project allowed the applicant two incentives. The applicant was requesting the ability to build four stories within 45 feet rather than three stories within 45 feet which was what the code allowed. The second incentive request was the ability to modify the residential to commercial ratio from 67% residential and 33% commercial as required by the code, to 81% residential and 19% commercial, which is what the project proposed. Mr. Lewis advised the traffic consultant hired by the City determined that the project would not cause any of the intersections studied to exceed the current level of service. He advised the City Council on the various soils testing that was completed and based on all of the tests, it was determined that the soil at this location was non -liquefiable and would not liquefy under earth movement circumstances. The City also hired two additional soils consultants, who reviewed the reports and looked at the calculations. The second consultant suggested adding conditions for retaining walls and a particular design around the foundation which was included in the permit. Mr. Lewis stated that if the project was approved and went into the plan check process there would be much more design done and further review by the City's engineers and the applicant's engineers to determine the exact configuration of the foundation to make sure there were no issues with the design and construction with regard to earth movement. Mr. Lewis discussed the design elements of the project emphasizing the project provided new housing opportunities for young families, and he felt it could bring a new generation to Rosemead. He felt this was a good project for Rosemead, set a good standard; and he encouraged the City Council to approve the project. 11 Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor.4gency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joim Meering Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 24 Council Member Alarcon asked how far down the project went on Delta. Mr. Lewis advised that it abuts a very deep lot that had several apartments on it. Georae Chen who owned a construction company in Rosemead was in support of the Garvey Garden Plaza which would bring in more job opportunities. James Wang, owner of the used car lot on Garvey and Delta was in support of this project. Tung Duona was in support of the project because it meant more jobs in the City and more taxes for the City. There being no one further wishing to speak, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly stated the project was aesthetically pleasing and staff has done a wonderful job working with the developer and making sure several key amenities were included. He was happy to see the open space on the second floor. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to contribute to the traffic study being performed on Garvey as part of the Specific Plan to assist In evaluating how the project might affect the entire corridor. Mr. Lewis responded yes and noted that when the project went before the Planning Commission, the Commission added two conditions: one that there not be any restaurants and that a post traffic analysis be performed after the project was built. He did not think a post traffic analysis made sense, the applicant would be more than willing to contribute to the City's broader traffic study instead. After being asked by Council Member Ly about contributing $12,000 to the traffic study, Mr. Lewis agreed that the applicant would be willing to do that. The City Council expressed their pleasure with the project and the design. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, to approve Resolution No. 2015-29, removing Condition of Approval 30 and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Applicant to accept a donation for the Comprehensive Traffic Study along Garvey Avenue. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armanta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination. The motion unanimously carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. C. Resolution No. 2015-28 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead Ordering the Vacation of the Alley between Brighton Street and Del Mar Avenue Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-28, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ORDERING Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 24 THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN BRIGHTON STREET AND DEL MAR AVENUE Mayor Clark opened the public hearing: Imelda Hilar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley because the alley was used to exit the street since it was difficult to make a left hand tum on Garvey. She also addressed the issue of delivery trucks taking up parking on the streets as a result of the new project. Gerardo Hiiar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley. There being no further public comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly expressed his understanding of the residents' concerns, adding that part of Garvey Avenue was currently a much blighted area. He noted some of the problems in that area stating the project would help to clean up Garvey; however, the issue at hand was whether to vacate the alley and it was his understanding that all the individuals who have direct claim to the alley were in agreement with the vacation. He thought the alley should be vacated. Council Member Armenta asked if someone could address the delivery truck issues raised by Ms. Hijar, Community Development Director Ramirez stated that conditions were placed against the Project that specifically addressed the truck deliveries, loading zones and the limited hours for �+ loading and un -loading. If those conditions were violated the applicant would be going against the CUP at which point the City had several options including the issuance of citations. _ Council Member Low stated that for a project like this to work, the alley would have to be vacated. She said the City has been waiting for a project like this for a long time. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low, and seconded by Council Member Ly, moved to approve the Resolution 2015-28. Further discussion regarding the purpose of an alley was herd in which Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth advised that the original intention of the alleys were to provide a location for trucks to have loading access to the businesses. It was not meant as a thoroughfare for traffic. Discussion also focused on the parking issue in that area and whether the project would impact street parking. ACTION: The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Clark pulled Items B and C from the Consent Calendar For discussion and separate action. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 8 of24 A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2015 — 37 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015 — 37, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $630,846.28 NUMBERED 88866 THROUGH 89000 INCLUSIVELY • Resolution No. 2015 —12 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015 — 12, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $88,911.25 NUMBERED 10130 D. Resolution Authorizing the Release of Unclaimed Checks Pursuant to Government Code Section 50050 through 50056 Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-27, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF UNCLAIMED CHECKS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 50050 AND 50053 TO THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD E. Deputy Probation Officer Annual Contract Renewal Recommendation: That the City Council approve the agreement with the Los Angeles County Probation Department and authorize the City Manager to sign any necessary documentation. F. Used Oil Payment Program Grant Application Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-33, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon, to approve Consent calendar Items A through F, excluding items B and C. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 949: Adoption of Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Resolution No. 2015-07, Approving the Final Draft DIF Study Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 9 of 24 Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Adopt Ordinance No. 949 at its second reading, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 12.44.020 (PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE) OF TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12.44 AND ADDING ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT FEES), CHAPTER 17.170 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-07, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 949 Lee Liebera, Government Affairs Director of the West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors expressed his concern that the increase in Development Impact Fees would be passed through to the consumer and the proposed fee seemed quite excessive compared to some of the neighboring cities, citing the amount of some of those cities' fees. He urged the City Council to reconsider the fees. Thereafter the City Council, City Manager, and staff discussed the discrepancies between the amount of fees Mr. Lieberg quoted for neighboring cities and the amount of fees staff provided. Mr. Lieberg was also advised that the City reduced its fees at the last meeting in accordance with discussions with the Building Industry Association and were phasing the fees in over three years. Further discussion ensued regarding the fees being adopted by the resolution being lower than the fees proposed in the study. Tom Berge, President of the West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors, requested the City Council to reconsider the adoption of Ordinance No. 949 as written because impact fees } increased the costs of new development especially for residential projects and consequently would reduce the number of projects that were economically feasible. The Increased costs resulting from such impact fees may make it harder for low and moderate income households to afford to purchase residential units in new developments. Impact fees often result in higher costs for existing homes making all homes less affordable. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council member Alarcon, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 949 at its second reading. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Arments, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon to approve Resolution No. 2015-07. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Cleric C. Annual Salary and Benefits Resolutions Recommendation. That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-31, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 10 of 24 IN THE GENERAL SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; Resolution No. 2015- 32, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, AND f CONFIDENTIAL SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; Resolution No. 2015- 34, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; and Resolution No. 2015-35 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she did have some questions, but she was able to get those questions resolved before the meeting. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolutions 2015-31, 2015-32, 2015-34, and 2015-35. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenia, and Mayor Clark. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for Compliance with Federal and State Storm Water Regulations Recommendation: That the City Council; (1) Receive and file this report; and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-38, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY OF IMPLEMENTING GREEN STREETS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Public Works Manager Sullivan introduced the City's consultant, Elroy Kiepke from Willdan Engineering. Mr. Sullivan then advised the City Council that in November 2012, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of Los Angeles Region adopted and updated the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS 4 Permit for the Los Angeles area. 84 of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County were a parry to the permit which outlined compliance measures for the Individual permit fees to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES was focused on removing pollutants from storm water and urban runoff prior to its discharge into the waterways. Under the updated permit which was effective December 28, 2012, all cities were given two identified methods of permit compliance. Comply with the permit as adopted or to develop and implement a Watershed Management Program. Mr. Sullivan advised that City staff and the technical consultant determined that the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) was the desired path for the City's NPDES compliance. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan was a plan that identified water quality priorities and developed control measures that emphasized the infiltration of all non -storm water runoff and 85% of storm water into the ground. The program Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporatiom and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2013 Page 11 of 24 included certain control measures or best management practices including low -impact development, green streets and regional projects targeted at reducing storm water pollution. In June 2013, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding for the City to enter into a group led by the City of Los Angeles to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan. The group included 17 cities and two Los Angeles County entities. Of the 84 cities subject to this permit, 74 cities were pursuing some type of group effort to develop a watershed management plan, four cities have approved individual plans, two cities who had individual plans rejected by the Regional Board have made late efforts to join established watershed management plan groups and one city has opted for compliance with the permit with no plan in place. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan has been developed by the City of Los Angeles serving as the lead agency in helping to coordinate the activities of the other 16 cities and two county entities within the group. The group is known as the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group. The plan was developed by a consultant team and would be submitted as a draft for the Regional Board's review prior to June 28, 2015. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan included a battery of Best Management Practices implemented both on the local and regional level that will achieve the City's compliance with both the MS 4 permit in pre-existing total maximum daily loads that the City was subject to. The estimated cost for implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan for the Upper L.A. River Group from now through its termination date in 2037 was approximately $6 billion. This was the end date for bacterial TMDL that all of the Los Angeles River Cities were subject to. The cost figure devised for this plan was one technical opinion of the total cost of implementing the entire Enhanced Watershed Management Plan over a long period of time. As is typical, cost estimates are often subject to change. The City of Rosemead's estimated cost for the implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan through 2037 was ., approximately $110 million. This cost included the implementation of low impact development, best management practices, that include infiltration at local and regional facilities and the addition of green streets. " Mayor Clark asked why the 23 -page letter from the environmental groups (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense Council and Heal the Bay was not mentioned in the staff report. The letter came out on June 2"' and it Beady said they did not like the large management plans and they were planning to sue. When she voted to enter into the study with the other cities it was conditioned that it would work out. Council was led to believe over the past two years, that if the City did this, the environmental groups, who have been pushing for the cleanup, would get us off the hook. She noted they weren't willing to say safe harbor, but the implication was that "d the city put all this money in, and cleaned up the ground water, and do what we were supposed to be doing. The letter from the environmental groups was extremely vitriolic. They do not like the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) therefore she could not understand why the City would want to enter into a process for $110 million when the City could be sued and the money wasted. Her other concern was, if you look at the map, the plan the City was in goes all the way to the western end of Los Angeles. The City was in a contract with most of the City of Los Angeles and Rosemead was a relatively small city. Rosemead was in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo and according to the ffgures the total maximum daily loads that the City was being told to remove were bacteria and coliform and things like that. The larger Reach that the City joined has metals and a long list of pollutants that have to be removed. She questioned whether the City was underwriting the pollution that other cities had to cleanup when Rosemead would not have M^ to. She stated that was a problem for her and pointed out that the plan was to create infiltration Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 201.5 Page 12 Df 24 basins so that the water doesn't go to the ocean and infiltrates into the ground water. She said if you look at the map, the City was recharging the Raymond Basin and the Central Basin and not the San Gabriel Basin, where the City gets its groundwater from. She had areal problem with this EWMP. She said the fact that the environmental groups wanted to sue, she would like to withdraw from the group and have the City do its own storm water management plan where if pollution was found at the City's ouffall the City would take care of it, the cost could not possibly be anywhere near $110 million. She hoped the Council would join her in the City preparing its own storm water management program and she would make that motion. Council Member Ly advised the Mayor that he thought there was a public speakers request and she had a question for staff and he would like to hear staffs response regarding the letter and also their position on the EWMP. Mr. Sullivan responded regarding the letter from the environmental groups it was staffs understanding in working with Mr. Kiepke as well as other folks who were familiar with the storm water system, the letter was the position the environmental groups have taken since the permit was issued by the Regional Board in 2012. The direction of the environmental groups was not that they were upset with the cities for choosing the approach, but were upset with the Board for offering this option as permit compliance. The issue with the environmental groups was not directed at the City but more at the governing bodies for allowing cities this approach to comply with the ston-n water issue. The environmental groups would rather see a system of strict numeric compliance with the water quality issues and strict fining and retribufion. The issue with the environmental groups was that they would rather see the City do the strict compliances the permit allows for and fail rather than taking "these easy road approaches" going through a EWMP group. Mr. Kieoke confirmed what Mr. Sullivan said stating that the environmental groups would be suing the Regional Board or the State Board, depending on the State Board's adopted motion which was coming up on June 16"'. The environmental groups have been working on their position for nine to twelve months. The State Board was supporting the Los Angeles Board's adoption of the permit with the Watershed Management Plan and the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan because they know that if the cities don't get additional time, there was no way the cities would get strict compliance. The State and Regional Boards were making the effort to allow cities to show progress toward the end goal and as you know you can't spend money you don't have. Like every other city in Los Angeles County, they don't have the money to spend $6 billion in the Upper L.A. River Watershed. So there is a funding mechanism that is going to have to be developed and the City will be a part of the effort to develop that funding source. And if In the worst case, the residents come back and said no, and the City did not have the money, the City would have to go to the Board and say the residents don't want to give us money is there was another source for the money. If not, this program was impossible to fund. Mayor Clark said they would not accept that we cannot afford it. She emphasized that the environmental groups may be suing the Regional Board and the State Board and if they won in court, and the City was in the Ninth Circuit, they would tum around and invalidate the EWMP and the City could be left holding the bag. It was the Regional Board and the State Board that has to approve the City's permit. If they win In court and throw it out, then all the money the City has put into this was wasted. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 13 of24 Mr. Sullivan advised that at this point the development of the Plan was done on a group cost share basis. The total consulting costs was about $1.7 million for the development of the Plan, but when split by land area over the 17 participating cities, the L.A. County Flood District, and the L. A. County unincorporated area, the City at this time has spent approximately $16,000 for the development of the EWMP. Mayor Clark said she understood that, and that was why she voted for it because she knew that was all it would cost to see what it was going to do. Noting she had the minutes in front of her, she said at that time, that if it was found to be too expensive or it wasn't practical the City could back out and the City Attorney confirmed the City could back out as long as the City paid its fair share, which is what the City did. In her opinion, we have found out that this was way more expensive and the City had absolutely no guarantees that this would do what we wanted it to do. She still could not understand why, when the City was in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo, the City joined such a large area group that had a lot more pollutants to remove than the City did. She would much rather take care of what the City had to do incrementally through the iterative process and that was why she was very passionate about not moving forward with this. Council Member Ly reminded the Mayor that he thought there was a request to speak card. Mike Lewis representing the Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality advised the City Council that this was a subject he knew something about He advised that he chaired a committee at BISFD of stakeholders who were deeply involved in the discussion that took place at the county over creating a funding source for all of the storm water effort and that included approximately 70 stakeholders from the private sector who were very concerned about what this ■� was going to mean in terms of the things they have to do in order to comply. He has been reviewing, along with his colleagues in the construction industry, the EWMP documents that have been developed by all of these groups. He noted that obviously they had a particular interest as to whether there would be any construction jobs in all this money that was being spent; and frankly there weren't a lot of construction projects being proposed at this point. He said the problem with storm water was it knew no boundaries, it goes downhill. For the City of Rosemead to be included in a group of cities that were in a watershed, or where water was going to move from one area to another, made a certain amount of sense at this stage of the game for a number of reasons. He advised that we were still In the infancy when it came to this regulatory scheme and what it was really going to cost. He said the $110 million the City thought it would cost, which it was assumed $90 million would come from private activity on private property was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Because what wasn't in place right now was the remainder of the regulatory scheme that would require removal of copper out of storm water, zinc out of storm water; or several other pollutants for which has not yet been set specific standards have not been set and for which there wasn't any affordable technology to do that. Regional BMPs as referred to in the report, this idea that cities get together and direct their storm water to a facility where it could be captured, treated, and infiltrated and returned to the storm drain as clean water made a lot of sense and they have been pushing that idea when nobody was. Now everybody thinks this idea is the only way to go because capturing storm water on the larger scale is the only way that makes sense. At some point, a funding source was needed to pay for all of this because it would not happen otherwise. The State Board and the Regional Boards realized that, and the environmentalists realized that as well. Unfortunately, the scheme we were in now, the cities were left with the responsibility for implementing a plan to clean up storm water which in most cases cities have no control over other than the fact it runs in the streets and into a storm drain system but the pollution it picks up Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 14 of 24 along the way, the City would be responsible for and the regulation allows for citizen enforcement. That means water keeper groups could go out to the City's driveway apron during a storm and take samples of the water running off of the parking lot and file an enforcement action against the City for a violation or an exceedance. He explained an exceedance which wasn't a violation has also been the focus of a lot of these enforcement activities. He provided an example of the ADA lawsuits in which citizens flied hundreds of lawsuits against businesses then offered to settle for a lump sum of $5,000. He said that was currently happening in storm water, but the average settlement would be $100,000. He suggested that if the City decided to go alone, the City could be standing as an easy target and won't have the resources to support an effort if attacked by the environmental organizations. Right now the environmental groups have to sue the State Board or the Regional Board who have very, deep pockets. He thought it made sense for groups of cities to join together because ultimately the City would want to direct the water to facilities that were common to the City and allow the City to share the cost of the treatment and ultimately disposal of that water, whether it was infiltrated or put back in the storm drain. He added one more thought, a decision has not yet been made as to who owns the water and at some point soon that would happen. It may be determined that the cities or the property on.which it lands were the owners and it may well be determined that it was the water rights owners that own that water. That will change the complexion or the fashion in which we approach the cleanup of that water because of its ownership. That discussion was being experienced now with the Sanitation District Bill that would allow the Sanitation Districts to begin taking some of the storm water and dry weather flow and treat it through their sanitation plant. He felt the City was in the safest place even though there was uncertainty and it was very expensive. Thereafter followed a discussion regarding Senator Hernandez bill on ownership of water. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Lewis what happens if the cities began infiltrating with drainage swales everywhere and all these programs, and the water rights people say this was their water, and cities have spent all this money to solve the problem. Mr. Lewis responded that was a discussion that would have to be had. He mentioned the private water companies in the San Gabriel Valley have insisted as part of Senator Hernandez' bill that they own that water and no one else has a right to do with it as they please. He believed some language was agreed to that would go into Senator Hemandez' bill and he wasn't sure that once that language became law that there would be any incentive for anybody to capture storm water because someone else owns it. He also mentioned that in the San Fernando Valley the Department of Water and Power claims what was called "Pueblo Rights" where the minute the water hits the ground they say it's theirs and that was based on the original Pueblo establishment. It hasn't gotten to the point that things have gotten so tight that everybody has to work this out Mayor Clark reiterated her concern about entering into agreements and take these steps only to have it fall apart and waste tax payers' money. Mr. Lewis did not believe the regulatory scheme was going to go away, the City was still going to have to clean up storm water, somehow and someway. He felt the things the City was doing at this stage were the simple things — green streets, requiring new development to capture storm water — all of which was helpful but what would the City do for the remaining 990/6 of the region that was already built and would not be doing anything that would require them to treat their storm water. Mayor Clark said that wasn't the City's problem, the City's problem was Rosemead. Mr. Lewis said there was water that ran down streets from adjacent cities, storm drain channels that run Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of lune 9, 2015 Page 15 of 24 through the City and in his view, the City could not stand alone because the City would become a much easier target. Mayor Clark pursued by stating tell me what we have to do to clean it up and that's what we will do. These agreements we are entering into are everyone else's problems. Mr. Lewis stated he wished he could answer that, but the problem was the regulatory scheme wasn't finished yet and what was being done now was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they really want. The environmentalists want to get there a lot faster and they want to have a lot more leverage over cities to be able to force cities to do it. They want numeric, which he thought was a very bad thing because it would be very difficult to achieve. Once a numeric level has been set, the next thing they will do is start to lower the numeric level. He reiterated that it was going to be very expensive and very costly and the residents of this state were going to have to decide how much money they want to spend on this. Council Member Ly expressed his view that if the city failed, it failed as a group meaning, we all went in together, we all thought this was the best plan, the accepted plan, all the experts told us it was the best plan and the State Board and the Regional Board was the ones that made the mistake and were the ones that put the City in this position. It may not be a consolation and we still may have to pay a price on that endeavor, but at least it was a shared price and it was something where we all went in together. His concern was that if we go in alone, we might be doing something that we do not know if it was a good plan or not and there might be bitter consequences that comes with it. We talk about $100 million plus, and as stated by Mr. Lewis, water comes from everywhere, and if they ding us for Temple City's particulates and yes we can fight the State board and we can fight the environmentalists, but the cost of fighting them plus the fines may not be $100 million, but if it was $15 million there goes the reserves in one hit and he did not want to take that risk. While he understood Mayor Clark's concern, he would propose the City continue doing what Mr. Lewis called the "easy stuff' and he felt the City should continue doing the easy stuff like everyone is doing and continue to monitor. If it looked like the State Board's and the Regional Board's actions decided the EWMPs were not doable, then the City Council can come back at that time and make a determination then. He wanted to stay the course and monitor to see if there were no unintended consequences from leaving because it was his understanding that once the City left the group, it would be very difficult to get back in. Public Works Manager Sullivan said that that was his understanding confirming for Council Member Ly that the City of West Covina prepared and individual plan, submitted it to the Board for approval and their plan was ruled insufficient which meant they reverted back to the alternative option of strict compliance of the permit as adopted including all numeric limitations. The City of West Covina looked at that option versus the option of joining a EWMP group and he understood that they joined an already established Enhanced Watershed Management group in the upper San Gabriel Valley. He did not know what it cost West Covina to enter because their Council hasn't taken action so he did not have an actual number but he heard it was well into the six figures just for the development of the plan; that didn't include any of the implementation but they have made an investment of over $100,000 just to get in on the development. Council Member Ly said the concern was that it would be much more expensive to get in whereas if we stay in for now and continue to monitor; recognizing that Mayor Clark knows more about storm water than anyone else on the Council. He felt the City needed to be risk adverse. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission .joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 16 of 24 Thereafter followed a brief discussion between Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly regarding the cost to go back into the EWMP. Mayor Clark said if the City was going to be in a group, she would rather be in a group that was adjacent to the City so that if the projects were done, the City would be infiltrating the good water into the San Gabriel Basin. More discussion ensued regarding the group the City was in, and joining a group with Arcadia and some of the San Gabriel Cities. Public Works Manager Sullivan noted the group the City was in was the largest EWMP group there is and it was spearheaded by the City of Los Angeles and incorporates 17 cities and it did stretch far to the west but it also encompasses every city that borders Rosemead with the exception of EI Monte. He listed the Cities included in the group: Alhambra, San Gabriel, Temple City, South EI Monte, Monterey Park, Montebello, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and all the adjacent unincorporated Los Angeles County area. Council Member Ly asked what it would cost to be associated with the EWMP group Arcadia and some of the San Gabriel cities were in. Mr. Sullivan advised he did not have the cost figures and he assumed that EWMP would probably include Arcadia, Monrovia, and the adjacent cities along the foothills. Mr. Kieoke advised Council that the Regional Board established the City's group because the City drained to a common source, the Los Angeles River and although the City was a long way away from the Los Angeles River, the Rio Hondo was the route the water took to get to the Los Angeles River. The upper San Gabriel Group, which was adjacent to the City, drained into the San Gabriel River and that group probably would not want the City in their group because that would open them up to the Los Angeles River standards. The Los Angeles River has the metal TMDL, bacteria TMDL and these TMDLs were not part of the San Gabriel River, and while they were getting bacteria and metal, they do not have it now so it would introduce a level of complications that that group would not want. Mr. Kieokein response to Mayor Clarks query about researching which group would be better, said that research could always be done but as mentioned all of the surrounding cities were in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed. He explained these cities drain to the same Rio Hondo River that the City did. When a regional project was put together sometime in the future because right now there was no funds involved. The City has not developed a Memorandum of Understanding for implementing the EWMP. That would be something that would occur over the next year while the Regional Board was reviewing and approving the proposed EWMP. Mayor Clark confirmed that staff was not asking for ... Mr. Kieoke said there was no money Involved. City Manager Allred added that tonight's action was to receive and file and a.resolution to adopt a Green Streets Best Management Practices Policy which the City needed to do anyway. Rosemead City Council Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 17 of 24 Mayor Clark said the problem she had with the Resolution was the references to the EWMP. If those could be taken out because the implication was that the City was endorsing the EWMP and she did not want to do that. Council Member Ly stated that the City was in the EWMP and by that fact the City has endorsed the EWMP. Mayor Clark responded that she did not endorse the EWMP, she approved going in to see what it was going to do and she specifically said she would like to be able to get out of this if we wanted. Council Member Ly argued that if there comes a time when the City decided that it did not want to be in a EWMP at a later date, the Council could always go back and revise the resolution and take out those portions of it. But until then the fact that we voted to join a EWMP means that we endorsed the EWMP, that's the nature of being a part of something. Mayor Pro Tem Armenia asked what the repercussions would be if the City withdrew. Mr. Sullivan advised that if the City withdrew now, the City would be held by the Regional Board to strict compliance with the permit as adopted (a binder which was about three inches thick) which included a number of minimum control measures and a number of numeric limitations regarding water quality standards that the City, on its own would be responsible for immediately, plus the additional TMDLs that were encompassed in the EWMP that were assigned strictly to the City of Rosemead. So we have the control measures, we have the numeric limits for ^ monitoring standards as well as the four TMDLs the City was responsible for regardless of whether the City participated in a EWMP based on the permit for four TMDLs that would require extensive best management practices and expenses over the life of those TMDLs. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta reminded the City Council that the City had two toxic plumes running through the City which originated from the City of EI Monte. As stated, storm water didn't have boundaries nor does any other toxic plume or toxic water and that concerned her. Flow many other times has the City joined other cities to fight the state or county? She felt in numbers, the City could win; standing alone, the City can't. So let's remember the times that the City has joined other entities to protect Rosemead and its residents and the tax base. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the toxic plumes in which Mayor Pro Tem advised that it became the City's responsibility to clean up those plumes and it was done in partnership. In this case the City would be standing alone and have to pay for all of this if the City did not join in with others. Mayor Clark said she wasn't necessarily saying the City should stand alone, she thought the City could join another group and the City needed to look into it. She thought the group the City was in was way too expensive and the City was taking on liability and pollution that the other cities had that Rosemead did not and the City would be taking on their liability as well. The City was only responsible for Coliform, some of the bacteria, and the other cities have all kinds of metals, and while joining them were we taking on their liability. That was concerning to her. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked Mayor Clark what she would propose if the other entities rejected the City and did not want the City to join them. Rosemead City Council Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 18 of 24 Mayor Clark responded that she wasn't sure, possibly go back to this EWMP, she just did not want to be going into this because she really did not think this was a good decision in light of the fact the environmentalists were going to sue and the Regional Board may have to throw this out. Council Member Ly said that if that happened, all the cities would be the same and reminded her that even though the City was taking on their pollutants they were also taking on the City s pollutants and the cost would be divided between all the cities. He said he was only comfortable with staying in the EWMP; that he was willing to monitor and he was willing to learn more about the other WMPs because the Council needed more information and more in depth discussion about storm water issues since it was going to affect the City whether the City liked it or not. For now, he was only comfortable with the City staying with this EWMP and continuing on these items which we know so far are at a much lower cost than 'rf the City went on its own. The City also did not know the ramifications of joining another WMP. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved to adopt Resolution No. 2015-38. Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Ly would include in his motion to delete Item 4 in the resolution, "to implement the Green Streets Best Management Practices according to the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan and the USEPAs Managing Wet Weather with Green. Infrastructure Municipal Handbook Green Streets." Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth suggested the third Whereas paragraph could be modified and changed to "the implementation of the MS 4 permit' rather than "implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan." Then No 4 in the Therefore clause would be changed to read, 'rhe Public Works Department will implement the Green Streets Best Management Practices according to the MS 4 permit and the USEPA's Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook Green sheets." ACTION: Council Member Ly said he was comfortable with that, and after a brief discussion, also modified the second Whereas to read, "The City of Rosemead elected to comply with the provisions of the MS 4 Permit, and .. " The next Whereas would read, "Whereas the implementation of the MS 4 Permit requires cities .. "and the forth part of the Therefore would change the "Enhanced Watershed Management Plan" to the "MS 4 Permit." He restated his motion to approve Resolution No. 2015-38, as amended, and also direct staff to bring back information on the other WMPs. After some discussion as to whether receiving and filing the report would be committing the City to the EWMP, City Attorney Richman clarified that the report was not committing the. Council to anything further than they have already committed. The report was about adopting the Green Street policy and the background on the WMP. Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth added that before this very large document would be implemented and we would be on the hook to spend any money on it, there would be a new MOU Council would have to approve before this is implemented. So we were not obligating ourselves tonight to implementing this EWMP. We're just continuing on through the development and draft process. He reiterated there would be another MOU before implementation that the Council would have to take action on. Council Member Ly asked when staff thought the document would come before the Council Rosemead City Council. flouring Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of lune 9, 2015 Page 19 of 24 Mr. Sullivan advised that the draft was being submitted to the Board prior to the end of this month and staff was anticipating, based on their review and comment period as well as the public comment period, it would be a year before the document would be approved by the Regional Board. Mr, Kiepke in response to Mayor Pro Tem Armenta's question as to whether the City would be incurring any additional costs by approving the resolution, stated the City was not incurring any more fees on the EWMP. The City paid the $16.000 and that was the City's obligation for the EWMP. In June of last year they submitted the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan that the City was obliged to do one way or another, individually, or as a group and that was being approved by the Reglonal Board at this time. The City of Los Angeles will have an Implementation Plan for that He believed it was for the group as a whole, with the City paying 1.8% or whatever the percentage of the City of Rosemead's obligation was, and that fee would be approximately $4 million over the next three years. Mr. Hawkesworth added that this had to be done by the City regardless of whether the City was alone or part of the group. The City had to do that. In response to Mayor pro Tem Armenta's inquiry that the City would not have to pay any more fees as part of the EWMP, Mr. Hawkesworth stated that was correct; but the City would still have to continue to do storm water projects such as the catch basins, clarifying that the City would not spend any more on this but we will continue to spend money on other things the city was required to do. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta seconded the previous made motion. The motion a unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. B. Adoption of the City of Rosemead Appropriations Limit Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-36, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR City Manager Allred advised the City Council that the annual appropriation limit for the upcoming fiscal year was $41 million and the appropriations that were subject to the limit were only $15 million. The City was under the limit by $26 million and was well within the constraints of the appropriation limit. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolution No. 2015-36. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Claris C. Adoption of the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Budget Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Approve Resolution No. 2015-30, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 20 of 24 ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR, and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-06, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR City Manager Allred advised that following the budget workshop staff implemented the changes the City Council asked staff to make and the budget was being presented for approval. He described each of the changes made to the budget as a result of Council's direction in the workshop. Council Member Ly noted that skateboard development of $500,000 out of RDA bond proceeds and asked if staff anticipated revising this amount due to increasing costs. Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth replied that in speaking with the consultant when the Request for Proposal was prepared, he was confident that that was a workable number. City Manager Allred summarized by stating that it was a very good budget with a surplus that would be transferred into capital projects. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolution No. 2015-30 the Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Amtenta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-06 the Housing Development Corporation Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark, D. Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953 Amending Municipal Code Section 13.04 concerning water Conservation Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953, entitled: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040,13.04.050, 13.04.060 AND 13.04.080 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WATER CONSERVATION, and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-24, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA DECLARING A PHASE III WATER SHORTAGE WITH MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth reminded the City Council that in November 2014 the Council adopted a resolution implementing a Phase II Water Shortage. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order mandating additional water conservation of 25% statewide compared to 2013 usage figures. Based on those Rosemead City Council Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meering Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page. 21 of 24 requirements and staffs recent meetings with the six water purveyors In the City of Rosemead, it was determined that the code section regarding water conservation for Sections 13.04 were not sufficient to meet the Governor's requirements. As such, staff was proposing an urgency Ordinance No. 953 Amending Chapters 13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 and 13.04.080 of the City's regulations to make them stricter to be in compliance with the Governor's regulation requirements and working in partnership with the water companies. He said part of the ordinance required the adoption of a resolution and staff was recommending approval of Resolution No. 2015-24 declaring a Phase 111 water shortage with mandatory water conservation measures. The key point of Stage III water conservation was to reduce irrigation down to two days per week. Staff was proposing that even numbered addresses be allowed to water on Mondays and Thursdays and odd numbered addresses be allowed to water on Tuesdays and Fridays. He said staff has worked to the best of their ability to make the City's regulations match the regulations of the water companies; and the regulations would match five of the six companies. San Gabriel Valley Water Company was proposing even addresses on Monday and Wednesday and odd addresses on Tuesday and Thursday. He explained to Council why staff did not propose San Gabriel Valley Water Company's regulations. Thereafter followed a brief discussion about the City receiving complaints about water violations and the actions staff was taking when residents violate the regulations. .Joy Game tt addressed the City Council advising that she attended a Cal AM Water meeting on May 200 and several water companies were there. At that meeting it was announced that the water companies were implementing Phase II of the Governor's plan on June 151. She mentioned she spoke to Sean Sullivan last week who advised her that the City would Implement Stage Il and if the 25% reduction was not met by October of this year, the City would implement Stage 111. She expressed her concern because she had a large piece of property and has quit watering the parkway on Arica. All the City planted along the parkway were dying. She asked why the City was implementing Stage III now rather than October. City Manager Allred Informed Ms. Garnett that the City's Phase I I I occurred when the City's purveyors were notified that a conservation of more than 20% was required. Thereafter followed a lengthy conversation between Ms. Garnett, staff, and the City Council regarding the trees along the parkway, Ms. Garnett being erroneously cited for washing her car on the grass four years ago, and never receiving reimbursement for the citation, where it was posted that Phase III allowed watering two days a week, and the reason the City recommended washing cars at the car wash. A discussion ensued between Mayor Pro Tem Armenia and staff regarding notification letters being sent to the school district directing the school district to the City's website for information and the information not being available on the website. ..w Brian Lewin addressed the Council stating more outreach needed to be done especially translating the requirements into various languages. He mentioned some issues that needed to be clarified such as watering on an allowable day when it rained the day before and more information as to whom to contact when water leaks or wasted water was identified by a —ft resident. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Common icy Development Commission JointMeefing Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 22 of 24 In response to Council Member Lows question regarding fire hydrants, City Manager Allred explained that the regulations were limiting the use of fire hydrants for fighting fires only and prohibiting Hushing fire hydrants during the drought. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low, and seconded by Council Member Ly, to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953. City Attorney Richman Read Ordinance No. 953 into the record as follows: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040,13.04.050,13.04.060 AND 13.04.080 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WATER CONSERVATION. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-24. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 7. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Low ended the teleconference at 11:02 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced that she attended a Latino Policy Forum last Saturday regarding technology stating that the City of Rosemead was ahead of most cities in technology because of Granicus and Rosemead Around the Clock. She advised there were links on the City's webpage that go to a blank page when clicked and asked if those links could be removed. She asked staff to look at the young trees that were planted throughout the City. She noticed several of those trees were leaning and were not growing straight. She expressed concerned about the trees as they matured. Council Member Ly asked for an update on the cart containment program for the shopping centers. He continued to see shopping carts on the streets and especially those belonging to Rosemead Market. He wanted to see what the City was doing in terms of enforcing the containment program. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced that the Beautification Committee Clean Up would be held on Saturday, June 27"', from 9:00 a.m. to Noon at the Savanah Cemetery, contingent on whether or not there was enough volunteers. Lunch would be provided. Council Member Ly advised this would be his last meeting in person. He would be calling in for the next meeting after which he would be leaving for training with the U.S. Army for a couple of months. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 23 of 24 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Clark adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on June 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. -amj--� Carol Cowley, InCity Cle APPROVED: Margare lark, Mayor Rosemead City Council, Housing Development Corporation, and the SuccessorAgency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 24 of 24 W. Attachment E Modified Architectural Plans Dated May 12, 2022 0 AS—BUILT NOTES: 1. THE CITY PLANNING DEPT REQUESTED THE OWNER/DEVELOPER TO HAVE THE AS—BUILT PLANS PREPARED FOR CITY'S RECORD. SLA ARCHITECTS WAS RETAINED BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER TO PREPARE THE AS—BUILT PLANS ON 12/15/2021. 2. THESE AS—BUILT PLANS PREPARED BY SLA ARCHITECTS ARE THE RECORDS FOR WHAT WERE CONSTRUCTED AND COMPLETED AS—BUILT ON THE SITE OF THIS PROJECT UPON THE DATE SHOWN ON THESE AS—BUILT PLANS. 3. SLA ARCHITECTS IS NOT CERTIFYING THE ACCURACY OR CODE COMPLIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT ON THESE AS—BUILT PLANS. 4. AS FOR THE RECORD THAT SLA ARCHITECTS WAS NOT RETAINED BY THE OWNER/DEVELOPER FOR THE OBSERVATION DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. I W I � I I I W I W I W W W , 1 WW . I W I �v I W V W I I W W I I I I W WWW INTERIOR PARTITION W PER T.I. PLAN WWW (BY OTHERS) I I I W I W � W � I W Wy I � W �D I I I I W I W I WW � I I I W 1 I I W W W I 1 I� ♦ W W I N, I - I h+ W I I r , I I W I W I W I t I I ®W W I i I W W I I I WWW I 1 I W I W I W I W I I W I W I I — I W I I � W I I W I W I w } I W I W INTERIOR PARTITION I WOW � I PER T.I. PLAN WWW (BY OTHERS) I � I / I I GREASE INTERCEPTOR I Q 0 U U 42C o U V. n O 33C D 34C I I I l I - I I I i I EV CHARGq a DUND FLOOf TYP. 21 20 19 18 17 EV CHARGING EV CHARGING EV CHARGING EV CHARGING o STATION STATION STATION STATION ' EVSE LiEVSE LEVSE EVSE U ,32C U �j 31C o U 0 / I % O I a 35C i 30 C M Q 41 C �Fw (4) I AR R how U z z -------------- -a 36 Lo TYP. 29 a "Z Z — 0 I 40C a z z 37 28 T an E71 - 39C 39C o 1ST FLOOR = .43 PARKING SPACES + .1 GARAGE U U Q 38C o U INTgRIOR PARTITIO� PER T.I. PLAN (BYI OTHERS) P i q Ell TAIR 1 I i , / — �— — - �J— 7 I I I L--------------- �I ��_� �r�WWWWWWWWW WWWWWW�WWWWWWWW�WWWWWWWWW WWWWWW�WWWWWWW�WWWWWWWWWW�WWWWWW WWWWWWW�WWWWWWWWWW��WWWWWWW�WWWWWWy�IWWWWWW� DELTA AVENUE J-� XXX n 22C O 23C IIS. .I I 0 24C IUJ RES. TRASH I—II 16 LOADING 1111111111t• 1111W1110 ' •mill = ���■..■ FG11-i-I 25 NG 26 D 27C 8 BICYCLES T � LEASING OFFICE RM. #111 STORAGE 1—HR RATED DOOR BTW. S2 & R2 RAGE)L MANAGER GARAGE GAS METER AREA C A �I TRASH J 1\ O D 15C I 14C I I I � I 13C � I I n O � I 12C I 11C I 10C I O N �9C J N OC j K `l1 8 C `g C7 `i I O K �7C D I C7 I � I I C7 0 K ;A6C I a O Constructed beige -colored six-foot high 5 C block wall (Variance to' maintain) I I I �4CD I i C7 O I � I I 3C I ELEC. ROOM w� ILIN WATER METER ROOM o SCE STAIR 3P Li1Jl—ILIL� X000 II II II II I, I,I-,II III III III _ COMM. PANELS Ililililillllll I GARAGE DOOR �2C METAL GATES �` rl D1C j V W W V V V V W V V W W� W W W W W�IW V W V W W W W W W W W IJ Constructed beige -colored six-foot high block W wall within the first 20 feet of the south property line (Variance to maintain) FILE: 140205WK7FLR20B DRAWN: JW S 2 3 4 5 6 W G O J J W Z7 WLU Q W o r� r V T W Q W D Ld e / W Q Q w w X �� oo w �o _I a -(D2 00Of J JOB NO- 140205 10 @ 01/28/2022 AAS -BUILT 1ST FLOOR PLAN Z' IN SCALE: -1- 10'-0" A-2.1 0 0 W 00 0000 I I W X �v! v! 06 ' ^ V/1 - N Ill w WU J LU � J � Z°° Q >_ U O U _� w J _W a� > W :a Q �Q �� 6 W G O J J W Z7 WLU Q W o r� r V T W Q W D Ld e / W Q Q w w X �� oo w �o _I a -(D2 00Of J JOB NO- 140205 10 @ 01/28/2022 AAS -BUILT 1ST FLOOR PLAN Z' IN SCALE: -1- 10'-0" A-2.1