CC - Item 4H - General Plan Amendment 07-02r>
• i
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER rAA -
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2008
SUBJECT: 2ND READING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 07-1090 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044 LOCATED AT
7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE.
SUMMARY
On December 11, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed mixed use project at
the first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. The project is
now before the Council at the. required second reading.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 860, thereby
APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Planned
Development Review 07-01, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, and Tentative Tract Map
070044, subject to the attached conditions.
Prepared by:
1 vc07t-
Matt Everling
City Planner
Submi y:
B a Saeki
A ant City Manager
Attachment A: City Council Staff Report dated December 11, 2007
Attachment B: Ordinance 860
Attachment C: Planning Commission Application Package (Planning Commission Staff Report of November 5,
2007, Amended Conditions of Approval, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Traffic Study, and
Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 2007)
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: O
City Council Meeting
December 11, 2007
Page 2 of 2
• will allow a range of 30-45 units per acre for mixed use projects. Phase 1 will consist of 35
dwelling units per acre.
The Zone Change request is to change the current zoning designation from C-3 and P zone
(Medium Commercial and Automobile Parking) to a PD (Planned Development) zone to allow
development of a mixed use project. In addition to the above entitlement applications, the
General Plan requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for development of a mixed-use
project.
Whenever a developer provides affordable housing units and requests a density bonus, State
law mandates that a City grant up to a 35% density bonus. State law also requires that the City
grant up to three development concessions in order, to minimize stringent requirements that can
restrict projects with an affordable housing component. This project qualifies for a density
bonus and development incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent, or
(12) units for sale to persons and/or families of low income. California Government Code also
allows the City to grant three concessions, including reduced parking ratios in order to make the
affordable component more feasible for the developer. In response to this, the applicant is
requesting to reduce the required number of parking spaces as an aid to develop a mixed use
project with affordable housing.
On November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and
received numerous requests from the public to restrict the General Plan Amendment and Zone
Change to Phase 1, which will require the future develope
is separate entitlements for review and approval. After hearing
and the public, the Commission unanimously recommended
Council with minor modifications to the conditions of approval.
Prepared by:
Matt Everlin
City Planner
Sub i ed by
is Saeki
As Istant City Manager
r of the northern parcel to submit
all testimonies from the applicant
approval of the project to the City
Attachment A: Ordinance 860
Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 5, 2007 with modified Conditions of Approval
Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study
Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2007
11
• • ATTACHMENT A
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2007
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 07-1090 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 70044 LOCATED AT
7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE.
SUMMARY
Mr. Patrick Yang has submitted entitlement applications requesting approval to develop a new
four-story mixed use development consisting of 127 residential condominium units above
59,180 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space. The subject site is located north of
Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue on the City's west side. The
project site consists of seven contiguous parcels totaling approximately 5.35 acres. The project
will be developed in two phases; Phase 1 will consist of the Garvey Avenue frontage totaling
approximately 3.68 acres, which will be developed with commercial and residentially mixed land
uses along with 2 levels of subterranean parking and a significant outdoor courtyard/food court
pedestrian amenity. The remaining 1.67 acres to the north, which consists of an existing mobile
home park, could be developed as part of a subsequent phase.
The existing General Plan designation for all affected parcels is Commercial. The existing
zoning designations consist of C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking).
However, at this time, only the parcels located within Phase 1 are proposed to be rezoned to
(PD) Planned Development and have the General Plan land use designation changed from
Commercial to Mixed Use Residential/Commercial. Any future development proposals for the
1.67 acre site will require the review and approval of separate entitlement applications together
with a separate environmental analysis, a mobile home park relocation plan, and separate
public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 860, thereby APPROVING
General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01,
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, and Tentative Tract Map 70044, subject to the attached
conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as recommended by the Planning Commission
on November 05, 2007.
ANALYSIS
A General Plan Amendment is required to change the existing General Plan designation from
"Commercial" to "Mixed Use" and allow an increase in the project's density greater than 14 units
per acre, which is consistent with the pending General Plan update. The General Plan Update
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA:
•
Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-01
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. 860
• ATTACHMENT B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 07-225, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE
ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) TO PD
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02,
AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM
COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL AND
ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY
ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A
MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 770044 FOR A
CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-
1090 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF
127 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 59,180
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE COMMONLY
KNOWN AS (APNs: 5286-020-001,002,003,004,017,018 and a portion of 023).
WHEREAS, Patrick Yang filed applications with the City of Rosemead requesting a Zone
Change from C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking) to PD (Planned Development)
together with a General Plan Amendment request to exceed the currently allowable residential
density of 14 units per acre in the General Plan Mixed Use designation, a Conditional Use Permit
application to develop a mixed-use project, and a Tentative Tract Map to develop attached residential
condominium units on a property located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue (APN: 5286-020-
001,002,003,004,017,018 & a portion of 023); and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and
WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 07-225 would designate the subject property as
PD (Planned Development) allowing mixed-use types of development on the subject property such
as commercial and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of zone change applications and governs
development of private properties; and
EXHIBIT A
• •
• Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-125
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the
City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and
WHEREAS, Section 65350 of the California Government Code authorizes the City Council
to approve General Plan Amendment applications through public hearing and any other means the
City deems appropriate; and
WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the
General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered
General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01,
Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 for the proposed mixed-use
is development and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings
that the proposed applications with incorporated mitigation measures will not have a significant
impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, public notices were posted in several public locations and mailed to property
owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and
the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section
65091(a)(3); and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public and the applicant, the
Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment
07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-52,
thereby recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone
Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional
Use Permit 07-1090; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public
• testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development
Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090; and
• Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 3 of 7
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them
and hereby make the following determination:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as
follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and CEQA Guidelines, it
has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have a potential significant
environmental impact. This conclusion is based upon the Lead Agency's determination through the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration containing proposed mitigation measures that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment per the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines. Therefore, aNotice of Determination has been prepared according to CEQA guidelines.
The 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.
Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own discretionary and independent judgment in
reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed mixed use project.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has
determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds
that any presumption of adverse impacts has been adequately rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3),
the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact on Fish and Game resources.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES
AND DECLARES that placing the subject property in the PD (Planned Development) zone will
provide an improved level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the existing
neighborhood where the development is proposed.
Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that General Plan Amendment 07-02 and
Zone Change 07-225 meet the City's goals and objectives as follows:
A. Land Use: The proposed mixed use project consists of a Zone Change from C-3 (Medium
• Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking) to PD (Planned Development).Additional requests
include a General Plan Amendment requesting approval to exceed the currently allowable
residential density of 14 units per acre in a mixed-use designation, a Tentative Tract Map for
• Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 4 of7
a condominium subdivision, a Planned Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit
application to develop a mixed-use project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change are consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 that encourages revitalization of
major corridors through mixed use developments to promote the infill of strip commercial
districts with higher density multi-family uses. Therefore, this zone change and General Plan
Amendment will allow for commercial/residential development on the subject site that is
compatible with surrounding land uses.
B. Circulation: This development shall be located on Garvey Avenue. Primary access to the
proposed mixed use project will be via Garvey Avenue. The proposed project is consistent
with Circulation Element Policy 3.4, which encourages new developments with adequate
parking to locate in revitalization areas. The circulation plan of the proposed mixed use
project is pedestrian friendly and will not impede free flow of vehicular traffic on site or on
adjacent roadways.
• C. Housing: In addition to increasing homeownership opportunities, the applicant will be
providing at least 12 units for sale to persons and families of low income. Providing a
variety of housing opportunities including affordable housing is in compliance with Housing
Element policy that encourages a range of housing opportunities for existing and future City
residents by ensuring that housing is available and affordable to all socio-economic segments
of the community.
D. Resource Management: The proposed mixed use development will provide high quality
landscaping with a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and plants, thereby minimizing water
consumption. The proposed mixed use project is designed with natural resources
conservation in mind, and therefore will not affect any natural resources in the area.
E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding
area beyond City's permitted noise levels. Additionally, the site will be improved with a new
8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall that should mitigate residual commercial noise
impacts to adjacent mobile home park and residential uses.
F. Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans for the
mixed use project. The proposed project will not impede or interfere with the City's
emergency or evacuation plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire
City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations.
•
G. CEOA Compliance: The City as a "Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project
• Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 5 of 7
0
may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will
minimize identified significant impacts to a level of less than significance. Hence, the City
Council of the City of Rosemead hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for this mixed use project.
Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone
Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional
Use Permit 07-1090 for development of a mixed-use project located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue.
Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead
HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 860 and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to
be invalid.
• Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 11th day of December, 2007.
ATTEST:
GLORIA MOLLEDA, Acting City Clerk
JOHN TRAN, Mayor
•
u
• Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 6 of 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I Gloria Molleda, Acting City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 860 being:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 07-225, AMENDING A
PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING. MAP FROM C-3
(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND P (AUTOMOBILE PARKING) TO
P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
• 07-02, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM
COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTAIL/COMMERCIAL
AND ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE
CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14
UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 70044 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 127 ATTACHED
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 59,180 SQUARE FEET
OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE
COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017,
018 and portion of 023).
Ordinance 860 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 1 I th day of December, 2007, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted
and passed, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
0
•
Ordinance No. 860
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Planned Development Review 07-01
Tentative Tract Map 70044
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Page 7 of 7
•
GLORIA MOLLEDA, Acting City Clerk
C1
0
• • ATTACHMENT C
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:' PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: NOVEMBER 5. 2007
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 07-1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 70044 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-
7459 GARVEY AVENUE.
Summary
Patrick Yang has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use development project
consisting of 127 residential condominium units (144,122 square feet) above 59,180 square feet
of retail and restaurant space on 160,434 square feet of land (3.68 acres) located on the north
side of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The site has 350 feet of
street frontage on Garvey Avenue, and up to 610 feet of lot depth.
The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 5.35 acres. The
property will be developed in two phases; phase 1 will include a front portion of the overall site
fronting Garvey Avenue (3.68 acres) which will be developed with commercial and residential
land uses along with 2 levels of subterranean parking structure and out-door court yard. The
reminder (1.65 acres) will be developed later in future phase 2.
The mixed-use building will accommodate up to 15 commercial tenant suites of retail and
restaurant use. The plans show a building footprint with an L-shaped configuration. Such
storefronts will be oriented towards the south and west, facing a central courtyard (plaza) and
on-grade parking area. The development includes on-grade parking with 81 spaces accessible
from two driveways via Garvey Avenue. There will be two ramps located in the central portion
of the on-grade parking area, leading into the proposed subterranean parking structure. There
will be two levels of subterranean parking with 586 parking spaces below grade.
Secondary access to the commercial suites will be provided via the rear service driveway, which
loops around the perimeter of the project. Commercial loading and trash enclosure access will
occur from this rear service driveway. The residential condominiums will be located on the
second, third, and fourth floors with six separate elevators and staircase access points from the
basement levels to the top floor. Common open space areas have been provided on the upper
floors for the exclusive use of the residents, and a plaza will be provided in front of the proposed
retail/restaurant to provide an attractive out door dining and recreational area.
The subject site is currently within the Commercial designation of the General Plan, and has a
split-zoning district of C-3 (Medium Commercial) in the front, and P (Parking) district in the rear.
A General Plan Amendment is being requested in order to change the land use designation
• •
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 2 of 31
from "Commercial" to "Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial", and to allow a density of 34.5
dwelling units per acre for the mixed use development which proposes 127 units.
Additionally, a 1.65-acre portion of the site will be parceled off for "future" development of a 29-
unit townhouse project. When taken as a total Planned Development, the 5.35 acres would
have a resulting density of 29.15 units per acre (156 units/5.35 acres). These densities are
consistent with the density proposed in the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan
land use element that seeks to allow mixed-use developments of 30 to 45 dwelling units per
acre along the City's major arterial streets. In addition to the base density, the project qualifies
for a density bonus and "development incentives" pursuant to Section 65915 of the California
Government Code because 10% of the dwellings (12 units) will be sold to persons or
households of moderate income.
The applicant has requested two "development incentives" for reduced unit size for the one-
bedroom units, and reduced parking stall dimensions. The Rosemead Municipal Code
establishes a minimum 900-square foot unit size for one-bedroom units (§17.88.070), and
requires residential parking stalls to be 10' X 20' (§17.88.110) for condominium developments.
The commercial parking requirements require 9' X 20' stall dimensions and allow up to 25%
compact parking (§17.84). The project proposes an overall compact parking ratio of
approximately 29% for the combined commercial and residential parking areas.
Section 65915(p) of the California Government Code establishes a parking ratio for affordable
housing projects that is less than the City's minimum parking ratio for stand -alone
condominium developments. Section 17.88.110 of the Rosemead Municipal Code contains
specific parking ratios for condominium developments. The applicant is requesting to use the
parking ratio of "two parking space per unit" for the condominiums, which is consistent with the
Government Code's allowance for two-bedroom and three-bedroom units.
The Zone Change application submitted with this application would allow a change from C-3
(Medium Commercial) and P (Parking) zoning to PD (Planned Development) zoning. This
change is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation, and the PD zone would allow
the Commission and Council flexibility in setting specific development standards for the project.
The PD zone allows mixed use projects that are at least one acre in size (RMC §17.76.080).
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 is an application to allow mixed-use development in the
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Overlay designation, as stipulated in the General Plan.
Aside from the reduced parking, reduced parking stall dimensions, and unit size request, the
project complies with all other applicable development standards and there are no variance
issues with this application. A detailed discussion of the project's compliance with the City's
adopted Mixed-Use Design Guidelines is contained in this staff report.
Environmental Analysis
The City of Rosemead acting as the Lead Agency has completed an Initial Study/Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use project pursuant to Section 15070(b)
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study, prepared in conjunction with a
Focused Air Quality Analysis, Historic Resources Assessment, Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment, Noise Evaluation, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report (for mobile
home park), and Traffic Impact Study, found that there are potential significant environmental
impacts that could occur with the development of the project. The environmental factors
potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Population and Housing,
Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, with the incorporation of
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paqe 3 of 31
mitigation measures, which the applicant has agreed to, the potential environmental effects will
be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a
20-day public review and comment period on October 15, 2007. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration along with Agency comments, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by
the CEQA guidelines, is contained in the attachments. If the Commission is inclined to
recommending this project to City Council for approval, the Commission must first make a
finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend to City Council for
adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. All identified
mitigation measures have been included in the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit
"A" of this report.
General Plan Amendment
The subject site is located within the Commercial designation of the General Plan, which
encourages downtown commercial uses and allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 (total floor
area in relation to total land area). The proposed project has 59,180 square feet of commercial
floor area, which equals an FAR of 0.37:1 in compliance with the General Plan (basement is
exempt from FAR). However, the project exceeds the current allowable residential density of 14
dwelling units per acre for mixed-use developments, as stipulated in the current Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
It is recognized that contemporary mixed use developments in the San Gabriel Valley, and
throughout the State, require high-density residential uses (typically 30 dwelling units per acre
or higher) in order to be financially feasible, and to facilitate density bonus incentives
encouraged by the State. As such, the City is in the process of updating the City's General Plan
and will create a Mixed Use-High Density Residential/Commercial land use designation that will
allow 31 to 45 units per acre. This designation will be introduced for most of the properties that
front on Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard, and major corridors including the properties
adjacent to the subject site. This update and corresponding environmental review will provide
the mechanism to allow for orderly development of mixed use projects that are in compliance
with current market trends, and will allow for targeted growth to occur along the major arterial
streets of the City.
Density
Until such time as the General Plan update is finalized, applicants for mixed use projects must
process individual amendment applications for developments whenever the density exceeds 14
dwelling units per acre in the Mixed Use Overlay designation. The proposed project will have a
maximum density of 34.5 units per acre, which is in compliance with the intended densities
along Garvey Avenue, under the "enhanced" General Plan Mixed Use Overlay designation.
The subject site is not located within a City Redevelopment Project Area and as such is not
subject to specific findings related to the removal of existing housing units. However, it is
recognized that the future proposal to remove the 39 mobile home units will lessen the ability of
existing Rosemead residents to find affordable housing. The City has an interest in preserving
housing that is attainable to Rosemead's lower-income residents, as specified in the City's
Housing Element. Accordingly, staff's review of the project finds that the public interest would
be served by approving the applicant's development incentives and General Plan Amendment
for increased density, in order to make the affordable housing component financially feasible,
and to further the goals of the City's Housing Element. At the time of developing phase 2, a
separate environmental analysis will be required in conjunction with a separate public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting •
November 5, 2007
Page 4 of 31
Based on the above information, a maximum density of 34.5 units per acre (127 dwelling units)
will be allowed for the project, with a total of 12 units to be reserved for sale to persons or
families of moderate-income households. Staff has conditioned this project accordingly. The
1.67-acre site, which will remain vacant for "future" development, will be limited to a maximum of
30 dwelling units, as stipulated in the applications submitted, subject to a new development
application and environmental review at a future date.
Municipal Code Requirements
Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures
and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted
whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies
such action. Additionally, a zone change must be found consistent with the General Plan. The
proposed PD (Planned Development) zone is allowed for properties that are at least one acre in
size.
Staff finds that the proposed zone change to PD on the subject property is consistent with the
goals of the General Plan in that the future "enhanced" General Plan mixed-use designation for
the commercial corridor along Garvey Avenue will provide for high-density residential in
combination with ground-floor commercial uses, as proposed by this application. The site will
propose orderly development that relates to the surrounding properties, including a future
residential component to the north of the site, which will become part of the overall
improvements. The PD zone and intended development is consistent with the Mixed Use -
Residential/Commercial land use designation of the General Plan, as requested with this
application.
Conditional Use Permit - The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a mixed use project. The premise of the mixed use
district is that the basic underlying zoning designation controls land use. The mixed use overlay
district expands the permitted uses of the underlying zoning with the issuance of a conditional
use permit. Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria that must be met as follows:
• That the Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of the
Zoning Code; and
• That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located; and
• That the establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the
Conditional Use Permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and
• That the granting of such Conditional.Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan.
Planned Developments - Section 17.76.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows
appropriate combinations of commercial, residential, and industrial land uses to be permitted in
P-D zone subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, subject to the
following findings:
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Page 5 of 31
1. That the granting of such zone change will not adversely affect the established character
of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
2. That the project's architecture shall be consistent with and/or complimentary to the
surrounding neighborhood's integrity and the character of the community;
3. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
Tentative Tract Map - Section 66474 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds
under which a City may approve or deny a Tentative Tract Map. In addition, Chapter 16.08.130
of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides subdivision regulations, which adopts Los Angeles
County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in
order to approve a Tentative Tract Map:
• The proposed map and design of improvements are consistent with the
General Plan, the City of Rosemead Official Zoning Map and any specific
plan governing the site.
• The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the
proposed density.
• The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and, avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to
cause any serious public health problems.
• The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use
of, property within the proposed subdivision.
• The design of the subdivision will provide, to the extent feasible, for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC resolution# 07-52 and recommend
to the City Council for APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Change of Zone 07-225,
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map
770044 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" and recommend to the City Council to
adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation monitoring Program.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Environmental Setting/ Project Site Description:
The subject site has historically been used for a combination of uses in including a mobile home
park, a recreational vehicle "trailer park" use, commercial uses, and light industrial uses.
Currently there is a mobile home park on the northerly 2.27 acres with 39 mobile homes.
Access to the mobile home park is provided via a 46-foot wide access corridor (approximately
0.27 acres) along the western boundary of the site.
The central 2.26 acres of the site are currently vacant. Of these 2.26 acres, the portion fronting
on Garvey Avenue (approximately 0.95 acres) was the site of the Roseland Trailer Court, which
was established in 1947 and was recently demolished. The rear portion of the 2.26 acres
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Paoe 6 of 31
(approximately 1.3 acres) has periodically been used for storage of vehicles. This large area
was the site of a light industrial use, as evidenced by remnants of steel railroad tracks. The
Historic Resources Assessment prepared for this project and attached hereto documents the
existence of these steel tracks, which may have been used as part of a gantry, or crane system
sometime in the 1920's. Due to the absence of historic records on this property and lack of
evidence of historically significant events or persons tied to the property, the steel rails are
found to not be a historically significant feature on the site, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
The southeast corner of the site (approximately 0.57 acres) contains a one-story commercial
building that is in active use. There is a non-conforming "billboard" structure on the west side of
the commercial building. The easterly property line of the site abuts a parking lot that serves a
McDonald's restaurant on the northwest corner of Garvey and Prospect Avenues. The on-site
driveway encroaches onto the McDonald's property, and is shown as a "shared driveway" for
the proposed development. Historically this driveway on the site has provided access to the
rear of the small commercial building and the vacant portion of the site, which was used for
outdoor vehicle storage.
The site frontage has existing curb and gutter along Garvey Avenue and large overgrown
Eucalyptus trees along the public right-of-way. The larger vicinity consists primarily of
neighborhood commercial uses and some light industrial along Garvey Avenue and the side
streets of New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. There are existing power poles along the
westerly portion of the site, which serve the mobile home park. All existing structures, mature
trees, and power poles may be relocated as part of the proposed project.
The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site
plan shows one building with storefront facades oriented towards the center of the property.
There would be ample open space in the form of a central courtyard and covered walkways at
all the storefronts. The upper floors will have 127 residential condominium units. Access to the
proposed residences will be through a lobby area accessed from six separate elevator shafts,
with the main residential lobby located at the southernmost storefront facing the Garvey Avenue
frontage. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the southernmost commercial
tenant to have a storefront entry on the Garvey Avenue frontage, and requiring all entries on
Garvey Avenue to be recessed 24 inches, and be shaded with canvas awnings, as encouraged
by the City's Mixed Use Design Guidelines.
The first floor of the proposed buildings will have commercial tenant spaces ranging in size from
1,410 square feet to 13,820 square feet in size. The larger units are situated furthest away from
the street frontage. As such, the commercial tenant spaces that are oriented towards the west
will have an occupancy frontage that ranges from 20 feet to 40 feet in width. The south facing
storefronts located furthest from the street will have occupancy frontages that range in width
from 27 feet to 60 feet in width.
There will be two driveways providing access into the central parking area and basement
ramps, and a third driveway for access to the rear of the buildings on the east side of the
property. Freestanding light fixtures in the on-grade parking area and wall-mounted light fixtures
would provide adequate lighting for the project.
The site plan shows a total of four on-grade trash enclosures, located adjacent to the rear
service driveway, to serve the needs of the commercial and residential users. Two enclosures
are shown at the northwest corner of the site, one enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner
of the site, and the fourth is attached to the east rear side of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Paae 7 of 31
The proposed trash enclosure plan does not provide adequate convenient access to the trash
bins for the proposed residences. As such, staff is recommending that two "trash chutes",
accessible at every floor level, be provided for the condominium residents, with trash bins to be
located at the ground floor, or in the basement level parking structure. Additionally, staff is
recommending that CC & R's be included to require regular trash pickup service at least once a
week for the residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant
space bins due to the large percentage of restaurant users proposed. All trash enclosures shall
be designed to comply with City standards. All trash enclosures will be required to provide a
solid roof for aesthetic reasons.
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels. The site is surrounded by the following
General Plan designations, Zoning districts, and land uses:
North:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use: Multifamily residential
South:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use: Commercial/Office
East:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial)/ P (Parking)
Land Use: Drive-Thru Restaurant/ Multifamily Residential
West:
General Plan: Commercial
Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use: Equipment Rental/Commercial
The applicant proposes to combine six out of seven existing lots for the purpose of developing a
mixed-use residential and commercial project, consisting of one four-story building with two
levels of subterranean parking. The remainder parcel in the northern portion of the site currently
occupied by a mobile home park will be re-configured and set aside for future development. The
applicant has agreed to allocate ten percent (10%) or 12 units of the proposed condominium
residential units for sale to moderate-income families. Moderate-income family incomes range
from 80 to 120 percent of the County median household income. The County qualifies
"moderate income" households based on the total household income and the total family size.
Tentative Tract Map Review
Tentative Tract Map 70044 has been distributed to various reviewing agencies such as Fire
Department, Southern California Edison and Water Companies for their review. The Fire
Department has noted their concern regarding the use of a "shared" driveway as called out on
the plan, with the adjoining property to the east. Additionally, Edison has requested that
adequate space be reserved on-site for electrical transformers to serve the future residents and
commercial uses. No other special condition has been received from the reviewing agencies.
The City Engineer has checked the tentative tract map for its accuracy, and appropriate
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Paae 8 of 31
conditions of approval have been incorporated into Exhibit A. Fire department and Southern
California Edison's conditions will be complied with and final construction plans will show such
compliance.
Development Standards
The developer has incorporated the Planned Development standards for the proposed mixed-
use project. The Planned Development designation allows the Planning Commission and the
City Council to grant approval of a specific planned development with diversification in the
development standards of conventional zones such as residential or commercial zones while
insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
Proposed Setbacks - The project will have an L-Shaped building with storefronts oriented
towards the west and south. The southeastern portion of the building will have a front yard
setback of five to six feet along the Garvey Avenue street line. The remaining 230 feet of
building frontage that faces Garvey Avenue is set back approximately 282 feet and 294 feet.
Thus, the massing of the building will be substantially mitigated by the deep setback from the
street, for a majority of the building.
The westerly 53 feet of the building will not be directly visible from Garvey Avenue due to the
configuration of the lot. As such, the ground floor tenant in this westernmost space will be a
restaurant use with a "window" into the outdoor courtyard plaza where outdoor seating will be
available. All the storefronts will have a covered walkway that is eight feet minimum in width, to
provide aesthetic relief and human scale. The upper floors will cantilever over this covered
walkway. As such, the front setback mentioned herein for the south-facing storefronts is
measured from the front property line, to the supporting columns of the covered walkway.
The remaining sides and rear of the building will have a 28-foot and 29-foot building setback
from interior property lines, in order to provide the minimum width driveway for fire apparatus
access. The one exception to this side setback is along the eastern property line where a
"shared" driveway will allow the building to be as close as 20 feet to the side property line,
except that the driveway adjacent to the building encroaches onto the neighboring property, and
appears to have been established as a reciprocal easement. There will be an actual 35 feet of
separation from the west side of the building, to the McDonald's parking lot, in the area adjacent
to the shared driveway.
The PD zoning district does not impose any minimum setbacks for new projects. However, the
Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposed Planned Development is
compatible with existing and future development in surrounding areas, per Section 17.76.010 of
the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City's adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines encourage
reduced setbacks along the street property lines, provided that a seven-foot wide unobstructed
sidewalk passageway is provided in the public realm, in order to create a pedestrian friendly
environment.
Staff finds that the proposed setbacks are compatible with the surrounding properties in that
Garvey Avenue predominantly has an established "street edge" where buildings are close to the
front property line. There are some exceptions to this, including the McDonald's restaurant to
the east of the site. However, it is the goal of the City's Mixed Use Development guidelines to
encourage a minimal setback along the street property lines, as proposed by the project.
Planning Commission Meeting •
November 5, 2007
Paqe 9 of 31
The majority of the proposed building will not have storefronts directly adjacent to the Garvey
Avenue and a pedestrian-friendly interaction will be established along the Garvey Avenue
frontage. Most of the street frontage will consist of the two driveway entrances and a
landscaped berm with low walls screening the at-grade parking lot. The pedestrian focus of the
proposed building is akin to a "lifestyle" center where a central plaza is situated away from the
street, and storefronts have a direct relation to the plaza as opposed to the street.
Staff finds that the proposed front setbacks are an acceptable alternative to the standards set
forth in the General Plan and adopted Guidelines for mixed use development given the unique
circumstances of the property. The proposed project will substantially comply with the seven-
foot clear sidewalk passageway for the entire street frontage, as encouraged in the Mixed Use
Development Design Guidelines. The L-Shaped building configuration and the central courtyard
will create significant interest and street appeal, by drawing store fronts interest towards the
pedestrian plaza and mitigating the massing of the building away from the street.
Building Height - The proposed building will have a uniform height with four-story massing
throughout all portions of the building. The upper floors are stepped back nine feet from the
edge of the ground floor footprint along the southeast corner, adjacent to the "shared" driveway.
The predominant height of the structure will be 51'-11" feet from finished grade to top of
parapet, and a maximum height of 57'-8" to the top of the tower elements, as measured on the
Garvey Avenue front building elevation. The rear portion of the building would be approximately
six inches shorter than the front height dimension at Garvey Avenue due to the slight slope of
the finished grade.
The proposed building is not subject to the City's variable height requirement pursuant to
Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, as the building will not be adjacent to an R-1 or R-2
zoned property. The building would be substantially set away from any nearby R-2 zoned
property located 220 feet north of the mixed use project site. The overall color scheme of the
building will complement the "terra cotta" S-tile concrete roof for the tower elements. The towers
use a combination of hipped roof, gabled roof, and flat roof designs. The towers do not
dramatically project above the parapet and simply create a stepped roofline for interest. The
central portion of the south and west elevations incorporate an arched parapet wall with
protruding towers, which balance the front fagade and provide a sense of formality to the
building.
Staff finds that the proposed building heights are appropriate for the size and scale of the
proposed mixed use project, and that said height will not create any adverse impacts upon
adjoining properties.
Proposed Floor Plans
Commercial - The floor plans submitted with this application show 15 tenant suites totaling
approximately 59,180 square feet that will be utilized for retail and restaurant uses. The project
is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate 11 restaurant users, as shown on
the plan. The three retail spaces are shown in the rear portion of the building and would have
the largest square footages, ranging in size from 3,980 square feet to 13,820 square feet.
Residential - A total of 127 condominium units are proposed within this development. All units
will be located on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. The unit floor plans
submitted show a variety of unit types, from one-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging
in size from 855 square feet to 1,660 square feet of living area.
0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 10 of 31
There is a large rectangular garden area on the second floor (20'-3" X 273'-0") that creates an
atrium "light well" for the third and fourth floors. Additionally there are two rooftop gardens on
the fourth floor, which that will serve as common open space for the residents.
The stand-alone condominium regulations of the Zoning Ordinance require a minimum of 900
square feet for a 1-bedroom unit. The PD zone allows flexibility in setting the standards for
individual projects, and the applicant has proposed smaller one-bedroom units in an attempt to
keep the project within budget for the affordable housing component. Each unit will be provided
with two (2) parking spaces located in the subterranean parking structure. A summary of the
various floor plan types is discussed below.
Unit Type `AThere are 30 of these units (10 per floor on the residential portion) which consist
of one bedroom, one bathroom, living room, kitchen with dining area, and laundry area, totaling
855 square feet of living area. The living room and bedroom have access to a private balcony
that is 58 square feet in size. These dwellings are designed as both interior units and end units,
and are generally dispersed throughout each respective floor level.
Unit Type `B' There are 78 of these units (26 per floor on the residential portion) which consist
of one bedroom, one master bedroom with master bath, a common bathroom, living room,
kitchen with dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,205 square feet of living area. The
bedroom and master bedroom have access to a private balcony that is approximately 47 square
feet in size. These are all interior units and make up the largest percentage of all the dwellings
(61 % of the total). They are generally dispersed throughout each respective floor level.
Unit Type "C' There are eight of these units (three on the second and third floors, two on the
fourth floor) and they have the same floor plan as Type "B" except these are larger in size
(1,355 square feet of living area with 55 square foot balconies). They are interior units, and
corner end units facing Garvey Avenue on the second and third floors. They are generally
dispersed throughout each respective floor level, and are located across the hallway from an
elevator shaft.
Unit Type "D": There are five of these units (two on the second and third floors, one on the
fourth floor) and they have one bedroom, one master bedroom with master bath, a common
bathroom, living room, dining room, kitchen, and laundry area, totaling 1,525 square feet of
living area. The bedroom has access to the common bathroom, and the living and dining rooms
have a sliding glass door into a private balcony that is approximately 117 square feet in size.
These are end units located adjacent to the westernmost elevator shaft.
Unit Type "EThere are three of these units (one per floor on the residential portion) and they
have one bedroom, two master bedrooms with master baths, a common bathroom, living room,
kitchen and dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,660 square feet of living area. The
bedroom has access to the common bathroom, and there is access to a private balcony (from
the bedroom and one of the master bedrooms) that is approximately 47 square feet in size.
These are interior units facing the pedestrian plaza and are located adjacent to the central
elevator shaft.
Unit Type "FThere are three of these units (one per floor on the residential portion) and they
have two bedrooms, a master bedroom with master bath, a common bathroom, living room,
kitchen and dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,388 square feet of living area. The master
bedroom has access to a private balcony that is approximately 36 square feet in size. These are
end units located at the northeast corner of the building facing the east property line.
• •
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 11 of 31
Proposed open Space:
The proposed project will provide a total of 6,680 square feet of private open space in the form
of balcony area (all residential units have access to a private balcony). Additionally, there are
8,550 square feet of common open space available exclusively to future residents in the form of
rooftop gardens, and common-area balconies. The largest rooftop garden is a 5,240 square
foot rectangular garden on the second floor that is open to the sky, with meandering walks,
trellis covers, gazebos, picnic tables, shade trees and shrubs. This garden will have a 20' X 20'
opening to the ground floor breezeway that connects the central plaza to the rear of the
property.
The fourth floor will have two rectangular rooftop gardens with 1,417 square feet and 1,485
square feet, respectively. These gardens will have similar amenities to the second floor garden.
The common area balconies consist of nine balconies with 45 square feet of floor area each,
located adjacent to three of the elevator shafts at the second, third and fourth floors. This
provides a grand total of 15,230 square feet of private and common open space for the
exclusive use of the future residents.
In addition to the private open space and rooftop gardens the project will provide a substantial
public open space amenity in the form of a large central plaza with covered walkways, and a
breezeway corridor on the ground floor areas around the front of the commercial storefronts.
This large expanse of open area provides a total of approximately 25,828 square feet of public
open space. This ground-floor area can serve as usable recreational open space and as
potential outdoor seating for the commercial tenants. A water fountain, public art feature, trellis
covers, decorative paving patterns, shade trees, raised planter beds, and landscaped berming
to screen the parking areas are incorporated into the central courtyard. A summary of the total
open space provided for the project is summarized in Figure 1.
In total, the proposed project will provide 40,650 square feet of private and common open
space. This represents approximately 320 square feet of open space per unit for the overall
project. Stand-alone condominium projects in the City require a total open space of 400 square
feet per unit, and the proposed project substantially complies with this standard. Staff finds that
the proposed open space designs and amenity packages will adequately serve the needs of the
future residents.
FIGURE 1 (Total Open Space)
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Open Space Summa
Qty
Area (sf)
Total (sf)
Unit A (Balcony)
30
58
1740
Unit B (Balcony)
78
47
3666
Unit C (Balcony)
8
55
440
Unit D (Balcony)
5
117
585
Unit E (Balcony)
3
47
141
Unit F (Balcony)
3
36
108
2nd Floor Garden
1
5240
5240
4th Floor Garden #1
1
1417
1417
4th Floor Garden #2
1
1485
1485
Ground Floor Breezeway
1
2390
2390
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paoe 12 of 31
Common Balcony 1
9
45 405
Central Plaza/Covered Walkways
1
23,033 _ 23033
TOTAL OPEN SPACE
40650 sf
Proposed Landscaping:
The site plan submitted with this application shows conceptual planting areas for the project.
The on-grade parking areas will have a total of 6,147 square feet of landscaping within the
ground floor parking area and west side of the building. Landscaping is shown in the form of
perimeter planting areas, landscaped islands, and "finger" islands on the parking row ends. The
looped driveway on the north and east sides of the building will not have landscaping. However,
this rear driveway is largely a service drive and will not be highly visible to the street. As
proposed, the site plan shows 8.84% overall landscaping of the parking lot and driveway areas.
This exceeds the City's policy to provide at least 3% of planting areas for all commercial
developments. Additionally, the central courtyard provides added landscaping in the form of
raised planter beds, water feature, and shade trees. The central courtyard will significantly
soften the appearance of the paved parking areas. All three driveway entrances on Garvey
Avenue will have decorative paving at the entries for a depth of 25 feet.
The rooftop garden on the second floor will be landscaped in a park-like setting with shade trees
and planted sod areas, to facilitate the use of two picnic tables, one patio dinette, five park
benches, two gazebo structures, one trellis cover, and a water fountain. There is a meandering
walkway through the central portion of the garden, and an area "open to below" in the middle of
the garden.
The rooftop gardens on the fourth floor are located in the west and south extremes of the
building. Both gardens are rectangular in shape and are open to the sky. The west garden is
exposed on one side to the central courtyard, and the south garden is exposed on two sides, to
the street side and to the west. The amenities for both of the gardens will include one trellis
cover, one picnic table, two park benches, and a patio dinette. Both gardens on the fourth floor
have a meandering walkway through the central part of the garden. A decorative metal railing
with a "cross-hatch" pattern will be used on the south and west perimeters, where the garden
abuts the edge of the building.
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. For purposes of the
Planned Development review, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the
conceptual landscape plans as presented, with the conditions of approval which require that
street trees be planted along Garvey Avenue.
Proposed Fencing:
The proposed subterranean parking structure will require substantial excavation and will require
the installation of new perimeter walls on the east and west sides of the property. The north
property line will not be fenced as it will abut a future residential development. However, staff is
recommending that a new eight-foot high decorative masonry wall block wall be installed along
all interior property lines, including the northern property boundary of the future "phase 2"
development site in order to provide buffering and protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors
from the impacts of the proposed mixed use development. No fencing will be required on the
east side of the "shared driveway" easement area adjacent to the McDonald's Restaurant
parking lot.
0
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paoe 13 of 31
Parking and Circulation:
The plans submitted with this application show access to on-grade parking located adjacent to
the street, which will be accessed from two driveways along Garvey Avenue. From this central
parking area there are two ramps leading into two levels of subterranean parking. The surface
parking area has 81 spaces with 90-degree parking, including areas reserved for handicapped
stalls along the front parking row adjacent to the street. The subterranean parking structure
shows 291 for basement 1 and 295 parking spaces for basement 2 with 90-degree parking. All
parking areas have a two-way driveway and aisles that allow for complete circulation around the
parking areas.
Chapter 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) requires
one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of commercial floor area and one (1) space per 100
square feet of restaurant space. Section 17.84.020 of the Code establishes minimum parking for
projects proposed in PD zones. Dwelling units are required to provide 2 fully enclosed parking
spaces and 1 guest parking space for each 2 units. As such a minimum of 319 parking spaces
are required by City Code for the residential part of the project, as shown on the following matrix
(Figure 2).
FIGURE 2 (Code-Required Parking)
Land Use
Size/ No. of Units
Parking Ratio (
Total
Retail
32,750sf
1 space/250 sf
131
Restaurant
26,430 sf
1 space/100 sf
264.3
Residential
127 units
2 covered spaces per unit
254
Guest Parking
127 units
1 spaces per 2 unit
63.5
OTAL REQUIRED
OTAL PROVIDED
712.8
667
City staff recognizes that the above Rosemead Municipal Code parking requirement is overly
restrictive for residential projects including condominiums. In the future, the City will be
developing specific parking requirements for mixed-use projects including condominiums.
However, any development that proposes an affordable component can request a reduced
parking ratio pursuant to Section 65915(p) of the Government Code, which states as follows.
(p) (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or
city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of
handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria
of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
(C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
Based on the above, the developer has requested to apply the above parking ratios for the
residential portion of the proposed development, in order to facilitate the housing affordability
component. The applicant will be selling 10% of the condominiums to persons or families of
moderate-income households thus, state law requires the city to provide incentives such as
reduced parking ratio.
U
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 14 of 31
•
In light of the concerns expressed by the Commission on similar mixed-use projects with
respect to adequate availability of off-street parking, staff has developed a standard condition
requiring the subdivider to submit a comprehensive Parking Management Plan for review and
approval by the Planning Division. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the
CC & R's and shall be enforced by the property owners association and must include, but not be
limited to, the following provisions.
• Assigned parking for each residence.
• Designated parking for customers and employees.
• Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking.
• Funding mechanism for staffing of a 24-hour parking monitor/security guard.
• Funding mechanism for maintenance of a workstation with half-bath for the parking
monitor/security guard.
The parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking
permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Additionally, all employee parking
shall be restricted to the subterranean parking structure.
In addition to the above, the Traffic Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. for this
project included a Parking Analysis dated September 10, 2007 that analyzed the specific
parking demands of the proposed project, given the unit sizes and the retail and restaurant uses
proposed. The Study analyzed the "shared parking" aspect of the mixed-use project and
concludes that the proposed project will not result in the need for any overflow parking. Peak-
month parking demand which is expected to occur in annually in December, would result in the
need for 572 parking spaces during the week and 565 parking spaces on week-ends. As such,
the proposed 667 parking spaces will adequately serve the parking needs of the residents and
the retail/restaurant customers.
Furthermore, the applicant has requested a development incentive to allow reduced parking
stall dimensions on grade and in the basement parking areas, which are intended to serve both
commercial and residential users (the minimum dimension is 10' X 20' for residential
condominiums). Pursuant to Section 65915d(2)A of the California Government Code, cities may
grant reductions in development standards and design requirements that restrict housing
projects with an affordable component. This project qualifies for the incentive because the
applicant will be providing at least 10 percent of the dwelling units for sale to persons and
families of moderate income.
The plans submitted shows 195 compact parking spaces of total parking for both commercial
and residential), which exceeds the City's allowable ratio of 25% compact parking for
commercial projects. Residential projects are not allowed to have compact parking by City
Code. In staff's experience, the excessive use of compact parking will result in inefficient use of
parking stalls, as larger vehicles (trucks and SUV's) tend to take up two parking stalls. However,
given that the proposed parking layout provides good circulation throughout and there is no
need for overflow parking, pursuant to the findings of the Parking Study, staff finds that there will
not be an adverse impact created by increased compact parking. Furthermore, the City has an
interest in allowing affordable housing units, and the use of compact spaces for the residential
component will assist in this regard. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the
applicant's request for reduced parking stall dimensions and allow the proposed 195 compact
parking spaces.
Traffic
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paoe 15 of 31
is
A traffic impact study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated August 15, 2007, was
completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon
eight (8) nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: Garvey
Avenue/Alhambra Avenue, Garvey Avenue/New Avenue, Garvey Avenue/Jackson Avenue,
Garvey Avenue/Del Mar Avenue, New Avenue/Hellman Avenue, New Avenue/Emerson
Avenue. New Avenue/Newmark Avenue, and New Avenue/Graves Avenue. Additionally, the
Traffic Study analyzed the three project access drives proposed for the project at Garvey
Avenue. The Level of Service (LOS) concept indicates a measure of average operating
conditions at an intersection, based on the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) technique.
The Levels of Service vary from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F (jammed condition). All
intersection studies in the Traffic Study analyzed the project buildout Year 2009 anticipated
traffic with and without the project, and the Year 2025 anticipated traffic with and without the
project. The traffic generated includes two related mixed-use projects within one mile of the
site, on Del Mar Avenue.
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 3,590 vehicle trips ends per day, with 231 net
vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak
hour. It should be noted that the existing mobile home park generates an additional 220 vehicle
trips per day. However, this additional impact will be modified and replaced with a future Phase
2 residential development that will likely reduce the vehicle trips to 176 vehicle trip ends per day
for the 30-unit capacity that is shown on the preliminary plans.
Un-signalized intersections (New Avenue/Graves Street), and the project entry drives, utilize the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis method for determining the level of service
measurement. Table 10 of the Traffic Study shows the intersection study summary for the
project. All the current intersections operate at a LOS "C" or better, except for the PM peak hour
traffic at New Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection which currently operates at LOS "D". With
the anticipated Year 2009 project buildout traffic, all intersections and entry drives will maintain
a LOS "D" or better, except for the PM peak hour traffic at New Avenue/Graves Street which will
be reduced from a LOS "D" to LOS "E". For the anticipated Year 2025 traffic the New
Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection is further reduced at a LOS "F" during the PM peak hour,
and the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection would operate at LOS "E". However, with
the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures (including "fair share" contributions
toward a new traffic signal at New Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection), both of these adversely
affected intersections will improve to an acceptable level of service during the peak hours.
The Los Angeles County CMP (Congestion Management Program) criteria describe a
significant impact at an intersection when the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) is increasing more
than 2%, causing the facility to operate at a LOS "E" or "F". Table 10 of the Traffic Study
indicates that neither of these thresholds is met for any of the intersections or driveway
entrances when the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. As such, there will be
no significant adverse traffic impacts created by the proposed development.
Based on the traffic study, staff finds that the proposed development will not create any
significant environmental effects upon the traffic circulation system of the area. Additionally, the
Traffic Study analyzes the reduced parking request and finds that this will not create any
hardship on the commercial tenants because residential uses and a variety of commercial uses
within the proposed development have different hours of parking demand, and create a
destination attraction whereby customers will visit more than one business upon arrival to the
shopping center.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 16 of 31
Proposed Architecture:
The proposed building has a contemporary style of architecture, characterized by multi-story
facades with tall parapet roof lines in a flat and gabled-roof application. Terra cotta S-tile is
used on the sloped-roof parapets and on the tower elements. A centralized arched parapet roof
line with large vertical massing provides balance and formality to the front elevations that would
be visible to Garvey Avenue. A variety of flat and arched window lintels, round accent windows,
and stepped cornice trims are used to break up the vertical massing of the building. The
building elevations visible to the central courtyard provide substantial architectural relief, on all
floor levels, in the form of covered walkways, numerous balconies, and rooftop gardens.
The architectural elevation drawings show exterior finishes to include textured color-coat stucco
(non-painted), smooth granite stone veneer, textured foam cornice, and decorative metal
balcony railings. As conditioned, the front wall plane facing Garvey Avenue will incorporate
recessed storefronts with a canvas awning. The roof line incorporates variation in height
resulting from the tower elements, elevator shafts, and arched parapet walls.
The exterior facades consist of "color coat" stucco finish in a "Doeskin" and "Creamed Butter"
field tone with "terra cotta" and earth-toned accent colors on alternating wall planes. All the
protruding supporting columns will be treated with "brown" granite stone veneer at the base, to
extend six feet above the finished floor. The rear-facing elevations will continue the architectural
treatment of the front facades, except for the ground floor which will have service doors and no
windows.
Neighborhood Character:
The proposed development will be compatible with the existing commercial developments in the
immediate vicinity of the site along both sides of Garvey Avenue, which has commercial
buildings located near the street property line. The proposed project will introduce high-density
residential uses to the traditionally commercial land uses, with sporadic mobile home/residential
uses, along Garvey Avenue. This will bring human scale to the character of the neighborhood
with the use of balconies, a pedestrian-friendly outdoor plaza with outdoor seating, landscaping,
water feature, and a public art feature. In staff's opinion, there is a long-term viability for mixed
use projects with high-density residential along the City's arterial streets as future residents will
have pedestrian access to public transportation and neighborhood commercial uses, which
altogether reduce dependency on the automobile. The subject site has access to public
transportation via MTA bus lines, which will help reduce the dependency on the automobile for
future residents.
There are existing multiple-family residential uses 180 feet to the north of the site, and north of
the McDonald's restaurant that will be impacted by the proposed four-story structure. However,
the proposed 29-foot service driveway and the building setbacks will substantially mitigate the
aesthetic imposition of the proposed structure. The proposed development is complementary to
the surrounding uses and has a modern application of a traditional "new urbanism" concept.
The central plaza is a major "place making" amenity that can result in a congregating area for
the larger vicinity.
Overall, staff finds that the addition of this development will increase property values and
improve the general aesthetics of the neighborhood, while providing much needed multi-family
housing, including twelve (12) affordable dwelling units, as well as commercial uses to serve the
daily needs of the existing and future residents of Rosemead.
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Paoe 17 of 31
Site Plan Review
The subject site is a 5.35-acre interior lot with 350 feet of frontage along Garvey Avenue and
approximately 600 feet of lot depth. The proposed four story building will be larger and out of
scale with the existing single story commercial buildings that currently adjoin the site. The
proposed layout of the structure, set back substantially from the street will mitigate the massing
of the structure that is when viewed from the adjoining properties. The largest horizontal
massing of the building will occur on the east and north sides of. the building. The existing
McDonald's Restaurant and non-conforming residential uses on Prospect will be impacted by
the new project. However, the proposed 29-foot setback will mitigate this impact. Additionally, it
is expected that as the larger neighborhood redevelops, new conforming commercial uses will
be introduced that will be more compatible with the type and intensity of the proposed project.
The on-grade parking will be accessible from two, 2-way driveways along Garvey Avenue and
the two ramps leading to subterranean parking will be accessible from this main parking lot. The
circulation pattern for all parking areas is optimal as it allows for continuous traffic flow even if
the parking stalls were to be parked at capacity. The site will have adequate drainage on site,
and a sump pump will be used in order to adequately drain the subterranean parking structure.
The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site
plan shows a central courtyard as the main attraction to the project. All storefronts will directly
front onto this courtyard. The main parking area that fronts on Garvey Avenue will be screened
from view to the street with a low wall, 12 to 16 feet of landscaping and a sloped berm.
Access to the residences is through six separate elevator shafts situated throughout the project
site. The main lobby is proposed at the southernmost portion of the building, along the Garvey
Avenue frontage. Staff will be recommending that a commercial storefront entry be created on
the Garvey Avenue frontage, and that the entries be recessed a minimum of 24 inches. The
basement plan shows storage rooms that can be used for individual compartments for use by
residential occupants of the building.
The site plan shows a total of four on-grade trash enclosures. However, as previously stated the
plan does not provide convenient access to the trash bins for the proposed residences, and staff
is recommending that two "trash chutes", accessible at every residential floor level, be provided
for the condominium residents.
The commercial tenants will have a 28-foot service driveway along the rear of every tenant
space, which will have adequate space to provide the required loading areas for the businesses.
Since the "future" Phase 2 development to the north will entail residential uses, staff is
recommending that all loading and trash pickup be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. daily, to reduce noise impacts upon future residents to the north.
Elevations
The architecture consists of a contemporary vernacular with elements such as textured stucco,
vertical columns with flat and arched cornice trims, round window and "square banding"
accents, smooth granite stone veneer base trim, decorative metal balcony railings, and Terra
Cotta S-tile roofing elements. The street-facing elevations provide both vertical and horizontal
articulation by employing various parapet wall heights and cantilevered building elements to
create interest. The focal point of the building is the arched parapet wall with vertical columns at
the center of the storefront facades, which are oriented towards the center of the site. Staff is
recommending that the storefronts facing Garvey Avenue be enhanced with recessed entries
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Page 18 of 31
and canvas awnings to enhance the pedestrian environment of the project along the public
sidewalk.
The building will be lined with vertical column "pop-outs" on all front, sides and rear of the
building to provide variation. These columns create shadow lines and add interest to the
elevations. Staff is recommending that all cornice trims along the top of the first story be
constructed of pre-cast concrete. The cornice trim above the second, third, and fourth stories
may be of stucco/foam construction. The colored renderings of the elevations are available with
the Planning Division upon request and will be available for public view at the Planning
Commission Meeting on November 5, 2007.
Siqn Program
The applicant has not submitted details for wall signs, or freestanding signs for the proposed
project. The elevation drawings show a rectangular horizontal frame above every storefront
fapade that can be used for wall sign identification for each tenant space. This creates an
attractive area for wall signs to be placed, above each of the storefront entries. Staff
recommends that a comprehensive sign program be submitted to the Planning Division for
review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. The sign program would restrict
wall signs to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum lettering height of 12 inches, and
maximum logo size of 18 inches.
Mixed Use Design Guidelines
On September 25, 2007 the Rosemead City Council adopted the Mixed Use Design Guidelines
for the City, prepared by design firm Downtown Solutions. The Guidelines establish a new set
of design criteria that architects and developers can use in the conceptual planning, and in the
design detailing portion of the entitlement process. The adopted Guidelines, in conjunction with
the anticipated General Plan updates and the City's Zoning Code regulations, will establish the
City's new policies for mixed use development throughout the City.
The proposed development was submitted, and had substantial progress through the City's
review process, prior to the adoption of the Guidelines. However, the project has incorporated
many of the concepts stipulated in the Guidelines in an attempt to conform to City policies. The
following is a brief discussion of the project's compliance with the Guidelines.
42.1 Public Realm and the Pedestrian Environment
The project will provide a seven-foot clear pedestrian path throughout the street frontage of the
proposed development. However, most of the commercial storefronts will be set away from the
public sidewalk and will be oriented towards an urban plaza that is the central focal point of the
project. Most of the pedestrian environment in the public realm will consist of a landscaped
berm screening the parking area. While this configuration is different that what is envisioned in
the City's Guidelines, staff finds that this is an acceptable alternative design given the property's
unique configuration and excessive lot depth. The covered walkways and substantial open
space provided by the central courtyard will create a viable pedestrian environment. The front
residential lobby and the side fapade of the southernmost commercial tenant space will be
designed to create a pedestrian friendly design along the street frontage, as conditioned herein.
Ornamental street trees with metal grates will be required in the public right-of-way.
42.2 Site Design
The project's site layout will create a "street edge" along Garvey Avenue by placing a portion of
the building adjacent to the street property line, consistent with the Guidelines. As conditioned,
the project will provide a storefront along Garvey Avenue, and a residential lobby entrance, that
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Paae 19 of 31
will both have a 24-inch recessed entry and will have a canvas awning to accentuate the human
scale on the ground floor.
52.3A-B Building Design
The project provides active commercial use for the entire commercial building frontage, in the
form of retail and restaurant uses, as encouraged by the Guidelines. Additionally, all residential
uses are located on the upper floors. The fapade treatments are continuous on all elevations
visible to the street and the arched parapet with vertical columns provides a strong focal point,
as encouraged by the Guidelines. All entries to the storefronts will be from a central courtyard
and will have a covered walkway in front of the buildings.
52.3C Building Elements
While there is not a formal "modular bay" transition every 25 feet, the proposed building
provides substantial architectural variation, wall plane relief through the use of vertical support
columns, balconies, tower elements, and architectural projections. The upper floor windows
correlate proportionally to the storefront windows. There is strong accentuation of a base,
middle and top element to the facades with the use of stone veneers, sign bands, cornice trims,
and decorative metal railing.
All building entries are oriented towards the street, or the central courtyard and provide human
scale for the streetscape. Additionally, the project proposes a variety of quality building
materials including textured stucco, stone veneer, concrete tile roofing, and wood trellis
structures in the courtyard and rooftop gardens.
52.4 Building Height
The proposed buildings are four stories in height and the first story is over 14 feet in height,
consistent with the Guidelines. Variations in building height and massing variation has been
incorporated into all building elevations of the structures.
52.5 Storefront
The proposed storefronts provide large windows, a bulkhead, and columns with stone veneer
finish. The covered walkways in front of the businesses will provide enhanced architectural
interest as viewed from the street. The commercial storefront side entry and the residential
lobby facing Garvey Avenue will be recessed 24 inches in depth and will provide canvas
awnings to provide shadow line modulation and human scale.
52.6 Lighting
The plans submitted with this application do not specify any lighting fixtures or light standards in
the parking areas. Staff has conditioned the project to require the applicant to submit a detailed
lighting plan prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures stipulating that all high-
pressure sodium (HIPS) outdoor light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare.
All future light poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent
properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. The developer shall be required to provide
downward-facing designed lamp fixtures, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on
exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual negative impacts to adjoining uses.
52.7 Common Areas/Open Space
As previously indicated the project will provide a 23,033 square foot central courtyard that will
provide an attractive open space amenity for the residents and the retail/restaurant users. The
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Page 20 of 31
courtyard area will serve as a congregation/lounging area for residents with outdoor seating, a
water fountain, trellis covers and a public art feature. Additionally, there will be a 2,390 square
foot "breezeway" that will create a pedestrian connection from the courtyard to the rear of the
property, for the benefit of future residents of the "phase 2" portion of the project.
62.8 Compatibility with Adjoining Properties
The project will be larger in scale and massing than the existing commercial buildings along this
portion of Garvey Avenue. However, since a majority of the building will be set back away from
the street, this will mitigate the project's massing as viewed from the street and will be more
compatible with the existing low-profile buildings in the vicinity.
&2.9 Parking and &2.10 Access
The proposed parking and circulation plan will provide for adequate parking with safe
maneuvering throughout all portions of the vehicular area. There is adequate access in the
form of two driveways, two subterranean parking ramps, and a service driveway into the rear of
the property. The placement of parking to the side and partial front of the building is not entirely
in keeping with the Guidelines. However, this will be mitigated with the use of landscaped
planters with berming and a low masonry wall. The project will continue the "street edge" along
Garvey Avenue and places the architectural features on the street, with parking as a secondary
feature, in order to maximize the street appeal.
Conclusion:
Staff believes that the proposed mixed use project will bring a substantial investment to the
vicinity and will improve existing site conditions which have had an under-utilized site that is
partially vacant and includes a non-conforming mobile home park use that is in need of
reconstruction. The project will create jobs for long-term construction, and future retail sales
and restaurant employees that will benefit Rosemead residents. Additionally, the project will
revitalize this sector of Garvey Avenue and will bring affordable housing opportunities to
Rosemead.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On October 19, 2007 written notices of this public hearing were mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the subject site and eight (8) notices were posted in designated public places and
filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk.
Prepared by:
George Agaba
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Matt Everling
City Planner
Attachments: A. Conditions of Approval
B. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans
C. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program
D. Assessor's Parcel Map
E. Zoning Map
F. General Plan Map
• s
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Page 21 of 31
G. Applications
H. PC Resolution 07-52
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Page 22 of 31
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 07-1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01,
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044
Mixed Use Development
7419-7459 Garvey Avenue
(APN's: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018, and 023)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
November 5, 2007
1. General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-
1090, Planned Development Review 07-01 and Tentative Tract Map 070044 are
approved for the construction of 59,180 square feet of commercial retail/ restaurant
space, and 127 attached dwelling units totaling 144,122 square feet of floor area to be
located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue. The project shall be developed in accordance
with the plans marked Exhibit "B," dated October 25, 2007 along with the submitted
colored elevations and color material dated October 31, 2007. The proposed Zone
Change 07-225 and General Plan Amendment 07-02 shall include 1.67-acre remainder
parcel currently used as a mobile home park site. Any revision to the approved plans
must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division.
2. Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Conditional Use
Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044
shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of
Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all conditions of
approval including mitigation measures as set forth in the letter of approval and this list
of conditions.
3. General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-
1090, Planned Development Review 07-01 and Tentative Tract Map are approved to
develop a mixed use project within two-years from the City Council's approval date. The
Applicant shall request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration of the
initial two-year approval period. Otherwise General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone
Change 05-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01
and Tentative Tract Map 070044 shall become null and void.
4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved
project including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health
Departments.
5. The City Staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction
to monitor progress and after construction to monitor compliance.
6. The Planning Commission and/or City Council hereby authorize the Planning Division to
make or approve necessary minor modification to the approved plans related to this
project.
7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, all school fees and other applicable fees shall be
paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of payment of such
Planning Commission Meeting • •
November 5, 2007
Page 23 of 31
fees.
8. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans
submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review.
9. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have
been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s).
10. Prior to issuance of any building permit related to this project, the developer/applicant
shall prepare Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) or other similar recorded
instrument indicating how and who will maintain proposed common areas. The CC&Rs
shall be prepared by the developer/applicant and approved by the City Attorney and
shall include the following statements: "This statement is intended to notify all
prospective property owners of certain limitations on construction to residential dwellings
contained in this planned development project. All buildings within this project were
designed and approved under a precise plan, planned development (PD) concept. As a
result, some of the project lots and yard areas are smaller than would ordinarily be
allowed under the development standards contained in the Rosemead Zoning Code.
Purchasers of project dwelling units are hereby notified that they will not gain City
approval for any expansion such as room additions, patio enclosures, etc. Any
necessary modifications or additions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
approved or denied by the Community Development Director or his/her designee at
his/her discretion". The CC&Rs will cover all aspects of property maintenance of the
common areas, including but no limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting,
parking stalls, open space and recreational areas.
11. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipments, debris or travel
trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained within City approved trash enclosures. All
trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected and
maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. The proposed trash enclosure
structure shall be built with solid roof and provided with the same architectural elements
as the main building including decorative cornices, decorative trims and contrasting
faoade color.
12. All commercial loading activities and trash pickup for the mixed use project shall be
prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.
13. The applicant shall provide the pedestrian plaza with two shade structures consisting of
all-weather compliant screening material.
14. The project site shall be maintained in a clean, weed/litter free state in accordance with
Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains
to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and
debris. It shall be the responsibility of the subject property.owner to remove any new
litter and graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at
(626) 569-2345 for assistance.
15. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum
character width of/< inches, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from
the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall.be subject to the approval of
the Planning Division.
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Page 24 of 31
16. The parking space markers, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-
striped including double-striping periodically to meet ADA and City standards as
determined by the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Such striping shall be
maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner.
17. 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.
18. 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&Rs prior to issuance of any
building permit.
19. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from public
view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical
equipment attached to the sides of the buildings.
20. During construction of Phase 1, the applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Division
to ensure that access to the existing mobile home park is not impeded in any way. Final
construction plans submitted to the City for approval shall indicate access to the mobile
home park during construction.
21. The proposed development shall consist of one phase. This proposal is approved as
PHASE 1 for development of a mixed use project as shown on the approved plans.
During construction of the proposed mixed use project, the developer shall not disrupt or
relocate the existing mobile home park. Future development of the northern parcel will
require separate entitlements and environmental analysis, including a mobile home park
relocation plan to be prepared and approved by the City of Rosemead per CEQA
guidelines.
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. During site grading, the sites shall be watered at least twice a day to eliminate fugitive
dust.
24. Construction vehicle speed shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour in
construction zones.
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. Wall
signs shall be restricted to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum height of 12
inches, with logos up to 18 inches in height. All wall signs shall be placed flat against
the wall, within the 18-inch horizontal band on the upper portion of the storefront.
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 25 of 31
26. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete
cement as shown on Exhibit "B"; and thereafter maintained in good serviceable
condition.
27. All areas shown as decorative paving at the project entries shall include decorative inter-
locking pavers to enhance pedestrian walkways and to add aesthetic value to the
subject site. The applicant shall extend decorative inter-locking pavers along the
primary entrances 25 feet from the street property line towards the north, as shown on
the submitted plans. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit cut
sheets/brochures to the Planning Division showing colors and materials for approval.
The planning Division shall make a final decision on what colors and materials to be
used before installation of said pavers.
28. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located
away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as
not to be visible from the public right-of-way.
29. The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division
prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include
a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. The new planting
materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted
plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. Ornamental 48"-Box Street trees shall be
planted along Garvey Avenue with tree wells and decorative tree grates. The species of
street trees shall be determined by the Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation
Department. Landscaped planter areas in front of the storefront windows shall be
minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area in order to encourage a
pedestrian friendly environment along the storefronts.
30. Prior to the submittal of construction drawings, the applicant or successor in interest
shall submit proof of a recorded easement for ingress and easement, or a prescriptive
easement, with the adjoining neighbor to the east, over the southerly 265 feet of the
eastern property line. Absence of a recorded easement, or other instrument satisfactory
to the City Engineer for the shared driveway, will require an adjustment to building pads
to comply with minimum on-site driveway width requirements of the Fire Department.
31. The applicant shall include provisions in the CC & R's to provide maintenance of the
basement parking structure, all building improvements, on-grade parking and
landscaping, maintenance of the rear service driveway, and maintenance of the shared
driveway area along the eastern property line, in a manner satisfactory to the Planning
Division, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, will be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium 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.
• •
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paqe 26 of 31
33. The southern-most commercial tenant space abutting Garvey Avenue shall be
redesigned to incorporate a storefront entry along the Garvey Avenue frontage. The
commercial entry and the residential lobby entry directly facing Garvey Avenue shall be
recessed a minimum of 24 inches. All storefront windows facing Garvey Avenue shall
be shaded using a canvas awning, in a color to match the proposed color schemes.
34. A minimum of two trash chutes shall be provided on the second, third, and fourth floors,
in centralized locations accessible to the proposed residential condominium units. All
trash chutes shall be designed to gather trash on the ground floor, or in the basement
level of the subterranean parking structure. The subdivider shall include provisions in
the CC & R's to require regular trash pickup service at least once a week for the
residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant space
trash bins.
35. All cornice trims along the top of the first story of the buildings shall be precast concrete,
painted to match the window trims.
36. As part of the first phase of construction, a temporary 8-foot tall decorative CMU block
wall shall be constructed along the northern boundary line/property line of Phase 1,
except in the shared driveway easement areas, for the purposes of sound attenuation,
privacy, and dust control. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit a temporary wall detail to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. All
construction activities shall avoid damage to the existing improvements within the
adjoining mobile home park. The applicant shall cause the wall to be removed prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1.
37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing a
workstation and half-bathroom within the main residential lobby area for use by a parking
monitor/security guard employee.
38. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a comprehensive
Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Division or designee.
The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC & R's and shall be
enforced by the property owners association. Said Parking Management Plan shall
include, but not be limited to, the following provisions:
• Assigned parking for each residence.
• Designated parking for customers and employees.
• Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking.
• Funding mechanism for staffing of a 24-hour parking monitor/security guard.
• Funding mechanism for maintenance of a workstation with half-bath for the parking
monitor/security guard.
Every homeowner shall be allowed to keep up to two (2) vehicles on the premises. The
parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking
permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Employee, parking shall be
restricted to the subterranean parking structure.
39. All off-street parking shall be designed as shown on the plans submitted with this
application. A maximum of 29% compact parking may be used for the overall parking
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paoe 27 of 31
is
areas. Protective curbing shall be used along the edges of the driveway ramps leading
into the basement areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Division.
40. The conditional use permit is granted or approved with the City of Rosemead and its
Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction
to review and to modify the permit--including the conditions of approval--based on
changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the
modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, for 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 this
conditional use permit.
41. 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.
Mitigation Measure Conditions:
42. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan
for Planning Division review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HIPS) outdoor light
fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall
direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent properties or directs light
into the public right-of-way.
43. All proposed lighting for the exterior of the project shall be directed away from adjacent
residential and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on addressing the
northeast exterior of the property adjacent to residential uses. The developer shall be
required to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of
low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively
minimize residual negative impacts to residents to the north.
44. Heavy truck hauls shall be limited to no more than 97 on any given day
45. A log shall be kept at the site denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during soil
hauling activities. The log shall be available for City of Rosemead inspection.
46. Regarding paints and coatings, all primers and top coats shall average to no more than
0.85 pound per gallon (102 gram/liter) of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).
47. The applicant shall abide by any other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead
and/or the Southern California Air Quality Management District.
48. Monitoring during excavation shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If
paleontological resources are uncovered during site excavation, the developer must
notify the City of Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of Engineering immediately
and work must stop within a 100-foot radius until a, qualified paleontologist has evaluated
the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 28 of 31
sites. If the find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a unique
paleontological resource, as defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code,
the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the
Public Resources Code. If the find is determined not t be a unique paleontological
resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue.
49. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit and,
when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical
investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical
Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised
May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and
City Building Official. That investigation, as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or
engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and
associated details that, when implemented will ensure that the project is constructed in
accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the
recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions
and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those
measures.
50. Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey shall be conducted by a contractor
licensed for asbestos certification. If asbestos is found, contractor recommendations for
safe removal shall be followed during demolition.
51. Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint survey shall be conducted by a
contractor licensed for lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is found,
contractor recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition.
52. At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall
be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction.
53. South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows
do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28.
These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an
airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut.
54. All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g. electrical conduits,
HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight.
Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and
insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting.
55. All residential units within 307 feet and ally commercial units within 104 feet of the
Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in
accordance with the California Uniform Building Code.
56. In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall
occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also
apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site.
57. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise
emissions.
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Pape 29 of 31
58. All construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake
silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped.
59. The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off
of the power grid where feasible. (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise
sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential
receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible).
60. To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those
proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a
partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side
of the property.
61. The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as
on-site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents.
62. Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead
Planning Division.
63. At the time of developing phase 2 mitigations shall include compliance with Section B of
the Mecky Meyers and Associates, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for
the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project, dated June 2006. The applicant shall provide
each mobile home household with $8,000 in relocation benefits, in addition to the
purchase of each mobile home at Fair Market Value as determine by a State licensed
appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced persons upon submission of required
claim forms and documentation regarding the rental or purchase of decent, safe and
sanitary replacement housing.
64. For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, the applicant shall participate in
the fair-share funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of service for
Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This signal is warranted under existing traffic
conditions.
65. For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the applicant shall
participate in fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the
Garvey Avenue eastbound approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year
2025 conditions.
66. For the project access driveways, the applicant shall provide funding for the re-striping of
the existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes
entering the east and west project access driveways.
67. The applicant shall provide funds to install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the
project access driveways.
68. During all construction operations the applicant shall ensure, to the City of Rosemead's
satisfaction, that flagmen will be used to control traffic because large trucks have a wider
turning radius and will require turns across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress
from the site.
69. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for City
• 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Pape 30 of 31
Planning Division review and acceptance, a construction debris reduction/recycling plan
designed to minimize the volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal and
incorporating measures for the separation and short-term on-site storage of construction
waste materials in a manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion efforts. The
plan shall include a fire component so that reclamation activities are conducted in a fire
safe manner.
CITY ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS
70. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are
inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City
Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan
approvals.
71. A final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer
authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed
through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
72. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and
encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is
released for fling with the County Recorder.
73. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required
for a map based on a field survey.
74. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar copy of filed
map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map
by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted by the
developer to the City, which will be refunded upon receipt of, the mylar copy of the filed
map.
75. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City of
Rosemead Municipal Code.
76. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and
specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing
of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful
Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City
Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements.
77. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved
by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
78. Developer shall submit condominium plan to City for approval.
79. Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for
approval.
80. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved
to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City
Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easement
Planning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2007
Paae 31 of 31
81. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage
system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved
drainage easement
82. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed
by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement
83. Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance and SUSMP requirements.
84. CC&Rs shall provide for maintenance of the private driveways and parking areas.
85. Four (4) existing drive approaches on Garvey Avenue shall be closed with full curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
86. Existing tree wells and trees removed due to construction of new driveways shall be
relocated to match existing tree wells and landscaping on Garvey Avenue. New tree
wells shall be evenly spaced, planted with 24-inch box trees, and furnished with an
irrigation system that is consistent with the City's Landscape & Irrigation Plans for
Garvey Avenue.
87. Sewer mainline and laterals shall be privately maintained.. Sewers shall be sized in
accordance with the California Plumbing Code.
88. Power, telephone and cable television service shall be underground where feasible. Any
utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's
expense.
89. Prior to the filling of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a
statement from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the fire Chief's fire flow
requirements.
9 0
E
MAYOR:
JOHN TRAN
MAYOR PRO TEM:
JOHN NUNEZ
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MARGARET CLARK
POLLY LOW
GARY A. TAYLOR
*RT OF ATTACHMENT C
Pos,,emead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
,BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
NOVEMBER 5, 2007
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Rosemead has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the City of Rosemead
Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed Park Monterey mixed use project on November 5
2007 at 7:00 PM, at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead:
CASE NO.: GPA 07-02 CUP 07-1090 PDR 07-01 ZC 07-225 and Tentative Tract Map for Condominiums Purposes - The
City of Rosemead (hereafter referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an Initial Study (IS) of the proposed Park Monterey
Mixed Use Project to be located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue (north of Garvey Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of New
Avenue) in the city of Rosemead, California. The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Rosemead requesting
approval to develop a mixed use project consisting of 127attached condominium units and 59,230 square feet of retail/restaurant
space along with subterranean parking.
E"'VIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a
(cant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in. accordance with the California
E ,olronmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of
Rosemead has concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of
the proposed mitigation measures aimed at addressing the project's potential significant effects and has therefore, prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). 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 not
considered a project of statewide, regional or area wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the
jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation.
Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Division located at 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead, CA 91770,
for public review. Any person wishing to comment on the adequacy of the IS/MND must submit such comments, in writing, to the
City of Rosemead Planning Division, Attn: George Agaba, Senior Planner. Comments must be received within 20-calender days
from October 15, 2007 to November 4, 2007.
The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the IS/MND at its regular meeting on November 5, 2007
at 7:0Opm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. If the Planning
Commission finds that with the incorporated mitigation measures, the proposed mixed use project will not have a significant effect
on the environment; it may recommend the MND to be adopted and the proposed Mixed Use Project to be approved by the City
Council.
This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the proposed Mixed Use Project to be located at 7419-7459 Garvey
Avenue without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in court, the challenge may be limited
to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing date. ORIGINAL FILED
rge Agaba
Senior Planner
OCT 162007
LOSANUELES,COUNTY CLERK
EXHIBIT C
9 0
C
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
for
PARK MONTEREY
Mixed Use Project
Project location: 7419 - 7459 Garvey Avenue
Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA
Lead Agency: City of Rosemead Planning Division
8838 E. Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, CA 91770. Phone (626) 569-2140
Contact: George Agaba, Senior Planner
• Project Applicant: Patrick Yang
529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A
San Gabriel, CA
Architect: Michael Sun
529 E. Valley Blvd., 228-A
San Gabriel, CA
Case# PD-R 07-01
General Plan Amendment 07-02
Zone Change 07-225
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090
Prepared by: Comprehensive Planning Services
P.O. Box 15592
Newport Beach, CA 92659
tel: 949-650-3206; fax: 944-548-6981; email: joannnialcps.com
Contact: Joann Lombardo
Date: October 11, 2007
0
• •
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development 907-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Pursuant to Sections 15050 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
the City of Rosemead is the Lead Agency in preparation of the Initial Study, and any
additional environmental documentation required for this project. Therefore, the City of
Rosemead has prepared this initial study/mitigated negative declaration as a lead agency
for the purpose of identifying and evaluating potential environmental impacts that could
occur as a result of developing the proposed Park Monterey mixed use commercial and
residential project. It is the intent of this environmental document to address, to the
extent possible, potential significant environmental impacts that could be expected from
this project and identification of mitigation measures where applicable.
This initial study will serve to identify and evaluate environmental effects determine to •
be potentially significant and the level of environmental analysis required to adequately
prepare and adopt applicable environmental document such as Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report in compliance with
CEQA guidelines. The initial study will also provide the basis for input from members of
the public and public agencies.
The initial study includes an environmental checklist that gives an overview of possible
potential impacts to the environment that may result from the project implementation as
well as answers contained in the environmental checklist providing justification for the
provided environmental issues addressed in the environmental checklist.
1.2 LOCATION
The proposed project encompasses a 3.68-acre site located at 7419 - 7459 Garvey
Avenue in the City of Rosemead. The site is bordered to the south by Garvey Avenue
and is located between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The site is located
approximately 2.0 miles west of the Rio Hondo River, within the Repetto Hills at
approximately 350 feet above mean sea level. Refer to Figure L I Location Map.
The site is located in a residential area with commercial structures located along the
major roadways within the vicinity of the site. The site is currently occupied by vacant
land, two of mobile homes, one mobile home pad, and a commercial structure. The
vacant land is located on the southwestern portion and the central and northern areas of •
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 1 of 91
•
•
0
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change 907-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
the site. Photographs of the existing setting of the site are presented in Figure 1.2 Site
Photographs.
3 tlro ji 4i t
,
# b
i
EGlendcn waay
W Saxon Ave
i
l
~l
q
t :?Y 1- M1'
~
N
~ ~
G
re L
a
Whamore St ;
a
c,~t
1 ; 3
p
4.
I Monterey Park E Garrey Ave
Jo~
Garvey
Av , tK
youth.
'
pp
m ~ ! E_Edoely LA
; E NEI•lmark Ave
, i + ' ; Weu'mark AVe f i
.
j
t p,S i G
~ il
V
~ i ~
t (tn
F 2bj N!
r
vt-} N -
ng AvBi u n 5
;3
3
rv
E
i
,
a
E Gray.:S Ave braves Ave
p
[ E hl
G oeney Or
a
~
y ,
y
C9
~
LBkc
Kn Apr
,.of ' o Reservoir, legner or
Figure 1.1 Location Map
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 2 oj91
City or Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
West end of site, viewed from south
side of Garvey Avenue looking
north. Site mobile homes (on right),
adjacent Rent A Tool (on left).
West and central portion of site,
viewed from south side of Garvey
Avenue looking north. Site mobile
homes (on left), site vacant site area
(on right).
Central and east end of site, viewed
from south side of Garvey Avenue
looking north. Site vacant area (on
left), Bravo Travel (on right).
E
•
Figure 1.2 Site Photographs •
(1 of 3)
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 3 of 91
•
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07.02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
East end of site viewed from south
side of Garvey Avenue looking north
at Bravo Travel.
•
East end of site viewed from south
side of Garvey Avenue looking
north. Bravo Travel (on left),
adjacent McDonald's (on right).
View onsite, looking south toward
Garvey Avenue. Bravo Travel (on
left), vacant site area (on right).
•
1 Figure 1.2 Site Photographs
(2 of 3)
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 4 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
View onsite, looking southwest
toward Garvey Avenue. Site mobile
homes (on right).
View onsite, looking north toward
adjacent mobile homes.
View onsite, looking northeast
toward rear of McDonald's parking
and adjacent residential area.
•
11
Figure 1.2 Site Photographs
(2 of 3)
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 5 of 91
0
u
•
0
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
The subject property is currently known as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 5286-020-
017 and 018 per Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll. The southern portion of
the site is zoned "C3" for Medium Commercial usage, and the northern portions of the
site are zoned "P" for short-term automobile parking.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On March 26, 2007, Mr. Patrick Yang (Applicant) submitted Planned Development #07-
01, General Plan Amendment 407-02, Zone Change #07-225 and a Conditional Use
Permit #07-1090 application requesting approval to develop a mixed use development in
the City of Rosemead. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead
Planning Commission may recommend for approval to the City Council the proposed
Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications. The
General Plan and Zone Changes will require approval of a General Plan Amendment to
change the site from commercial to mixed use commercial/residential and a proposed
zone change from C-3 (General Commercial) to zone change to Planned Development
(PD). These changes would permit construction of the mixed use project, which is
proposed as a mix of restaurant, retail, and residential condominium uses. Construction
is anticipated in 2008.
The proposed Park Monterey project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of
Garvey Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of
Rosemead. The planned development would be located on 160,434 square feet (3.68
acres). The proposed project consists of a four-story structure comprised of 59.230 square
feet of the proposed mixed restaurant and retail space at ground level and 127 residential
condominium units on three upper levels. Access to the proposed project will be
provided via three driveways along Garvey Avenue.
The project is intended as the first phase of a two phase development. Phase two is
expected to consist of approximately 29 condominium units to be located on the 1.67 acre
site, immediately north of the project site. The phase two site is currently occupied by a
mobile home park, currently owned by the Applicant. During project construction, the
Applicant plans to demolish and remove the adjoining mobile homes, after which, that
site will be used for construction staging for the Park Monterey project, particularly
during excavation of the parking structure. Clearing of the adjoining mobile home park
is considered part of the Park Monterey project. However, plans for the phase two
development on the 1.67 acre mobile home park site are preliminary only; no detailed
plans describing site and building development and design have been submitted to the
City. Therefore, the phase two component is not part of the Park Monterey project, and
will be subject to a separate CEQA review.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 6 of 91
• 0
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change 007.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Restaurant and Retail Use
Of the 59,230 square feet of proposed mixed restaurant and retail space, 17,830 square
feet is proposed restaurant space and 41,400 square feet is proposed as retail space. This
commercial space is proposed at ground level. The ground-level site plan is shown as
Figure 1.3.
Except for a 29-foot wide access roadway, the restaurant and retail spaces would align
the eastern and northern borders of the property. Thirteen rectangular retail spaces would
range from 1,340 square feet up to 13,870 square feet of useable space. Two rectangular
restaurant spaces would be 4,860 and 6,310 square feet. The restaurant spaces are larger
(3,890 to 13,870 square feet) retail spaces would align the northern end of the property.
CI
L~
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 7 of 91
City of Rosemead
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change #07-225
_
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
•
r-~ y
II la , -
I J to §
I~ z~ l•L~ j~ uav.~. t SF
r.
aCh Y" t
h~
0 164
x -
A _j_ g G II 9
< ..f I Q a: i t
:
j I ~ tRS; n t ii cd
!i
III , S
{4
Figure 1.3 Ground-Level Site Plan
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 9 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Residential Use
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
The residential portion of the project is planned as a 3-story structure, to be built above
the ground level restaurant and retail spaces. Proposed are 127 residential
condominiums, comprised of 30 one-bedroom, 94 two-bedroom, and 6 three-bedroom
units are planned. The breakdown of number units by type, square footage, and number
of units by floor is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONFIGURATION
...4
t2 BR
3'BR,
'Total"
~
Type
A
B
C
D
E
F
-
Square Feet
855
1,205
1,355
1,205
1,660
1,388
Second Floor
10
26
3
2
1
1
43
Third Floor
10
26
3
2
1
1
43
Fourth Floor
10
26
2
1
1
1
41
Total Units
30
78
11
5
3
3
127
Total Floor Area
(square feet)
25,650
93,990
10,840
6,025
4,980
4,164
145,649
The second floor site plan is shown in Figure 1.4.
Access and Parking
Access to the site would be from three 29-foot wide driveways along Garvey Avenue.
The east driveway would provide delivery access to the backs of the restaurant and retail
spaces, and would meet the west driveway, providing access along all property borders.
The middle and west driveways would provide access to the parking areas, including the
ramps to two basement parking levels. The west driveway would restrict left-turns
exiting the site, the center driveway would provide right-turn in/right-turn out access
only, and the east driveway would provide full access.
CJ
11
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 9 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone. Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
, j r-
~ J C
•
•
E6
I~
6:
Figure 1.4 Second Floor Residential Site Plan
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 10 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
The project proposes to provide 662 parking spaces at ground level and within a two-
level subterranean parking structure. Ground level parking would be in front of the
restaurant and retail spaces. The proposed parking breakdown is shown in Table 2:
Table 2
PROPOSED PARKING CONFIGURATION
,
R k Y<_ ff?
ia~ "L F1(
eStandard +fp
S ,-'m ae -2w~ t
Co act
1^.s'ti 3a
Halidica ed
"F
TutalK,.910 19
Surface Parkin
45
39
0
84
Basement 1
201
78
8
287
Basement 2
205
78
8
291
Total
451
195
16
662
Of the 662 parking spaces, 254 will be reserved exclusively for the residents, and the
remainder will be used in common for the resident guests, retail and restaurant uses. A
shared parking concept is proposed that assumes some portion of the residents will use
the restaurant and retail shops within the site, and consequently, sufficient parking would
be available for multiple uses. Adequacy of the proposed parking arrangement is
discussed in Appendix D, Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering
Group (August 15, 2007), and summarized in Section 15. 1) of this Initial Study. The first
level subterranean parking is shown in Figure 1.5.
Ornamental landscaping of trees of shrubs will border the frontages to the street-level
retail establishments and parking. Two plaza areas would be provided; one that would
front Garvey Avenue, and the second that would front the retail establishments along the
northeast corner of the property.
Height
The building height is proposed at 50 feet, with the height of the tallest decorative tower
roof line proposed at 61 feet. See Figures 1.6 and 1.7 Elevations.
Architecture
The Architecture will be a contemporary blend of individual-appearing 4-story buildings
separated by vertical flat columns, enhanced by treatments including arched and inverted
"V" roofline accents, arched windows, and various size balconies. The roof will be
Aztec gold terra-cotta tile, and the stucco paint colors will be warm earth tones of
doeskin, creamed butter, western red, Sonora shade, garnet, cashew not, with carnelian
granite accenting the first floor restaurant retail doors and windows.
•
•
LJ
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 11 of 91
•
EJ
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
Construction
•
•
The Applicant owns the adjoining unit mobile home park immediately north of the
project site. During project site clearing and demolition, the Applicant plans to demolish
and remove the adjoining mobile homes, after which, that site will be used for
construction staging for the Park Monterey project construction, in particular, during
excavation of the subterranean parking structure. Clearing of the adjoining mobile home
park is considered part of the Park Monterey project.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 12 of 91
• 0
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit 91090
i
D 74 F
4 -
I
,
-
=g i
r. -
4 -1 H
m
Figure 1.5 Subterranean Parking Plan
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 13 of 91
C
•
•
City of Rosemead • initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
•
`
p9p
5
I
a
M
~
~ i
(
~
~
I
1
.
- -G
g
I
k
p
I
I
1
t'
I
J
I
i
v
q
=
s
i
a
a
-
E
I
a
u
f4
1
1
JJ
Figure 1.6 West and South Site Elevations
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project - Page 14 of 91
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
ky
i
I
3
1
t
`
7I
~
1
I
~
-
1
I
f
1
~
'
'
I
'
1
I
1
-
~
III
'
ee
i
9
+
6
I
j
~
I
b
a
I
I
EEI
1
G
I
~
1
'
-G
I
1
`
!
I~
~
t
I
1
i
I
1
f
7
=
I -
_
~
A
yy
N
y
Figure 1.7 North and East Site Elevations
•
•
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 15 of 91
C
•
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Miti d Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Introduction/ Project Description
1.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead and all other responsible,
trustee or regulatory agencies to evaluate the project's potential environmental impacts
and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce any possible impacts, if any, to
less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Public Resources Code and California Code of
Regulations) Section § 21000 - 21177. Additionally, in order to implement this project,
City of Rosemead Planning Commission may recommend for approval to the City
Council the Planned Development # 07-01, General Plan Amendment 407-02, Zone
Change #07-225, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 applications. The decision shall be
based partly on the findings of this initial study, which. will provide a basis for the City
Council to make the environmental determination and reach a final decision.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 16 of 91
C
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
0
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Existing Setting
Project site and surrounding property General Plan and Zoning designations, and existing
land uses are as follows:
General Plan
Zoning
Existing Land Use
Site
Commercial
C3
Vacant on SW, central and northern
areas; commercial building on SE
North
Medium Density Residential
C3
Mobile homes
South
Commercial
C3
Commercial uses
East
Commercial
C3
Commercial uses
West
Commercial
C3
Commercial uses
The project site lies on the southwest side of the City of Rosemead, almost bordering the
City of Monterey Park. Currently, the site is occupied by vacant land located on the
southwestern portion and most central area of the site. Two mobile homes and a mobile
home pad are located on the southwestern portion of the site. A small commercial
structure is located in the southeastern corner of the site. An existing mobile home park
is located immediately north of the project site. The immediate neighborhood is
residential developed with single family and some multi-family homes. Commercial uses
front Garvey Avenue, as well as the areas other major streets including New Avenue to
the west and Prospect Avenue to the east.
The City of Rosemead is a suburb town within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10
miles east of down town Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by Temple City, on the
west by the City of San Gabriel and City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, on
the south by the City of Montebello and on the east by the City of El Monte. The City of
Rosemead is approximately 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of
approximately 57,425 as of 2007.1 Residential development represents 64 percent of the
total City land area, public facilities occupy 14 percent, commercial development
Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: htlv'//dof ca -ov/IITML1DLM0GRAP
•
is
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 17 of 91
•
•
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mind Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Existing Setting
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
occupies 9 percent, mixed commercial/residential uses occupy 7 percent, and light
industrial/office occupies 6 percent.
The adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines are directed exclusively at Mixed Use land
use districts.Z At a later date, the City will be updating the zoning ordinance to regulate
mixed use projects, including required parking ratios, minimum unit sizes, open space,
maximum density requirements and various other development standards required for
more specificity of development standards.
• z http://N u~.citvofrosemcad.orWPortals/o%roscmcad mixed-use DG-sml.odf
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 18 of 91
• •
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Protect
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Existing Setting
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed mixed use project would not
result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by
substantial evidence provided in this document.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Mineral Resources
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities/Services Systems
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Hydrology[Witter Quality
❑
Noise
❑ Air Quality
❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Land Use/Planning
❑ Population/Housing
❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier FIR or
Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier E1R or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
George Agaba, Senior Planner
Signed Date
•
•
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Pmject Page 19 of 91
City of Rosemead - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
SECTION 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact". answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site' as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier
•
Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6)
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
9)
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
•
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 21 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
L , 4°r 5..,~s
ess Thanv e,- N
r'.sS ''tee wa r ra
Potentially*~StgnficantLes Thane
n 3 a ~ , ' Stgnificant nWtth Significant ~y -No
c Environmental Issues k a.Impact Mt6gatton Impact Impactry
~ ~•..R's~-w~~.r`' G't..' g~"t' r w an.3y~T'r7s=+~~ ~
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ® ❑ ❑
views in the area?
AESTHETICS
a) No impact. The site is located within a highly developed urban setting characterized by
commercial low-rise (up to four stories) structures along major streets, and single and multi-
family residential uses along the minor streets. The predominant scenic vista near the
proposed project location is located north of the project site and environs which contains
foothills and high mountains of the San Gabriel Range (Transverse Ranges), encompassed by
the Angeles National Forest, north of City of Pasadena. However, the site is approximately
8.5 miles south of the National Forest boundary, and the mountains are primarily visible in
the distance from exterior locations, such as north-south oriented streets, large parks, or
north-facing upper stories of buildings. The opportunity for viewing the mountains from
inside the single-story buildings west and south of the project site is already limited by
existing roof lines, trees over 10 feet high, existing buildings and other built environment
even before construction of the proposed structure. Therefore, the proposed building will not
alter or further limit views from surrounding properties to the mountains. Public views would
be largely unaffected, because mountain views would still be available from streets such as
New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue facing north. Consequently, the proposed project will not
affect scenic vistas.
b) No impact. The proposed project will not affect any scenic resources, as there are no
known scenic recourses on site or within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not
located on or near a state-designated or eligible scenic highway 3. Furthermore, the site
i see http:/hvww.dot.ca.gov/hq/LmdArch/scenic/cahisys.htin, last accessed August 23, 2007.
•
•
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 22 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Miti a ed Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit 111090
contains no listed or otherwise designated historic or scenic resources. Consequently, the
proposed project will not affect scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic
highway.
c) No Impact. The proposed project site is currently primarily vacant, with two mobile homes
and a commercial structure. The site will be a contemporary blend of individual-appearing 4-
story buildings separated by vertical flat columns, enhanced by treatments including arched
and inverted "V" roofline accents, arched windows, and various size balconies. The roof will
be Aztec gold terra-cotta tile, and the stucco paint colors will be warm earth tones of doeskin,
creamed butter, western red, Sonora shade, gamet, cashew not, with camelian granite
accenting the first floor restaurant retail doors and windows. The structure will be set back
from the street with a plaza area along Garvey and some parking in front of the ground-level
establishments. Most parking will be via two subterranean levels, and thus not visible.
Ornamental landscaping will enhance the appearance of the structure. The proposed project
will utilize materials and design that will blend in with the existing commercial uses along
Garvey Avenue. The project will provide a beneficial improvement of the existing degraded
character of the project site. As such, the project will not degrade the visual character of the
site or the surroundings properties.
• d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project may create a new
source of light because along with night lighting for the restaurant and retail establishments
along the ground level, there will be lighting associated with the second through fourth floors
of residential units. Exterior lighting is proposed for the building fagades and the exterior
parking lot. Although, the proposed development will introduce new lighting at the exterior
of the buildings and in the parking lot, the lighting is minimal and less than significant not to
create a new source of light and glare to the surrounding properties or affect day and
nighttime views, since most of the lighting will face Garvey Avenue. The existing mobile
homes to the north will be demolished as part of the site preparation for the proposed project.
Existing residential uses to the northeast will be subject to an increase in lighting from the
four-story structure, resulting in a potentially significant impact. To reduce this potentially
significant impact, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 are recommended for inclusion to
the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to visual
resources to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measures:
AES-1: Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting
• plan for Planning Division review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HPS) out door
light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 23 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 - Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent properties or directs light into
the public right-of-way.
AES-2: All proposed lighting for the exterior of the project shall be directed away from
adjacent residential and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on addressing the
northeast exterior of the property adjacent to residential uses. The developer shall be required
to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure
sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual
negative impacts to residents to the north.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential adverse impacts from the
proposed project relative to the above-listed aesthetic issues are expected to be reduced to
less than significant levels.
a - c) No impact. There are no known agricultural resources present at this subject site area
or adjacent to the project site. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses and the City
does not participate in the Williamson Act, the entire City is almost built out. Therefore, this
project would not affect any agricultural resources. The city is highly urbanized and all
properties zoned for agriculture are not currently utilized for farmland purposes. Such
0
C J
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 24 of 91
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
City of Rosemead •
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial StudylMPgat d Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
properties consist of open spaces, vacant lots, parkland, nurseries and school grounds. The
proposed project will not create potential impacts to agricultural resources on the subject
property or within the vicinity.
•
Lit v -XI
'~v5~'' `rtfi'~C`°.bi'.j yLess{Tha~N*R11`~9~~s: °67P~5
xw d' 2~ a r.'~. t F^c k # "'Y.S ""i"~ x v'" r?p![`v t ax k r `sx `F+aa 3 'h. " °
AR Potenhally tStgmficantt Less~Than'~ " +js~,fi
rit" 40'
~ gEnvronm ntal ss ~ 9m actnt jM Wahon ~9rn ac
IMW:rl
a wc~ $ t Ax' rd,{. a'fi4 c ~ K' d sn , s v ~ r E ~ l n" 7^<n1 9'12 ~{s( T~I'~'SE!!i ^~w~i'
Whereavattable,the~sigriifi,~cance~cnreri~ a esrt~ab l~ edrby~the apzplrcable aerrt,q~rahry m~n~agemen7oxr air#,.
¢ w pallunon control dutrtct may, be relied upontto make thefollowrng determtnahons „ ~x~ ~'*ct1~"~
~ '+5 ~ .r,~ ~ .sh+'k4~"''~iTv` S s~$'~°R"+~`Alux m t ^w!x i Id s ~ i' r ~ n• 461''[x(`+" a pW ft~
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ® ❑
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ® ❑ ❑
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial number of people?
3. AIR QUALITY
An air quality technical report (Air Quality Report) was prepared for the project and is
included in Appendix A, Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Focused Air Quality Analysis, by
Synectecology Consulting (September 2007).4
No Impact. The City of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and
east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is
managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area
where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the
violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean
•
Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Air Quality Analysis. September 2007.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 25 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 - Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve
the standards.
The SCAQMD prepares the basin's air quality management plans with technical and policy
inputs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resource
Board (CARB), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), updating
the plans every three years. The most recently plan is the 2007 Draft AQMP. This plan is the
South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The proposed project represents the construction and occupancy of a mixed use development
in the City of Rosemead.- The project would not involve growth-inducing impacts or cause an
exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, with the included
mitigation discussed below, the project would not create either short- or long-term significant
quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, the project would not result in significant
localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and
in this respect does not present a significant impact.
b) Less than Significant Impact CEQA inquires as to whether a project would violate any
air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
A violation could occur over the short-term during project construction, or over the long-term
during its subsequent operation. Each is addressed below.
Short-Term Localized Impacts
Project construction raises localized ambient pollutant concentrations. Construction air
quality impacts are considered significant if they exceed any of the following thresholds that
have been established by SCAQMD to measure construction emissions. Each of the
thresholds represents a daily maximum of acceptable pollutant emissions during the
construction periods:
• 75 pounds per day for ROG
• 100 pounds per day for NOx
• 550 pounds per day for CO
• 150 pounds per day for PM1o
55 pounds per day for PM2.5
• 55 pounds per day of PM2 5
• 150 pounds per day of SOx
s ROG (reactive organic gases); NOx (oxides of nitrogen); CO (carbon monoxide); PM-10 (respirable 10-micron diameter
particulate matter); PM-2-5 (respirable 2.5-micron diameter particulate matter. SOx (oxides of sulfur).
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 26 of 91
•
•
E
•
City of Rosemead •
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change 907-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mltied Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
The potential for this construction air quality impacts are measured through dispersion
modeling performed in accordance with the SCAQMD criteria. The modeling measures peak
daily emissions for CO, NOx, PMto, and PM2.5 to determine their concentration and
contribution to the ambient concentrations within the project vicinity. The analysis makes
use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology (Methodology).6 In accordance with the Methodology, dispersion modeling is
only to include exhaust and dust emissions associated with those pieces of equipment that
actually operate on-site and omits vehicle trips that are distributed over a large area.
In the Methodology, the SCAQMD notes receptor locations as "off-site locations where
persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include
residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas; and any other areas where persons can
be situated for an hour or longer at a time." Because the project area is urbanized with
numerous nearby receptors, the recommended SCAQMD worst-case default distance of 25
meters was used for this analysis.
•
Table 3 presents the State Ambient Air Quality Standards for daily on-site construction
emissions, and a determination of the project's expected compliance with these standards.
Note that all emissions concentrations are well within their respective threshold values and
the impact is less than significant.
Table 3
LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CONCENTRATIONS'
e 'Dtsta ce
I CO~(1`Hr=`
-NCO (S HrZ
N02 (1 Hr
e PM1o (24~H 2
k Mzs (24' Hr
a.:Concx
#°r~.Conc
Conc.
ConC L
"
Conc "
State Ambient Air
20 ppm
9.0 ppm
0.25 ppm
10.4 pg/m'
10.4 Vg/m'
Qualityy Standard
Exceeds Standard?
No
No
No
No
No
' CO and NOa are in parts per million (ppm), PM,o and PM2s are in milligrams per meter cubed
(pg/rn')•
z Includes a background concentration of 5 ppm.
] Includes a background concentration of 3.6 ppm. -
° Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm.
Long-Term Localized Impacts
•
Long-term effects of the project could also be significant if they exceed the State Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Long-term or operational project emissions are caused by project
building heating and electrical systems and vehicular traffic traveling to and from the project
site. These air quality impacts are considered significant if they exceed any of the following
' South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 27 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project -
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
thresholds that have been established by SCAQMD to measure long-term or operational
emissions. Each of the thresholds represents a daily maximum of acceptable pollutant
emissions:
• 55 pounds per day of ROG
• 55 pounds per day ofNOx
• 550 pounds per day of CO
• 150 pounds per day of PM,o
• ,55 pounds per day of PM25
• 150 pounds per day of Sox
Unlike construction equipment that generates exhaust and dust in a set area, the primary
source of emissions from project operations is due to the addition of vehicles on the roadway
system. These emissions are then spread over a vast area and do not result in localized
concentrations in proximity to the project site. As such, localized modeling for the project
operations is not prepared for residential or limited commercial development.
Because CO is the criteria pollutant that is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle •
combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, long-term adherence to
Ambient Air Quality Standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO
concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO
called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are
reduced and idle time is increased. These pockets of CO have the potential to exceed the
State ambient air quality 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm.
Typically for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at
level of service (LOS) D or worse. Table 4 presents those intersections in the project area
that meet or exceed LOS D and would receive project-related traffic.
To demonstrate the potential for hot spots, CALINE4 modeling was performed using the
procedures outlined in the Caltrans' Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol. Intersection movements are based on data included in the Traffic Study
(Appendix D) and include ambient growth, the project, and the related projects.
Modeling was performed using year 2009 traffic volumes and emission factors. As a
reasonable worst-case, the analysis assumes the retention of the existing intersection
alignments and does not consider those measures outlined in the traffic analysis to
improve traffic flow through the project area. Note that all predicted values are •
below the State's 1 and 8-hour standards and any potential impact is less than
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 28 of 91
E
City of Rosemead •
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/M0gat d Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
significant. Therefore, the project would not have a long-term significant impact on
local air quality or result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unhealthful
concentrations of CO. Modeling methodology and output are included in the Air
Quality Report.
Table 4
CO MICROSCALE ANALYSIS'
Cumulative With Project Year 2009
Del Mar (a, Garvey (p.m.) D 4,114 7.6 5.4
Cumulative With Project Year 2025
New Hellman (a.m.)
D
2,566
5.6
4.0
New Garvey (a.m.)
D
4,013
5.8
4.2
Del Mar Garvey (.m.)
E
4,777
5.9
4.2
CAAQS
20
9.0
Exceeds Standard?
No
No
' As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value.
CO values include background concentrations of 5.0 and 3.6 ppm for 1- and 8-hour concentrations.
Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence factor of 0.7 of the 1-hour concentration.
• c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigafion.'CEQA inquires as to whether a project
would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).7 This increase could occur during project construction, or its subsequent
operation. Each is addressed below.
Site Construction
Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction
activities required to implement the proposed land uses. Major sources of emissions during
construction include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive
dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition, excavation, and
grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving and
painting of the structures.
At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily CO,) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria
• for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any
potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible, the Air
Quality Study includes an analysis which quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated
with the proposed development.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 29 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
The project site includes approximately 3.68 acres of land. Demolition activities would
encompass approximately 10,000 square feet of existing structures. Additionally, 30 mobile
homes located on the parcel to the immediate north could be removed during this phase to
make room for equipment staging. Based on the URBENUS20078 default construction
schedule, the URBEMIS model estimates demolition at approximately 15 working days. In
consideration of demolition, the URBEMIS model is predicated on a structure being removed
and calculates truck haul trips accordingly. Based on an area of 10,000 square feet, and a
height of 10 feet, approximately 926 cubic yards of material would be removed from the
project site. Assuming that each truck has a capacity of 20 cubic yards, 46 truck trips would
be produced over the 15-day period, or about 3.1 trips per day on average. The mobile homes
to the north would in all probability also be demolished on-site and their remains removed.
Once disassembled (or crushed), they, and any associated foundation work, would take little
space. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that demolition, including the on-site
structures and off-site mobile homes, could be accommodated with four truck trips per day.
Demolition equipment is as projected by the URBEMIS2007 model and includes an
industrial saw, a dozer, and two loaders.
Grading and in this case, excavation typically occurs after demolition. The URBEMIS model •
estimates that 25 percent of the site is graded on any given day. Based on the number of
residential units and proposed square footage for the commercial structures, the model,.
estimates the site at 4.7 acres and assumes that 25 percent of this area (i.e., 1.18 acres) is .
disturbed on a daily basis during grading activities. This analysis recognizes that the site
encompasses just 3.68 acres and that accordingly 0.92 acre would be disturbed daily, but
defers to the more conservative model default of 1.18 acres daily. By default, the model then
assigns a grader, a dozer, a loader, and a water truck to carry out the grading.
Excavated soil would be hauled from the site. Assuming that the two-story-deep parking
structure has an area of about 2.7 acres and a depth of 20 feet (i.e., 10 feet per level),
approximately 87,120 cubic yards of material would be hauled from the site requiring
approximately 4,356 truck trips or about 145 trips per day over a period of about 30 days.
SCAQMD Rule 403 governs fugitive dust emissions from construction projects. This rule
sets forth a list of control measures that must be undertaken for all construction projects to
ensure that no dust emissions from the project are visible beyond the property boundaries.
Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as such, does not denote mitigation under CEQA.
a Projected air emissions are calculated using the Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007) distributed by the SCAQMD. •
The URBEMIS model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic. For the purposes of this analysis,
construction is estimated at one year while site operations are expected to begin in 2008.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 30 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Miti• d Negative Declaration
Planned Development 1107-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
• Conditional Use Permit 111090
The included analysis assumes the use of the minimal measures specified in Rule 403 that
overlap between the Rule and the URBEMIS model. These include:
• Soil stabilizers shall be applied to all disturbed, inactive areas,
• Ground cover shall be quickly applied in all disturbed areas,
• The active construction site shall be watered twice daily,
• Stockpiles shall be covered with tarps, and
• Unpaved haul roads shall be watered twice daily.
In actuality, Rule 403 specifies several measures that the URBEMIS model does not consider
so the modeled PMio and PM2.5 emissions associated with fugitive dust are considered as
conservative.
Subsequent to excavation and grading, the parking areas would be installed and paved with
asphalt. By default, the model estimates that asphalt paving would occur over an area of 1.18
acres (i.e., 25 percent of the site based on the model's default assumption of 4.7 acres).
However, this analysis assumes that 7 acres would be paved (including both surface and
. subterranean parking and URBEMIS assigns a paver, a piece of paving equipment, a roller, a
loader, and four mixers to the task estimated by the model at 10 days.
The construction of the structures follows the paving and is estimated by the model at 170
working days. URBEMIS projects its emissions based on a crane, two forklifts, a loader, a
generator, and three welders being used on an average day.
Finally, paint is added in the last stages of construction. The major source of emissions
associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The
model estimates the painting phase at 20 days.
Table 5 summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. Note that NOx
emissions, primarily from the hauling of excavated materials, and ROG emissions, primarily
from the use of paints and coatings, both have the potential to exceed their respective
threshold values, at least during a potion of the construction effort, representing a potentially
significant impact.
11
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project . Page 31 of 91
LJ
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment 007-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
Table 5
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION
Demolition, 15 Da s
C
Fugitive Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.61
0.00
3.61
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.00
Demo Off Road
Diesel
1.31
8.68
4.91
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.68
0.00
0.62
0.62
700.30
Demo On Road Diesel
0.35
4.42
1.82
0.00
0.02
0.20
0.22
0.01
0.18
0.15
394.41
Demo Worker Trips
0.04
0.08
1.24
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.45
Demolition Totals
1.70
13.18
7.97
0.00
3.64
0.88
4.52
0.76
0.80
1.52
1,219.16
Fine Grading, 30 Da
is
Fine Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.49
0.00
3.49
0.45
0.00
0.45
0.00
Fine Grading Off
Road Diesel
3.31
28.00
13.56
0.00
0.00
1.41
1.41
0.00
1.30
1.30
2,247.32
Fine Grading On Road
Diesel
8.47
107.42
44.19
0.12
0.41
4.85
5.26
0.13
4.47
4.60
12,308.3
2
Fine Grading Worker
Trips
0.04
0.08
1.24
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.45
Fine Grading Totals
11.82
135.50'
58.99
0.12
2.58
6.26
40.17
30.58
35.77
36.35
14,710.09
Asphalt Paving. 10 Days
Paving Off-Gas
1.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Paving Off Road
Diesel
2.99
17.76
9.40
0.00
0.00
1.54
1.54
0.00
1.41
1.41
1,272.04
Paving On Road
Diesel
1.10
13.89
5.71
0.01
0.05
0.63
0.68
0.02
0.58
0.60
1,591.53
Paving Worker Trips
0.08
0.15
2.49
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
248.89
Asphalt Totals
6.00
31.80
17.60
0.01
0.06
2.18
2.24
0.02
2.00
2.02
3,112.46
Building Construction, 170 Days
Building Off Road
Diesel
4.07
1822
11.80
0.00
0.00
1.33
1.33
0.00
1.22
122
1,621.20
Building Vendor Trips
0.57
6.55
5.08
0.01
0.04
0.30
0.33
0.01
0.27
0.28
1,023.89
Building Worker Tri s
0.54
0.99
16.10
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.06
1,609.69
.
Building Totals
5.18
25.76
32.98
0.03
0.12
1.67
1.78
0.04
1.53
1.56
4,254.78
Coating, 20 Days
Architectural Coating
103.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Coating Worker Trips
0.10
0.18
2.98
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
318.68
Coating Totals
103.20
0.18
2.98
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
318.69
SCAQMD Daily
Threshold
75
100
550
150
4
150
4
55
NTz
Exceeds Threshold?
Yes
Yes
No
No
4
4
No
j
4
No
No
•
Bold values indicate a potentially significant impact.
Z NT - No Threshold.
To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures AQ1 through AQ-4 are
recommended for inclusion to the project. These mitigation measures are expected to reduce •
project impacts relative to air quality to less than significant levels:
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 32 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mind Negative Declaration
Planned Development i107-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change 1107.225
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
Mitigation Measures:
Construction is anticipated to create significant NOx and ROG emissions, primarily
associated with the hauling of soil and application of paints and coatings, and mitigation is
warranted to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Applicable mitigation is
included below:
AQ-1: NOx Emissions. Heavy truck hauls shall be limited to no more than 97 on any given
day.
AQ-2. NOx Emissions. A log shall be kept at the site denoting heavy truck traffic that enters
the site during soil hauling activities. The log shall be available for City of Rosemead
inspection.
AQ-3. Paints and Coatings. All primers and top coats shall average no more than 0.85 pound
per gallon (102 gram/liter) VOC.
AQ-4. Miscellaneous. The Applicant shall abide by any other measures as approved by the
• City of Rosemead and/or SCAQMD.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential adverse impacts from the
proposed project relative to the above-listed construction emission issues are expected to be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Residual Impacts:
NOx Emissions
The URBEMIS model estimates that the removal of soil from the excavation of the
subterranean parking area would require 145 trucks per day over a period of 30 days. These
trucks would produce 107.42 pounds of NOx per day. The requirement that no more than 97
truckloads of material be hauled would reduce these NOx emissions to 71.86 pounds per day
(i.e., 97 / 145 x 107.42 pounds). When added to the 28.00 pounds per day for the
construction equipment and the 0.08 pound per day from the worker vehicles, the total is
calculated at 99.94 pounds per day and would not exceed the 100 pounds per day threshold
value. The impact is then reduced to less than significant. In accordance with the model, this
measure would extend the modeled grading schedule by 15 days.
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 33 of 91
• •
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment 007-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
Paints and Coatings
Several of currently available primers have VOC (ROG) contents of less than 0.85 pound per
gallon (e.g., dulux professional exterior primer 100% acrylic)"and top coats can be far less.
The 103.10 pound-per-day value presented in Table 7 is based on the model default value
with non-residential coatings having a VOC content of 250 grams per liter as dictated by
SCAQMD Rule 1113. The application of non-residential coatings creates 63.44 pounds of
ROG per day with the residential component adding an additional 39.66 pounds per day. The
requirement for 102 gram/liter VOC paints and coatings will reduce the non-residential
coating ROG emissions by 59.2 percent with a residual value of 25.88 pounds per day. When
combined with the 39.66 pounds per day for the residential component and the 0.10 pound
from worker trips, the combined emissions are calculated at 65.64 pounds per day. The
resultant value is less than the threshold value of 75 pounds per day reducing the impact to
less than significant.
Site Operations
The major source of long-term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions
produced from project-generated vehicle trips. Stationary sources also add to these values. •
Mobile Source Emissions
The Traffic Study estimates that based on the occupation of the 127 dwelling units and 59,230
square feet of commercial land use, the project would generate approximately 3,590 average
daily trips (ADT). Emissions generated by project-related trips are based on the
URBEMIS2007 computer model and assume a year 2009 occupancy. Both summer and
winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 8.
Note that all emissions are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than
significant. Model runs from the Air Quality Report are available at the Planning Division
offices.
Stationary Source Emissions
In addition to vehicle trips, the land uses would produce emissions from on-site sources. The
combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Any landscaping
would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions.
Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time that
releases ROG emissions. Finally, the use of consumer aerosol products is associated with the •
residential component of the project would release ROG emissions. The resultant emissions
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 34 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitid Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07.02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit 41090
are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 6. Note that all
emissions are within their daily threshold values, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Table 6
DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY)
F~Soarce.„"UV.,_ :res.2
ROG~
hNOM-i~
,CO_?'~
tiSOy000
oM7ow.~'
bpMzs5.t,.*
tC02,,.,~.'
Mobile Sources
32.52
50.39
365.84
0.35
57.38
11.19
32,504.04
Natural Gas
0.14
1.82
1.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,276.58
Landscape
Maintenance
0.39
0.06
4.81
0.00
0.01
0.01
8.24
Structural
Maintenance
0.56
Consumer Products
6.52
-
Operational Total
40.13
52.27
371.66
0.35
57.39
11.20
34,788.86
Threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
NT
Exceeds Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Averaged from the summer and winter emissions.
Z NT -No Threshold
d) Less than Significant Impact.
Criteria Pollutants
As discussed above, CO is the criteria pollutant produced in the greatest quantities and local
emissions are within the air quality standards. As such, no significant impacts related to
sensitive receptors are anticipated to occur and no further mitigation measures are necessary.
Other Toxics
While residential and most commercial development is not associated with the release of
toxic air contaminants, various types of commercial operations have been identified with the
use of toxic substances and release of toxic emissions (e.g., dry cleaning). Vehicle emissions,
primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse collection, also
release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen. However, as noted in the
URBEMIS model, use of these trucks (medium-heavy duty and heavy-heavy duty) during site
occupation (e.g., refuse collection) is limited to about 1.4 percent of the vehicle population
and these emissions are distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle
travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions.
Under SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air Contaminants), the
District enforces emission limits when a new facility applies for permits for new construction,
• modifications, or relocation of equipment that emits any of the TACs listed therein. Permits
are granted if the increase in cancer risk from the new, modified or relocated source does not
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 35 of 91
• •
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
exceed one in a million or 10 in a million cancer cases, if the proposed controls are the best
available and the equipment is supplied with Toxic-Best Available Control Technology (T-
BACT). SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits emissions of air.pollutants that "cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property."
Mandatory adhere to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air
contaminants associated with the operation of the project. remains less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy
equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment
bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors,
any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By
the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they
will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff" of diesel
exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust
odors may be adverse, but not a significant air quality impact. Additionally, some odor
would be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Again, any exposure
of the general public to these common odors would be of short duration and while potentially
adverse, are less than significant.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑
and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
•
\J
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 36 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
❑
❑
❑
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
❑
❑
❑ N
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
❑
❑
❑ N
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
❑
❑
❑
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
(a-i) No Impact. The project site is fully developed in an urban setting. The project site has
• a long history of development and redevelopment, and thus is highly disturbed. The site is
currently vacant with asphalt covering in the area of the existing commercial structure and
area of the existing mobile homes and mobile home pad, and dirt in the vacant area with
evidence that pavement has been removed. Planted mature trees are located in the central and
northeast portions of the site. No "natural" conditions exist on the site, and consequently no
biological resources are known to exist. The site does not support any candidate, sensitive or
special status species; contain riparian habitat; contain water features, support migratory
birds; nor is contained in any tree ordinance. In addition, the site is not contained within any
habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved plans.
The City has an Oak Tree Ordinance, however, the onsite trees are not oaks. Therefore, the
proposed project will not conflict with any adopted conservation plans nor have significant
impact to biological resources.
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project . Page 37 of 91
n
U
City of Rosemead
Planned Development 907-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
(a-b, d) No Impact. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, define "historic resources" as
resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources,9 determined to be eligible
by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California register of
historic resources10. The project site is not listed in the registeril and the City of Rosemead
does not maintain a list of cultural or historic resources. The historic uses of the site do not
include cemetery uses. Therefore, this site has no value of historical significance 12, nor will
it disturb any human remains out side cemeteries or impact any cultural resources on site or
in the surrounding neighborhoods.
In order to ascertain whether the site contains historic resources, a Historic Resources
Assessment was performed and is included in Appendix B, Historic Resources Assessment.
7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey Avenue,
Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County, California, by Daly and Associates. Historic Resources
Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey
•
•
s California Public Resources Code § 5024.1 and § 4850 et seq of Title 14, California Code of Regulations.
10 California Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), § 5024.1(g).
California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California Office of Historic Preservation:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21427, last accessed September 10, 2007.
" Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1; 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064.5(a)(3) (a resource "shall" be considered historically significant if it •
meets the criteria for listing on the Calif. Register of Historical Resources in the state's historic preservation law); however,
the local agency has the discretion to determine whether the resource meets the criteria or not. Pub. Res. Code § 21084.1; 14
Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(a)(4).
Park Monterey Mixed Use Protect Page 38 of 91
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
E
City of Rosemead •
Planned Development 907-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Miti• d Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County, California (September 2007)." The records
search conducted as part of this assessment indicated that the subject parcels were not listed
on the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, or the
California Points of Historical Interest. During the field survey, numerous features were
found on the two parcels.
The parcel with the address 7443 Garvey Avenue was the location of Roseland Trailer Court,
established in 1947 by Donald and Mary Bean (Building permit on-file in Building and
Planning Division, City of Rosemead). The lot is accessible directly from Garvey Avenue.
The permit for the trailer court allowed spaces for 20 trailers. In 1952, a garage to house
automobiles was approved to be erected on the property. The lot at 7443 Garvey Ave. has
now been cleared of all structures, but still has some remnants of concrete foundations and
light posts, and metal pipes for water utilities.
The parcel of 7423 Garvey Avenue is located directly to the north of 7443 Garvey Avenue.
The address is assigned to a large parcel that appears to be split in half, with the north half
serving as a mobile home park, and the southern half is a large vacant lot. Aerial photographs
show that in recent years the vacant lot has been accessed by a gate at the southeast comer of
• the lot and used as a car park. A pair of steel rails 3-inches wide, laid parallel 3 feet apart and
embedded in a concrete pad appear to date from the 1920s. The rails and concrete pad run
approximately 100 feet on an east-west axis in the middle of the lot, from near the western
boundary of the property to about three quarters across the lot. The rails and pad may have
been constructed to be used for the base of a gantry or crane system. Running along the north
edge of the rail pad is an 18-foot wide path paved with rough asphalt.
The rails are embedded in a pad of rough aggregate concrete and there is a 4-inch wide and 2-
inch deep channel in the concrete, on the inside of each rail. The channel of the rail pad
would have held the wheels of the gantry as it was pushed back and forth, used to lift bricks
or other heavy payloads from the ground to wagons or trucks that were parked on the asphalt
pavement. The gantry or crane system was based on the balance of weights and pulleys.
Research was performed to attempt to ascertain the type of business or industry that was
located at the site noted on the 1924 Alhambra topographic map. This research was
performed with the archival records at the Rosemead Library and the permit records at the
Rosemead Department of Planning. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this region of Los
Angeles County was unincorporated until 1959, early records of property use are difficult to
find. Sanborn Insurance maps did not cover the Wilmar-Garvey area and the City Directory
11
13 Daly and Associates. Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. (Historic address 404441
West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County, California. September 2007.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 39 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
for Wilmar-Garvey did not cross reference street addresses with the names of businesses or
residents.
The proposed development of the property will cause the demolition of the features dating
from 1947 that are associated with the historic trailer court at 7443 Garvey Avenue, and with
the rail pad of the gantry system at 7423 Garvey Avenue that appears to date from the 1920s.
Both parcels have not been found to be associated with any persons or events important in the
history of the United States or California. The integrity of both parcels has been destroyed
over the years, and this lack of integrity would prevent the resources from being deemed as
architecturally significant under the criteria for the National Register and California Register.
No impacts would occur from site construction.
(c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The site is paved and shows no surface
evidence of containing paleontological resources. Given the history of the region, and the
proximity to the Whittier Narrows areas, and because construction entails excavation for a
two-level subterranean parking garage, there may be a potential to encounter paleontological
resources. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is
recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce
project impacts relative to paleontological resources to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure:
CUL-1: Monitoring during excavation shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If
paleontological resources are uncovered during site excavation, the developer must notify the
City of Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of Engineering immediately and work
must stop within a 100-foot radius until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.
Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project sites. If the
find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a unique paleontological resource, as
defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find
is determined not to be a unique paleontological resource, no further action is necessary and
construction may continue.
0
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 40 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment 907-02
Zone Change 007-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Miti Red Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Pmject
Environmental Evaluation
'M-'.52°'-•"fs"~vS`i',7.v''6G"...G~W~-~'''et%'+~'k
~'-PotenTtall fiSt`mflcant Less Than
~~~;~~~"Environmental Issues,+;~ ~~~;z}«~~,,"g.~,~lmpact M~ibgay4on~tmpact~lmpac
_ M eu? a°~-
6 Ge,~ologyand Sods ~ ~ u -
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area ❑ ® ❑ ❑
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ „ ❑
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- ❑ ❑ ❑
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ ® .
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available L1 1--] 1:1 ED
for the disposal of wastewater?
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a)(i and ii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. According to the State of
California special studies zones map effective November 01, 1991 indicate that portions of
the proposed project site lies within a seismically active region normally referred to as the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.14 The 1987 Whittier. Narrows earthquake occurred
near the City of Rosemead. Two major fault zones are located near the City of Rosemead,
including the Raymond Hill fault located approximately two miles north, and the Whittier-
0
14 http://wwu.mnsrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Map_index/city.htm#P-R
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 41 of 91
• •
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Elsinore fault located approximately five miles to the southeast. Two inactive fault traces
traverse the City from the northwest to the southeast and generally correspond to the
Alhambra Wash and Rubio Wash. Virtually all structures in southern California are subject
to strong seismic shaking because there are many known and unknown earthquake faults
present in the California region.
Construction the subterranean parking structure will entail site excavation and possible
shoring of some of the sides of the excavation for stabilization. The City of Rosemead's
Building Code, (which incorporates the California Uniform Building Code) addresses
specific seismic construction methods that reduce seismic damage risk. Some or all of these
methods will be required of the proposed project as part of the building permit process.
Overall, the project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to substantial risk
involving rupture of earthquake fault. Although already required under existing City
procedures, in recognition of the nature of the proposed construction involving subterranean
excavation, the general overall earthquake potential of the greater project area, Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 has been identified to ensure that any resulting development fully considers
the potential geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils conditions affecting the project site.
Mitigation Measure:
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall submit
and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical
investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical
Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May
8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City
Building Official. That investigation, as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering
geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that,
when implemented, will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in
recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in
that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be
monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures.
a)(iii) No Impact The Cali fomia Department of Conservation, California Geological
Survey has identified the project site's area as not subject to liquefaction.15 Liquefaction is
the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can
cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Liquefaction is typically
15 State of California. Seismic Hazard Zones, El Monte Quadrangle, March 25, 1999, available at htto://emw.consrv.caeov/
shmo/MUProcessor asp?MaoNavAction=&Action=lMao&Location=SoCal&FClass=Quad&FID=Los%20Aneeles&Lig=fa
•
•
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 42 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
associated with shallow groundwater. In the project area, no liquefaction potential exists and
there are no known liquefaction zones." The depth to groundwater in the immediate area is
approximately 125 feet below ground surface, with the anticipated flow to be southward."
Prior to construction, as part of the City's standard development review procedures, the City
Engineer will require plan review to assure that the project complies with current building
codes and required methods of construction. Therefore, the proposed structure is not subject
to liquefaction, hence no related impact is anticipated. .
a)(iv) No Impact. The project site and surrounding area is flat and not near any slopes, cliffs,
or hillsides or prone to landslides; consequently, no impact from landslide danger is
anticipated.
(b-e) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area is largely urbanized and no longer
dependent on agriculture, therefore, retention of topsoil is not an issue for the project site.
The existing soil will be exported offsite to allow for excavation of the subterranean parking
.
structure. New soil will be brought in for ornamental plantings, which will comprise a very
small portion of the finished site. Finally, sediment runoff from the project site will be
controlled by construction site methods, such as sandbags or straw rolls as required by the
is project's storm water pollution prevention plan (see Section 8, Hydrodology and Water
Quality, below). No substantial impact from soil erosion or loss of topsoil is expected. The
project site is not prone to slope instability hazards such as landslides because the area flat,
hence no significant impact is anticipated. Although most of the California soil is believed to
be expansive, as part of the City's standard development review procedures, the City
Building official will require that the project meet specific design guidelines of the Building
Code to minimize any potential for impacts, consequently, no significant impact is
anticipated. The project does not propose using septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems, conventional sewer systems are in place and available to serve the project.
No impact to soils resulting from such alternative disposal systems would be associated with
the project.
Ise&Land=false&Bore=false&Road=tme&City=false&x1=381650 9088855923&y1=3777023.268147673&x2=399169.492
39040765&y2=3762424.448560327, last accessed August 23, 2007.
• 16 California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte
7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles Region. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024. 1998.
" Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, California
July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 43 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment 907-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
,-r raalye'Y. 1XIA-FI-tv-9a vt .,,s~PotenpallyStgncantL9iy~ '
Stgmfic'ant Wlt}t i S~ . ruficant k NO
en-
y nF:ironmentalilu6gt -ft
un Impact Mitigation Impact ' Im ct=
pa ...r.
~7~ Hazards and Hazardous4Materials~ ~
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑
likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility
that might reasonably be anticipated to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste?
e) Be located on a site of a current or former
hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste
disposal site unless wastes have been removed
from the former disposal site; or 2) that could
release a hazardous substance as identified by ❑ ® ❑ ❑
the State Department of Health Services in a
current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356
for removal or remedial action pursuant to
Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code?
f) Be located on land that is, or can be made,
sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to ❑ ❑ ❑ 10
be suitable for development and use as a school?
g) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or; where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑
use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
h) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
i) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency evacuation plan?
•
is
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 44 of 91
•
0 9
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 - Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
k) Be located within 1500 feet of. (i) an above-
ground water or fuel storage tank, or (ii) an
easement of an above ground or underground ❑ ❑ ❑
pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the
proposed school?
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) No Impact. The proposed project involves development of retail, restaurant and residential
uses. The Applicant and application supporting materials indicate that the proposed project
does not propose or anticipate to routinely store, use, generate, or transport substantial
amounts of hazardous materials, and therefore, the project would have no associated
significant impacts.
b) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to use hazardous materials and the
operation of the retail, restaurant and residential uses would not involve use of a substantial
is amount of hazardous materials; thus, release of hazardous materials as a result of construction
of this facility is not anticipated.
Although the construction of the proposed structures will utilize some chemicals and
materials such as paint and non-consumable liquids such as fagade finish coats, and diesel
fuels for construction equipment, for the most part, construction of the proposed project is not
expected to release hazardous materials. Therefore, construction of the proposed project
would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Six schools are located within one-quarter mile of the
proposed project site. Bitely Elementary School (K-6) and Bitely Head Start School are
located at 7501 East Fern Avenue, and Garvey (Richard) Intermediate School (7-8) is located
at 2720 North Jackson Avenue, south of the project site. To the north of the site, are the New
Avenue Emerson Elementary School (K-6) at 7544 Emerson Place, the New Avenue
Educational Center at New Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and the Esther's Nest Children's
School at New Avenue and Whitmore Street. However, since the project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, no impact to schools is anticipated.
• d) Less than Significant Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report of the
property was conducted by Smith-Emery GeoServices and is available at the City Planning
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 45 of 91
• 0
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Division offices. .The report found two adjacent commercial automobile service properties
located along the south side of Garvey Avenue listed as small quantity hazardous waste
generators. No violations were found for either property. The report concludes that the two
sites are considered a de minimus condition (under ASTM Standard El 527) as they
"generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of
appropriate government agencies" with regards to the proposed project site. The proposed
project site is not located with one-quarter mile of an industrial-zoned use or facility that may
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste. Therefore, the project will not be significantly subjected to industrial-hazardous
related impacts.
e) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Report of the property was conducted by Smith-Emery GeoServices. The vacant portion of
the site is composed of a section of railroad spur, and sewage pipes belonging to former
mobile homes. Mobile homes located on the adjacent parcel to the north of the project site
and those on the project site appear to be connected to a septic system. No evidence was
found to suggest that the vacant portion of the site is impacted by hazardous wastes
contaminated soils.
The Smith-Emery GeoServices report includes the results of a database search performed for
project site. The southern portion of the site is listed on the regulatory database as a handler
of hazardous materials. Automotive repair businesses were reported on the southeastern and
southwestern portions of the site in the 1980s. However, no evidence of any hazardous
materials usage was found on file at the regulatory agencies. 19
The commercial structure at the southeast corner of the site is currently occupied by a travel
agency which uses the structure for office purposes and for changing tires for their tour buses.
The Smith-Emery report found two hydraulic lifts in the building, and a reported former oil-
changing pit which had been covered by plywood. Minor amounts of solvents, chemicals,
and car batteries were observed. The historical data found that light manufacturing
operations were reported in this portion of the site in 1944, and, that automotive repair
operations were conducted since 1987. Some areas of stained pavement were also observed.
The report found a lack of evidence of significantly cracked/stained concrete floor surfaces,
•
CJ
is Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, California.
July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977.
19 The Smith-Emery Report database search of government record sources found the subject site listed on RCRA-GNTR
(RCRA registered small or large generators of hazardous waste), ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System), US •
ENGNS INST CONTROLS (Federal Engineering and Institutional Controls), STATErITIBAL RSTs (State and/or Tribal
registered storage tanks), and STATE/TRIBAL END/INST CONTROLS (State and/or Tribal Engineering and Institutional
Controls) database sites.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 46 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mit, d Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment 007-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit #1090
or any evidence of floor drains, clarifiers and/or underground storage tanks (USTs), and
concludes that the former site uses are not expected to have significantly impacted the site.
The Phase I report found that the onsite structures were built prior to the 1978 federal
regulations banning the usage of asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). Hence,
there is potential for the presence of ACBMs in the onsite structure, and a potentially
significant impact could occur. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is
expected to reduce project impacts relative to ACBMs to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure:
HAZ-1: Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey shall be conducted by a contractor
licensed for asbestos certification. If asbestos is found, contractor recommendations for safe
removal shall be followed during demolition.
The Phase I report found that the onsite structures were built prior to the 1978 federal
regulations banning the use of lead based paints. Hence, there is potential that disturbance of
• lead based paint during demolition could result in a release lead dust. To reduce this
potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 is recommended for inclusion to
the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to lead
based paint to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure:
HAZ-2: Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint survey shall be conducted by a
contractor licensed for lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is found, contractor
recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition.
I) No Impact. The proposed project is a mixed use project that does not include a school site.
As per g) above, the proposed project site is not listed as a DTSC hazardous materials site.
As such, it could be permitted for a school. Therefore, the proposed project will be located
on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to be suitable for
development and use as a school, hence no impact.
g) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor
within two miles of an adopted Airport plan, nor is it within two miles of a public airport.
The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue, north of the
• San Bernardino Freeway and east of Rosemead Blvd. Therefore, the proposed project would
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project - Page 47 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on or near the project site, in relation
to the airport proximity and would have no related impacts.
h) No Impact. The project site is more than two (2) miles from the closest private airstrip
located at the El Monte Airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would have no
associated impacts.
i) No Impact. The proposed mixed use project comprises development of restaurant, retail
and residential uses on the property. The project fronts Garvey Avenue, which is also the
nearest evacuation route to the project. Delmar Avenue to the east of the project is also a
City of Rosemead Evacuation Route. 0 The project is not anticipated to interfere with these
evacuation routes or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation
plans because neither construction nor project operation would block evacuation routes.
Three additional driveways to the site are proposed. However, restricted access as indicated
in the Traffic Study conducted for the project" would not result in an impedance of easy
access in case of emergency. Therefore, the project presents no impact to Rosemead's
emergency response or evacuation plans.
j) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant with some structures in the southeast
corner. The center of the property contains some ornamental trees, however, given the
surrounding developed properties, the wildland fire risk is minimal. The trees will be
removed through grading. The completed project will contain a small amount of ornamental
landscaping, however, again, given the developed nature of the surrounding urban landscape,
the project would not contribute to wildland fire risk. Also, the site is not adjacent to any
undeveloped natural environment that may be a potential wildland fire risk, and the project
site is not within a specific fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
hence the project would have no associated impacts.
k) No Impact. As discussed in (f) above, the proposed project does not involve the
development of a school on the site. No impacts to a school are anticipated.
" City of Rosemead General Plan, Public Safery Element Fig. PS-2.
2' RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. August 15, 2007. Pg. 1-1. The study states that the west
driveway will restrict left-tums existing the site, the center driveway will provide right-turn in/right-tum out access only, and
the east driveway will provide full access.
•
CJ
E
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 48 of 91
•
E
•
City of Rosemead •
Planned Development 907-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Miti ed Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
--a~'c f 2"l;. ~~.'L s Than~3r'`r'•°
°g~e .,Potent allyr Stgntfir nt ,Le T 'Q. ~r $ a
k~~2'~"' St ntficant"~`+xWith ~Si mrcAant Nom
,ra'~'`4 ~,~Envimnmenta Issues~~ ` Itnpact~,~,LgaUon3'~mpacyt,.y~'=,Impact,<,
a~«""`~ :4~` ,mar ae - v x ,c,~ a'~- 3 ~ ,~"'.lS
~8HydrologyaandKWaterQuality~~~=~~~
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
• groundwater table level (e.g., the production ❑ ❑ ® ❑
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted? _
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ® ❑
would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ® ❑
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 49 of 91
• •
City or Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Less than Significant Impact The project proposes a mixed use, 4-story structure
comprised of retail, commercial and residential uses on a 3.68-acre site. The proposed
development would not be a point-source generator of water pollutants. However, during
construction the proposed project may temporarily expose loose soils, which are prone to
erosion during storm events. If a storm event occurs while loose soils are exposed, the
project could increase the sediment load onsite and downstream runoff. Thus, the
construction of the proposed project could contribute to non point-source water pollution.
Another concern for water quality during construction is accidental spillage of vehicle
equipment fluids.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 26 Section 1342) established the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This act requires all construction activity
resulting in land disturbance of one (1) or more acres to obtain a Construction Activities
Storm Water General Permit (NPDES General Permit). In California, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers NPDES General Permits. General Permits
require projects to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan •
(SWPPP). As described in the SWRCB's "Fact Sheet for Water Quality Order (99-08-
DWQ)", the SWPPP must list the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the Applicant will
employ to "prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water", and BMPs must
be developed "with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into
receiving waters channels." The SWPPP must also include a visual monitoring program and
a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants.
NPDES also requires local governments to obtain an NPDES Permit for stormwater induced
water pollutants in their jurisdiction. In California, the Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB) of the SWRCB administers NPDES Permits. Los Angeles County and
most of the incorporated cities therein, including the City of Rosemead, obtained a MS4
permit (Permit # 01-182) from the LARWQCB in 2001. The permit establishes a county-
wide Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) to control pollutants that can
collect in the countywide storm drain system, including trash, sediment, metals, and vehicle
byproducts/fluids. Pollutant control measures in the SUSMP include both structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs), such as sediment traps, and non-structural BMPs, such as
operation and maintenance practices. As a co-permittee, the City of Rosemead has adopted
an ordinance 22 to implement the countywide permit and corresponding SUSMP. The
countywide permit and the City's corresponding ordinance require certain types of •
22 City of Rosemead Municipal Code, § 13.16 et seq., Stomwater Management.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 50 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/M* Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment 007-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
development projects to develop and implement project-specific SUSMP compliance plans.
Since the project involves more than 1 acre, a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan is
required for the project.
In summary, the proposed project is required to obtain a NPDES General Construction
Permit, develop and implement a SWPPP, and implement a project-specific SUSMP
compliance plan. Under the supervision of the City staff, the applicant must comply with
these requirements to ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. Because this is a City requirement prior to
construction, any impacts would be considered less than significant.
In addition, City Municipal Ordinance 13.16.030, Control of Urban Runoff, requires that a
water quality management plan for significant redevelopment projects shall be prepared in
accordance with the existing established city standards; and that any conditions and
requirements established by the City Engineer, which are reasonably related to the reduction
or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site shall be adhered to.
Therefore, the project's wastewater impacts are expected to be less than significant
40
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 2 miles
west of the Rio Hondo River, within the Repetto Hills at approximately 350 feet above means
sea level. Los Angeles Department of Public Works records show two municipal water
wells located at distances of 1.0 mile to the northeast and east of the site, and one municipal
water well located 2.9 miles to the southwest. The depth to groundwater in the immediate
area is approximately 125 feet below ground surface, with the anticipated flow to be
southward. Groundwater recharge is primarily from the surrounding mountains, and San
Fernando Valley via the Los Angeles Narrows. 3
The proposed structure and associated access and driveways would be impermeable surfaces
on the project site. These impermeable surfaces could decrease the groundwater recharge
potential of the project site. However, the project site does not substantially add to the local
or regional groundwater recharge system. The site is in an urban area that drains into the
City's storm drainage system. Thus, as existing, only minimal rainwater runoff from the site
reaches groundwater. In addition, the proposed impermeable areas on site are negligible in
comparison to the size of the underlying aquifer's watershed. Therefore, the proposed project
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
0 Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, Califomia
July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 51 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
of the local groundwater table level, and the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact to groundwater recharge.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is virtually flat, with only a 3-inch
elevation change over its width from west to east, and does not include discernable drainage
courses. During construction, excavation of the site is required for the subterranean parking
structure. Excavated soil will be removed offsite. As per a) above, during construction
BMPs are required to keep erosion from moving off site into receiving waters channels.
Post construction, the proposed project would involve only minor changes as compared to the
existing site's runoff patterns. The existing vacant portions of the site will become
impervious surfaces. However, since the project size is negligible and incorporates
landscaping and groundcover, the proposed structures and impermeable surfaces, will not
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, the proposed development
will negligibly change surface water volume and velocity on the project site. Overall, the
proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on or off-site or in
a manner, that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, and the proposed project would
not have any associated erosion significant impacts. •
d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would involve only minor
changes in the site's drainage patterns and does not involve altering a discernable drainage
course. The proposed minor chances to the site's drainage patterns are not expected to cause
flooding. Regardless, the project's possibility, if it occurs, to cause flooding would be
eliminated through required compliance with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm
water runoff discharge rates not to exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff
discharge rates.
Since the project does not involve alteration of a discernable watercourse and post-
development runoff discharge rates are required to not exceed pre-development rates, the
proposed project does not have the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase runoff that
would result in significant flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause
flooding and would have no associated significant impacts.
e) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Sections 8. a), b), c), and d) above, the
proposed project is anticipated to have a negligible effects to the site's surface water
drainage. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the
proposed project, and the proposed project is required to comply with the Los Angeles •
County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). These plans would further
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 52 of 91
City of Rosemead - • Initial Study/Mi6ted Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07.01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
ensure that the proposed project would not increase runoff and water pollution. Therefore,
the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff, and would have no associated significant impacts.
f) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed earlier, the proposed project involves
development of a site that has previously been developed. The project will involve
excavation and soil remove offsite for the subterranean parking structure. During
construction, runoff from the project will be governed by a SWPPP as discussed in a) above.
This plan eliminates the project's potential to increase the flow rate of stormwater, violate
water quality discharge requirements, or result in substantial erosion on or off-site during
construction. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any significant temporary
stormwater impacts during construction.
g) No Impact. The City of Rosemead has been declared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C", flood insurance is not mandatory and there
is no community panel flood map near the site that indicate areas susceptible to flooding or to
be a floodplain. Furthermore, the proposed project area is not mapped on any other flood
• hazard map, nor is it in a known 100-year flood hazard area. Since this project does not
propose housings units, the project will not place housing in a known flood hazard area, and
no impacts from flooding are anticipated.
h) No Impact. As discussed in g) above, the project site is not located in a designated or
otherwise located in a known flood hazard area. Consequently, the project's proposed
structures would not impede nor cause flooding, so no corresponding impact to surrounding
structures is anticipated.
i) No Impact. The proposed project site is not in the vicinity of a man-made flood control
facility, such as a levee or dam. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No corresponding impacts are anticipated.
j) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is approximately 29 miles from the Pacific Ocean and
the site is at 350 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, the proposed project site is not in
the vicinity of any surface waters or potential mudflow sources. Therefore, the proposed
project would not be exposed to impacts from seiche,.tsunami, or mudflow.
E
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 53 of 91
•
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225 •
Conditional Use Permit #1090
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) No Impact The proposed project will not divide an established community. Examples of
"dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major •
development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier
between established neighborhoods or business districts. The proposed project will be located
on a partially vacant that contains mobile homes and a commercial structure on a
commercial-zoned parcel. The proposed land use change to mixed use with retail, restaurant
and residential uses is consistent with the adjacent and surrounding area uses. The proposed
project will not divide any community by creating a physical or visual barrier, and existing
public rights-of-way will remain unimpeded by the project. Consequently, no impact is
anticipated.
b) No Impact The project site is designated commercial by the City of Rosemead General
Plan and is zoned C-3, "General Commercial" by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has
applied for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) in order to
accommodate the proposed mixed use project uses that will change the site land use
designation to mixed use commercial/high density residential and site zoning to Planned
Development (PD). The proposed changes are consistent with adjacent uses, and upon City
approval of the GPA and ZC, no conflicts will occur and the no impact is anticipated.
c) No Impact The project site is not located within a habitat or natural communities
conservation plan, and has been developed with structures for many years. Consequently, no •
impact to any conservation plans will result from the proposed project.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 54 of 91
E
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Mi6'ged Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
•-wX. Qk }"t- Tttanxi".., v-
x ,r ~ ~ vim. -+r Potenhally,kS~gmficant?-.LessgThan
r°~ ~`Enironmentaklssties~ ~ { r m'~acf``~Mih abon~ `~gm acts Im ct~'
n. ikras.lae.:.n ku ~ ay v~
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
•
a) No Impact. The proposed project will involve construction of a mixed use project. No
known mineral resources are within the City of Rosemead, per the City General Plan, and the
site does not contain any known mineral resources. The proposed project is not likely to
encounter any mineral deposits that may exist in subsurface. Therefore, the proposed project
will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents
of the City, or the State.
b) No Impact. The City of Rosemead General Plan does not identify any known mineral
resource sites within the City limits; and the project site does not contain any known mineral
resources. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to affect any locally important
mineral resources as identified in local plans.
e
z e+ rs ae s £ ra~ ' Potentially#=Sigmficarit Less Than y"
',4P'm .r$19mticai *With~~"rt~s sl9flfc8nst'
w,N.,;ury,Envl ronmentaltssuesz£l; ~~,,,r impact± Mitigation `Im pact, Impa ct
",x'~
xr
-,+,y'r tT ,.c'.r p Nr N r 'Rtx^+~„'F"py. '"'vs.- 'S:~u'sr''t~"sa j4 ~`,'s
t ~Wou!dtheprojectresultm-•-~;..~,~.~,..§•..~~^..,~~~r
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ ® ❑
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑
existing without the project?
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 55 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ® ❑ ❑
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ ® ❑
excessive noise levels?
11. NOISE
A noise technical study was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix B, Park
Monterey Mixed Use Project Focused Noise Analysis, by Synectecology Consulting
(September 2007). Model runs for the Noise Study are available at the City Planning Division
offices 24
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The existing City of Rosemead Municipal
Code sets a conditional land use compatibility level of 60 dBA Leq during the day and 45
dBA Leq at night for stationary noise source intrusion on sensitive, multi-family land uses
from noise sources subject to City control. The City Noise Element allows for an overall
exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA CNEL, so long as interior levels do not exceed 45 dBA
CNEL. Under the Municipal Code, less sensitive land uses, such as the proposed retail
commercial aspect of the project, are conditionally acceptable to stationary source noise
levels of 65 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night. The City Noise Element does not set
an exterior CNEL level for these commercial uses, but does specify that interior levels should
not exceed 55 dBA CNEL. Assuming standard Title 22 construction provides a minimum of
20 dBA of attenuation with windows closed, this would infer an acceptable exterior CNEL of
75 dBA for commercial uses so long as these facilities are equipped with forced air
ventilation.
A reasonable worst-case would consider the project as a sensitive, residential land use and for
the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered as significant if the exterior noise were
to exceed 60 dBA during the day or 45 dBA at night at any proposed residential units from
local stationary sources, or 65 dBA CNEL from mobile sources. This latter value applies to
exterior habitable areas and assumes the use of forced air ventilation sized and installed in
•
•
11
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 56 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/MitigaTed Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment 907.02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
compliance with California Title 22 requirements thereby allowing the residents to leave their
windows closed.
In actuality, the City Municipal Code defines the residential component of the project as a
commercial land use and would apply the commercial noise standard. Section 8.36.020 of
the Municipal Code notes, "Commercial property" means a parcel of real property which is
developed and used either in part or in whole for commercial purposes." As such, use of
residential criteria provides a conservative evaluation for the proposed residential units.
To determine on-site and local noise in the project area, on-site noise measurements were
conducted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007. The field study included two sets of readings; one
obtained onsite 50-feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue (NR-1), and the second
obtained onsite 50-feet from the northern project boundary (NR-2).25 Reading NR-I showed
Leq values of 63.6 dBA Leq. The noise measurement was obtained during the 11:00 a.m.
hour and the CNEL would be greater than this reading that was obtained when traffic is
relatively light.
0
Data provided in the Traffic Study indicate that the existing volume along Garvey Avenue at
the project site is currently at 21,600 ADT. But the project represents a long-term
commitment and as such, this analysis looks at the potential for impact in the year 2025.
Based on City recommendation, an annual growth rate of I percent per year was been applied
to the existing traffic in the area. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth
throughout the city. Based on 18 years of growth, the roadway ADT volumes are increased
by 19.6 percent. Including the project, year 2025 traffic along Garvey Avenue along the
project frontage is then estimated at 27,800 ADT. Sound32 noise modeling for year 2025
with project traffic volumes show a noise level of 71.8 dBA CNEL as measured at a distance
of 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Based on soft site modeling, the 65 and 60
dBA CNEL noise contours fall at distances of 143 and 307 feet, respectively, from the
Garvey Avenue centerline.
The southern-most residential units that are to be placed on the second and third floors fall
within this distance and will have a direct view of Garvey Avenue. These units will be on the
order of 60 feet from the centerline of the road with noise projected at about 70.6 dBA
CNEL. Conventional construction with windows open provides approximately 12 to 15 dBA
of attenuation (over 20 dBA with windows closed) from exterior noise sources reducing
interior levels no more than about 56 - 58 dBA CNEL (with windows open) or about 50 dBA
with windows closed. These levels could then continue to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior
0 24 Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed use Project. Focused Noise Analysis. September 2007.
zs Details on the reading location and results are included in the Noise Study, available at the City Planning Division offices.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 57 oj9l
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 _ Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
standard and mitigation is required to protect the interior habitat. Mitigation Measures N-1
through N-4 are recommended for inclusion to the project to ensure that interior noise levels
do not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. These mitigation measures are
expected to reduce project impacts relative to noise to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measures:
N-1: At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall
be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction.
N-2: South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows
do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28. These
windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting.
Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut.
N-3: All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g., electrical
conduits, HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as
airtight. Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed
and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. •
N4: All residential units within 307 feet and all commercial units within 104 feet of the
Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in
accordance with the California Uniform Building Code.
The requirement for forced air ventilation would allow the occupants to leave windows
closed reducing interior levels by in excess of 20 dBA. However, the southern exposure of
the southern-most rooms could still be exposed to exterior levels of about 70.6 dBA CNEL.
Assuming that typical construction with the inclusion of forced air ventilation and windows
closed provides 20 dBA of attenuation, interior levels could be on the order of 50 dBA
CNEL.
The Noise Guidebook (HUD, 1985) presents Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for
various types of construction materials and techniques. The Sound Transmission Class rating
is the official rating endorsed by the American Society of Testing and Measurement and can
be used as a guide in determining what type of construction is needed to reduce noise.
Conversely, these same principles can be used to determine interior noise for a given type of
construction.
An STC is a measure of a material's ability to reduce sound and is equal to the number of is
decibels a sound is reduced as it passes through the material. Thus, a high STC rating
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 58 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Midg d Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07.01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
indicates a good insulating material. For example, if the external noise is 75 dBA and the
desired interior level is 45 dBA, a partition of 30 STC is required. Because of minor
differences in ratings, as well as construction flaws, gaps, seams, openings, ducting, etc., field
studies indicate that laboratory-derived STC ratings may be overstated by as much as 5 dBA.
(HUD puts this discrepancy at about 2-3 dBA.) As such, the mitigation would need to
achieve a composite laboratory STC rating of approximately 35 to ensure that interior levels
were adequately mitigated to less than 45 dBA.
According to HUD, a common stud wall has an STC of approximately 35 dBA. While a
typical 1/4-inch thick pane of glass may have an STC rating of about 20 dBA, a 3/16-inch
piece increases this rating to about 25 dBA, and a 1/2-inch thick piece would have an STC of
about 35 dBA. There comes a point of diminishing returns, and beyond 1/2 inch additional
thickness produces minimal gains. (A 3/4-inch piece of glass has an STC of about 37 dBA.)
The STC for a typical wood, double hung closed window is listed at 22.
Noise within the interior of the structure comes through the walls, windows, doors, and
ductwork. HUD provides a nomograph that can be used to determine the composite STC for
walls that include windows and doors. Assuming the wall has an STC of 35, the
windows/doors have an STC of 22, and the windows/doors encompasses 30 percent of the
wall, the composite STC is 27. Allowing for a 5 dBA "cushion," this value falls
approximately 4 dBA short of the necessary 31 dBA of attenuation to ensure interior noise
levels remain under 45 dBA CNEL.
Using the required minimum STC 28 window and door assemblies, but retaining the window
area at 30 percent, results in a composite STC value of 32. Assuming an exterior level of 71
dBA CNEL, interior noise levels would be reduced to approximately 39 dBA CNEL.
Assuming that this STC is overestimated by 5 dBA, interior noise would be reduced to no
more than 44 dBA CNEL and the impact is reduced to less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the construction and
occupancy of commercial and residential structures. Caltrans notes that ground bome
vibration is typically associated with blasting operations, the use of pile drivers, and large-
scale demolition activities, none of which are anticipated for the construction or operation of
the project. As such, no excessive ground borne vibrations would be created by the proposed
project and any potential' impacts are less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Any addition from the project to the ambient noise would
® be due to the addition of vehicles to the local roadways. The Traffic Study indicates that the
project would add 3,590 ADT to the local roadways. The vehicle mix, day/evening/night
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 59 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
split, and average speeds are as indicated in the analysis of the existing noise levels. Results
of the modeling effort are included in Table 7. Note that modeling indicates that the noise
increase along all access roads would not exceed 0.4 dBA CNEL and is neither audible nor
significant.
Table 7
FxtsTBNG VERSUS WITH PROJECT NOISE LEVELS ALONG SITE ACCESS ROADS
' t
ocation
k*~
`Speed
S
f W-4 W
ExlsGngvADT
a
Exrsting CNEL
A
i t3
Eztshng Wtth
zs
T
~
rt rrolect g
W
n =
~~CNEL
,..,f
n
fiference
n
?+(dBA
-
x
(mph)
t~d~
` ,
v~,i ~ ate,-~
SOFFeet)
.fdB
~g c~z~a~
s
ProJectAD
~z ~ r .:R~ •
8.a
. dBA. :50 Feet
,~aENEL
Hellman Avenue
Alhambra-New
30
8,200
66.2
8,200
66.2
0.0
New - Jackson
30
7,600
65.9
7,700
66.0
0.1
Emerson Avenue
Alhambra - New
30
7,200
65.7
7,200
65.7
0.0
New - Jackson
30
5,100
64.2
5,200
64.3
0.1
W/O Alhambra
30
19,600
70.0
20,500
70.2
0.2
Alhambra - New
35
20,200
70.4
21,100
70.6
0.2
New - Jackson
35
21,600
70.7
23,600
71.1
0.4
Jackson - Del Mar
35
24,100
71.2
24,900
71.4
0.1
E/O Del Mar
35
23,900
71.2
24,500
71.3
0.1
Newmark Avenue
New - Jackson 30 3,200 62.1 _ 3,200 62.1 0.0
Graves Avenue
Alhambra-New 30 8,100 66.2 8,400 66.3 0.2
New-Jackson 30 11,700 67.8 12,000 67.9 0.1
Alhambra Avenue
Emerson - Garvey
Garvey - Newmark
V..., a-,. ,,P
Hellman
2
35
25,000
71.4
26,000
71.5
0.2
Hellman -Emerson
35
22,000
70.8
23,200
71.0
0.2
Emerson -Garve
35
19,500
70.3
20,800
70.6
0.3
Garvey -Newmark
35
11,300
67.9
11,900
68.1
0.2
Newmark - Graves
35
8,700
66.8
9,300
67.1
0.3
Jackson Avenue
Emerson-Garvey
25
2,800
60.3
2,800
60.3
0.0
Garvey -Graves
30
2 500
61.1
2,600
61.2
0.2
Del Mar Avenue
Emerson - Garvey
40
23,500
72.1
23,600
72.1
0.0
Garvey -Graves
35
18,900
70.2
18,900
_ 70.2
0.0
•
L
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Noise levels associated with construction •
activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would
subside once construction of the project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 60 of 91
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• Initial Study/Mitid Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the
construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even
though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing
trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the increase in noise would be less than
1 dBA when averaged over a 24-hour period, and would therefore have a less than significant
impact on noise receptors along the truck routes.
The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on-site construction operations and
local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of this
equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own
mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential
phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as
work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment,
similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be
categorized by work phase. Table 8 lists typical construction equipment noise levels
recommended for noise impact assessment at a distance of 50 feet.
•
Table 8
NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Eli ~y -
e of E ui ment RMN
Range of orm I Eev
earu . f
Ada`[ SO fe" t
Levels for Aalysis
dBA at 50,feet SOU
Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow
81 to 96
93
Rock Drills
83 to 99
96
Jack Hammers
75 to 85
82
Pneumatic Tools
78 to 88
85
Pumps
68 to 80
77
Dozers
85 to 90
88
Tractor
77 to 82
80
Front-End Loaders
86 to 90
88
Hydraulic Backhoe
81 to 90
86
Hydraulic Excavators
81 to 90
86
Graders
79 to 89
86
Air Compressors
76 to 86
§6
Trucks
81 to 87
86
Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, BBN 1987.
0
Noise ranges have been found to be similar during all phases of construction, although the
actual construction of the structures is typically reduced from the grading efforts. The
grading and site preparation phase tends to create the highest noise levels because the noisiest
construction equipment is found in the earthmoving equipment category. This category
includes excavating machinery (backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, etc.) and
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 61 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change 007-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
earthmoving and compacting equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, etc.). Typical
operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to
four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment
range from 73 to 96 dBA while Leq noise levels range up to about 88 dBA for residential
development. The later construction of structure is somewhat reduced from this value and the
physical presence of the structure may break up line-of-sight noise propagation.
The most proximate residential structures include the existing single-family homes to the
northeast of the site and mobile homes located to the immediate north, and northwest of the
project site. The mobile homes will in all probability be removed during the initial phases of
construction leaving the single-family residential units as the nearest sensitive receptors. The
nearest of these homes are situated approximately 25 feet from the site. The homes are
protected, at least to some extent, by a wooden fence. Using an assumed construction value
of 88 dBA Leq as measured at a distance of 50 feet, proximate construction could be on the
order of 94 dBA at the nearest home. The existing wall would serve as an effective noise
barrier for construction of the basement and first floor, but would offer little protection from
second and third story construction noise.
Other homes are also located to the north, the most proximate of which are on the order of
100 to 200 feet with noise levels projected at 88 - 82 dBA, Leq, respectively. Construction
noise levels could exceed 65 dBA at these residents resulting in a significant impact. In all .
cases, interior levels at off-site residents could be reduced by over 20 dBA (with windows
closed) from these values.
During the vast majority of the construction period, however, both exterior and interior noise
levels would be 20 to 30 dBA lower, due to lower power settings and sound attenuation
provided by longer distances and partial blocking both from the structure under construction
and off-site structures. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would increase during
construction phase, but would drop considerably after construction of the proposed facilities
is completed. Still, based on the projected noise levels, the short-term impact is considered as
significant.
The City recognizes that control of construction noise is limited and therefore places special
provisions on this noise. As noted, Section 8.36.030, 3 exempts noise sources associated with
or created by construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during
•
CJ
authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of
eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the •
noise standard of sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 62 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigd Negative Declaration
_ Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
measured on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety.
While all construction would be subject to this ordinance, implementation of Mitigation
Measures N-5 through N-11 would reduce the nuisance value of construction at existing
proximate receptor location, as feasible, and ensure that the impact remains less than
significant:
Mitigation Measures:
N-5: In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at
any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any
servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site,
N-6: All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise
emissions,
N-7: All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and
engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped,
® N-8: The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off
of the power grid where feasible (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise
sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor
locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible),
N-9: To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those
proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a
partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the
parcel,
N-10: The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well
as an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents, and
N-11: Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of
Rosemead Planning Division.
e) No Impact. The El Monte Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast of
the project site. The airport's runway is aligned in roughly a north/south orientation and the
project site is not in the prevailing flight path. The airport averages about 434 operations
® (i.e., take-offs and landings) per day.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 63 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Pmject
Environmental Evaluation
The project site is well beyond the airport's 65-dBA CNEL noise contour and on-site noise
monitoring indicates that while aircraft operations (both light planes and commercial airliners
to the south) are readily audible, the resultant aircraft noise levels are well below any
regulatory standards. No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the
proposed project.
I) No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of any private
airstrip.
"~w',;~t~"m`~`esszTha,~nK
~ St n ficant Wrth~ ftSigmficant No
f5 x5 w aSrsa, ~ 6..}. 'cf gx,.F, ti v- n--*. m. r , ..ea.* - w s
$~§y,' ~ rEpvt~ronmentallssuesi'-, ~r~~Impact~~3MiUgatton .~Impact„~ Impact
4 r "F ~-aK ~~~-r~gm~,SP'~'~3,~,•,}as.i#vt ri-s~ ,t.-~ ~z .r ~ i
aat~"-
1
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ ® ❑
and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructurep
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ® ❑ ❑
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ® ❑ ❑
housing elsewhere?
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Less than Significant Impact. Per the 2000 United States Census, the average household
size of renter-occupied units varies from approximately 3.5 to 4.0 individuals. In contrast,
the United States Census Bureau reports (1997) that the mean household size in "suburban
garden apartments" is 2.0 individuals 26 Assuming that not more than two individuals occupy
each of the one-bedroom apartments not more than four people occupy each of the two-
bedroom apartments, and not more than six people occupy each of the three-bedroom units, a
total of 702 individuals could reside within the project site.
Assuming that all those individuals constitute new City residents, based on a 2007 population
of 57,425 27, the project could result in a Citywide population increase of about 1.2 percent.
The actual increase could less since some number of project residents would already reside
20/ Goodman, Jack, The Changing Demography of Multifamily Rental Housing, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 10, Issue 1,
Fannie Mae Foundation, 1999, pp. 37 and 42.
27 Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: htto://dofca.pov/HTML/DEMOGRAP.
•
is
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 64 of 91
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
within the City. The resulting population increase of 1.2 percent or less would not
significantly alter growth forecasts considered by the City and by other regional planning
agencies. The proposed project will, therefore, not result in any substantial population
growth.
b-c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. During site clearing and demolition, the
adjacent lot to the north, presently containing a 39-unit mobile home park will also be
demolished to allow space for construction staging for the proposed project. A relocation plan
and conversion impact report has been prepared for the mobile homes park, known as the
Park Monterey Trailer Park and is available at the City Planning Division offices." The
Applicant plans to acquire the mobile homes, relocate current residents, and demolish the
existing mobile homes as part of the proposed Park Monterey project 29 A relocation plan has
been prepared compliant to Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code, that requires
that prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use, the entity proposing the
change shall file a report on the impact of the conversion of use upon the displaced residents
of the mobile home to be converted. The results of the Relocation Plan found that the mobile
homes are in too poor of condition to be relocated, as such the Plan evaluated a fair market
value for purchase of each mobile home plus relocation benefits. The Plan also found a
® sufficient number of mobile home vacancies (both rental and resale units) available within the
identified 50-mile study area radius to accommodate the current residents. Thus, neither the
number of displaced persons, nor the number of displaced housing units would require new
construction of replacement mobile home housing. However, without adherence to the
Relocation Plan, significant impacts would occur to the currently occupied mobile home
residents. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure HOUS-1 is
recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce
project impacts relative to housing resources to less than significant levels:
Mitipation Measure:
HOUS-1: Mitigation includes compliance with Section B of the Mecky Meyers and
Associates, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed
Use Project, dated June 2006. The Applicant shall provide each mobile home household with
$8,000 in relocation benefits, in addition to the purchase of each mobile home at Fair Market
Value as determined by a State licensed appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced
® 28 Mecky Meyers and Associates. Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project
June 2006.
z9 Following construction of the proposed Park Monterey project, the Applicant intends to develop the mobile home park,
however, an application has not yet been filled with the City of Rosemead.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 65 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
persons upon submission of required claim forms and documentation regarding the rental or
purchase of decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing
17r ,
ifs. It~ra4 LesS'Th2n~s s a~
4 snr+x.. k°w~'+s r ca
i`~+~tµ #^*a2; ~t,F*r~y rye~`iarcrtr``~„°m Zxentlallyi#SignlfGnat rs LESSThan' ,yo-},
IN ON,
'rSlgmficant W tha SignlficantNca
y
i rt Environme~tal,Issues3w~o,Impact MiflgaUonMlmpact timpact
ar.. ~YYovtdsthepra~ec#,resu'ltsn ibsian,i6tGaverSephysicalmpa" assoclated~wtththeprovrsmnofnewor
kPh~s#~cally altered gov~ernmenlal fa rhstsneed~o~inew orr pity cally5al,~te~regpnirntal fAcdi a
[3' the construenor of Ivhach could eause'slgn~eanl enwronmentat irapaets ;4n order ro mamtam ,,r
~ acceptable sere;cerat~s xrzsp~n„se tlmes or other~parf~rmanc„e ablechv_esafor~aity of the pub~icservrces s
a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ H ❑
----b) Police Protection? - ❑ - ❑ H ❑
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ H ❑
d) Parks? - ❑
e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ H ❑
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Less than Significant Impact. Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Fire •
Department for fire protection services. The nearest fire station is the Los Angeles County
Fire Station 4 located at 2644 North San Gabriel Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. The
proposed building is required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code, the California Fire
Code, and the Los Angeles County Code, as such, the proposed project does not significantly
affect the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the City of
Rosemead.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Temple
Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive, in Temple City currently serves Rosemead. The
Temple Station patrol area encompasses 66 square miles and serves a population of
approximately 200,000 people. The project will replace existing commercial and residential
land uses with new businesses and residences. The proposed development may necessitate
random patrol by the law enforcement to prevent burglary and property damage. However,
as a small infill project, the project would neither result in the need for additional new nor
altered police protection services, and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response
times. While some level of law enforcement services is expected to be required to once the
proposed development is operational, this requirement is not expected to be substantial. The
proposed project would not generate a significant need for additional police, and would not
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 66 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development 907-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
significantly impact the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff
Department in the City of Rosemead.
e) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of this mixed use project will result in a direct
increase in the local population by attracting some new residents with school going children.
The project is expected to impact the City's existing schools. However, per California
Government Code (CGC), the City may not issue a building permit to an affected
development project until the affected school district (the Garvey School District) has
certified that the project has complied with the school board's resolution regarding payment
of school impact fees (Section 53080, CGC). As authorized under Section 17620(a) of the
California Education Code (CEC) and Section 65995(b) of the CGC, local school districts are
authorized to impose and collect school "impact fees" for all residential and non-residential
development activities that occur within their jurisdiction to off-set the additional costs
associated with the new students that result directly from the construction of new homes and
indirectly from the creation of new employment opportunities (and the potential for new
workers to in-migrate into district boundaries to fill those new jobs and for younger workers
to establish new households). Payment of school impacts fees constitutes full mitigation for
the impacts associated with new residential and non-residential development. As such, the
• project would not significantly impact the level of service provided by the Garvey School
District.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project could add as many as 702 new residents to the
City of Rosemead. Assuming that all those individuals constitute new City residents, based
on a 2007 population of 57,425 individuals, the project will result in a Citywide population
increase of about 1.2 percent. The actual increase could be less since some number of project
residents could already reside within the City. The resulting population increase of no more
than 1.2 percent would be reasonably consistent with local and regional growth forecasts,
including calculated localized and regional demands upon parks and other recreation
facilities. Consequently, impacts on park and recreational facilities will be-less than
significant.
e) Less than Significant Impact. As a result of the construction of new housing within the
City, the Citywide population is projected to increase by about 1.2 percent. Based on the
relatively small scale of this increase, project-specific demands upon other public facilities
would be less than significant.
E
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 67 of 91
City of Rosemead
Planned Development 007-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
14. RECREATION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
a) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. 4.3.13(d) above, the project
would result in an increase of no more than 1.2 percent. This increase would be reasonably
consistent with local and regional growth forecasts, including calculated localized and
regional demands upon parks and other recreation facilities. Consequently, project impacts
relative to the physical conditions of parks or other recreational facilities will be less than
significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project does include private recreational facilities, and
would not require expansion of existing public recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. Per the City's General Plan, the National
Recreation and Parks Association recommends a minimum of 2.5 acres of park space per
1,000 people. While the City is deficient in park acreage, it is adjacent to the Whittier
Narrows Dam Recreation area, located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the City. City
Municipal Ordinance 12.44.020, Park and Recreation Impact Fee, requires the developer of
each new dwelling unit to pay $800 to the Department of Parks and Recreation to finance the
acquisition, expansion, remodel, renovation, rehabilitation and improvement of park,
recreational and open space facilities identified in the resource management element of the
General Plan and to finance such other public park, recreational and open space facilities as
may be designated in a capital improvement plan adopted by resolution of the City Council.
Thus, the proposed project does not result in a significant impact to recreational facilities that
might impact the environment.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 68 of 91
•
\J
•
•
I.
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
'1~„t"tur'~~+. Less Than'~l?~,',"a~;
s y k r r~ t Potenhall s St ntticant L
ess Tham
~.,.aa ss M `..9 S ° r.R' r"- s > w y,[ g
- ~ ~ y r,°-v='- r` + , 1~ TV e Sigmfcan~t~, Withfir Significant No
s Y:a ErtvLronmentalalssues 4NO', mpact M~ttga4on ,Irnpact~?`,.,linpacti
14 ..6Zt.Lx. =:}ET a+..`.. ; .tea sue'
XTransportatlonRraff~c~~~~r~ x
.Would [he prolec
-115
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ® ❑ ❑
substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the ❑ ® ❑ ❑
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g:, sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ® ❑ ❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The following information is excerpt from
a project-specific traffic study, (Traffic Study), included in Appendix D, Park Monterey
Project Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering Group (August 15, 2007). Model runs from the
Traffic Study are available at the City Planning Division offices. 30
In order to examine the project's potential traffic impacts, it is first necessary to estimate the
number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development. Studies have been
conducted by governmental agencies and consultants to determine trip generation
characteristics of various land uses. Trip generation rates applicable to the proposed land
uses were obtained from this body of data and are presented in Table 9. Since specific
information for the retail commercial uses is not available, the "specialty retail" category was
determined to be representative of most potential uses.
0
'o RK Engineering Group, Inc. Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study. Rosemead, California. August 2007.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 69 of 91
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
Table 9
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
/
yt"~ 2G 5
iedti}X°F K~
Or.
t.'~`T
C
it
nee , r
v
~
k~
t h'
1sand¢Us¢
h
Qu (y jf
2
UDtt$F'~+.
.7~Mo 0
^
0A
g( M);,
S
S
E ev nm YPM
#t.~Sxc
= .',..a; 11'E
atl
NID
"
" "53 4
r:Sk
W F
kY
und
V5f
,
~y
Residential
DU
0.07
0.37
0.35
0.17
5.86
Specialty Retail
1000 SF
0.80
0.53
1.19
1.52
44.32
High Turnover Sit-
1000 SF
5.99
5.53
6.66
4.26
127.15
Down Restaurant
Shopping Center
1000 SF
1.81
1.61
5.19
5.62
119.07
Notes:
1. The traffic generation rates are from the "Trip Generation, 7th Edition" (Institute of Transportation
Engineers 2003) and SANDAG Traffic Generation Rates.
2. DU -dwelling units
Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Table 2 from Traffic Engineering Report.
Those rates were then applied to the proposed uses to obtain trip generation estimates. Those
estimates are presented in Table 10. As indicated therein, the project would result in an
estimated 3,590 daily trip ends, with 231 net vehicles per hour during AM peak hour and 313
net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The retail uses on the project site and other
retail uses located in proximity to the site would further reduce the number of vehicular trips
generated by the project. A reduction of 5 percent was applied to account for internal trips
within the project between the residential and commercial uses. In addition, to account for
the pass-by trips to the commercial portion of the project, a reduction in trips of 15 percent
and 25 percent were applied to the restaurant and retail components of the site, respectively.
Table 10 -
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION
£cfiLl'"r t:'-~#Pg'S tk'F.^-3
3~
Yom" Yt1^i
"L~t
tF.tY4G.
i "`1''s
sti
°
CR'a'fi'r
'2e^' is
S
-iS'
t "
F
ix
Hour
r.u*-~
.x. L
I _pi
r'
.3 ~'~-=a• N
'T."h.
,
~LandtUse n~'
y?QUautt[y,~
~
-
e
~ 5. r M
N
ormog (AM)~t
x
~ td'r
~ 2 E
vemng.(PM)',c~,~~p
Dady
F!
,
~
`
c
'
y'
darl
Inbound§
Obound
7
Total
nd
Inb4
Outbuund Tot I,'rj
~
~
.
.
.a
.
,
g
,
Residential
127 DU
9
47
56
44
22 66
744
High Turnover
17 830
Sit Down
Square Feet
108
99
206
119
76
195
2,267
Restaurant
Shopping
41,400
26
17
43
75
81
156
1,778
Center
Square Feet
Less 5% Internal Capture
-7
-8
-15
-12
-9
-21
-239
Gross Total
135
155
290
226
170
396
4,550
Less 15% Pass-By Restaurant
-25
-24
-49
-28
-18
-46
-538
Less 25% Pass-By Retail
-6
-4
-10
-18
- -19
-37
-422
Net Total
104
127
231
180
133
313
3,590
Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Table 3 from Traffic Engineering Report.
E
•
C J
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 70 of 91
•
Cityof Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change 007-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
All study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during
Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions with the exception of the New Avenue intersection
with Graves Avenue. For the Build-Out Condition with Project (Year 2009), all study area
intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours, with
the exceptions of New Avenue at Graves Avenue, New Avenue at Del Mar Avenue, and the
three project access driveways on Garvey Avenue are expected to result in an unacceptable
level of service during peak hours. Table 11 summaries the intersection analysis. Level of
Service "D", shown in bold represents the significantly impacted intersections. Without
mitigation, a significant traffic impact would result.
•
Table 11
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
rInters
ecti n
roj ctrl
rEldstingfPlusP
2009yButldo P
o
`
tom:
a ~r
'
Conddtonp r y~
°
ndthon t
Pr
tect Co
e
L
_i
N
I_CULevel
ofService,
v
lof,Seivtce
-ICU;
w
1N6r1h South t
af
_k
XE_ast-West~S,treet'X
^'{`~'1'i t* `Yt a i~
PM'
kAMa 3 -
sEW vv
AMvt M ,
2 PM ix'
.7 a+~„ "
t+'
N{
N4
rSt`reet~~
?
~ R
k
~
,
.
Alhambra Avenue
E. Garvey Avenue
A A
A A
New Avenue
Hellman Avenue
C
B
C
B
Emerson Avenue
A
A
A
A
Garvey Avenue
B
B
B
A
Newmark Avenue
B
A
B
A
Graves AvenueZ
C
D
_
C
i
_
D
Jackson Avenue
Garvey Avenue
A
A
t
k
A
Del Mar Avenue
Garvey Avenue
A
C
A
D
[Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Levels of Service (LOS) A through C represent "free flow" traffic
through "stable flow" conditions. LOS C marks the beginning of the range of flow, in which operation of
individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. LOS D through F
represent the range of "stable flow with speed and freedom to maneuver severely restricted" to "forced or
breakdown flow where the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point".
Significance is reached at LOS D.
2Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology used at this Cross Street Stop intersection that uses "delay
time" methodology herein.
All intersections are controlled by traffic signals.
Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Extracted from Tables 4 and 6, Traffic Engineering Report.
To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-4 are
recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce
project impacts relative to congestion at intersections and project access driveways to less
than significant levels:
C J
Mitigation Measures:
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 71 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
TR-1: For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, the Applicant shall
participate in the fair-share funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of
service for Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This signal is warranted under existing
traffic conditions.
TR-2: For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the Applicant shall
participate in the fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the
Garvey Avenue eastbound approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025
conditions.
TR-3: For the project access driveways, the Applicant shall provide funding for the re-
striping of the existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-tum
lanes entering the east and west project access driveways.
TR-4: The Applicant shall provide funds to install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at
the project access driveways.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project traffic analysis considers
cumulative projects in the immediate area and growth factors. In consideration of cumulative •
impacts, the project contributes incrementally to the intersection impacts discussion in
Response No. 4.3.15(a) above. The mitigation measures presented in Response No. 4.3.15(a)
also apply.
c) No Impact. Development of the project proposes to maintain adequate pedestrian-friendly
access along access Streets. As part of the City standard development process, the project
would be conditioned to comply with applicable City adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation routes such as buses routes, bicycle lanes etc. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict or impact policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation, and the project would have no related significant impacts.
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Given their proximity to each other and
the hazards associated with making left turns across Garvey Avenue from the site, the project
driveways pose potentially significant safety concerns. Other than the hazards associated
with turning movements of the three access driveways on Garvey Avenue which will be
mitigated (see Response No. 4.3.15(a) above) no new roadway components will be
introduced as a result of or as part of the project.
During construction, heavy trucks will be entering and exiting the site to remove earth during •
excavation for the subterranean parking, and then to bring building materials to the site.
During construction, there is a potential for the heavy trucks to pose a danger to traffic as a
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 72 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07.01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 - Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
result of the turning movements required along Garvey Avenue. Mitigation Measure TR-3 in
Response No. 4.3.15(a) above), for restriping the existing center turn lane along Garvey
Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west project access
driveways as presented in shall be implemented prior to construction in order to
accommodate heavy trucks. In addition, to reduce this potentially significant impact,
Mitigation Measure TR-5 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation
measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to traffic design hazards to less than
significant levels:
Mitigation Measure:
TR-5: During all construction operations, the Applicant shall ensure to the City of
Rosemead's satisfaction that flagmen will be used to control traffic because large trucks have
a wider turning radius and will require turns across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress
from the site.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project fronts Garvey Avenue, which is also the nearest
emergency and evacuation route to the project. Delmar Avenue to the east of the project is
• also a City of Rosemead Evacuation Route. 31 The project is not anticipated to interfere with
these emergency and evacuation routes or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency
response or evacuation plans because neither construction nor project operation would block
evacuation routes. Restricted access32 as indicated in the Traffic Study conducted for the
project would not result in an impedance of easy access in case of emergency. In addition,
the mitigation of providing re-striping of the center lane of Garvey Avenue and incorporation
of a flagman to control truck turning movements during construction, would alleviate hazards
associated with construction traffic, and reduce the potential for blockages of access points.
Therefore, the project presents no impact to Rosemead's emergency response, emergency
access or evacuation plans.
The proposed project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the City and
County Fire Department's standards, which require that new developments provide adequate
access for emergency vehicles. The project site and surrounding roadway network do not
pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow,
winding roads or dead-end streets. The access ways meet the requirements of the City
Municipal Code for wide, and thus, by providing wide access-ways are expected to achieve
City of Rosemead General Plan, Public Safety Element Fig. PS-2.
RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. August 15, 2007. Pg. 1-1. The study states that the west
driveway will restrict left-tums existing the site, the center driveway will provide right-tum in/right-tum out access only, and
the east driveway will provide full access..
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 73 of 91
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
•
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Environmental Evaluation
the Fire Department's emergency access standards during permit review period. Final project
plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Fire Marshall to ensure that the site's
access complies with all emergency access standards. With the required compliance with all
City's Traffic Engineer and Fire Marshall's standards, the project would not cause significant
impacts due to inadequate emergency access.
f) No Impact. Based upon the City of Rosemead's Parking Code requirements for individual
uses, a total of 662 parking spaces are required for the project. The required number of
spaces has been provided according to the site plan. Due to the mix of land uses, the shared
parking concept is viable for the project. Utilizing the shared parking concept 33 and rates
from the City of Rosemead Parking Code, peak demand is estimated to be 572 parking spaces
for weekdays and 565 parking spaces for weekends. 1 Sufficient parking will be available
onsite to accommodate the project. Accordingly, the project will not result in inadequate
parking capacity hence; no significant parking impacts are expected.
1911 IT ntfiLess Th
Stgmfieant £ Witt Z Sigmfiwnf No
f'y,"_Envuonmentallssues'„Impact MttigaUon Impact,Impact
~y"xP-~.
16Ut16fiesand~ServlceSystems
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ ® ❑
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
The project uses are compatible with one another and lend themselves to the use of shared parking because the uses are
complimentary (i.e., residential, restaurant, and retail), and people could often visit the site for more than one purpose in only
one trip.
34 The traffic study found that the peak demand is the month of December for the proposed project.
\_I
•
C
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 74 of 91
• 0
0
City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ ❑
the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ® ❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
•
a) Less than Significant Impact. Wastewater from small to medium sized development
projects typically meet wastewater treatment requirements because wastewater treatment
facilities are already designed to treat such domestic wastewater, sludge, industrial and
commercial sewage, as well as construction waste, however, may contain toxic materials that
a wastewater treatment facility is not designed to handle, and therefore, could exceed
wastewater treatment requirements. Rosemead has two drainage systems - the sewers and the
storm drains. The storm drain system was designed to prevent flooding by carrying excess
rainwater away from the City streets out to the ocean.
Rain, industrial and household water mixed with urban pollutants creates storm water
pollution. The pollutants include oil and other automotive fluids, paint and construction
debris, yard and pet wastes, pesticides and litter. Urban runoff flows to the ocean through the
storm drain. Urban runoff pollution contaminates the ocean, closes beaches, harms aquatic
life and increases the risk of inland flooding by clogging gutters and catch basins.
Operation and maintenance of local main sewer lines are the responsibility of the Sewer
Maintenance Districts of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The Los
Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSMD) collects wastewater
from the City of Rosemead. LACCSMD has adopted policies and programs that have been
approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The
LARWQCB requires adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure a cleaner
water sources and a cleaner environment. Due the proposed small scale of the project, it is
not anticipated to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB.
Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with such wastewater standard
requirements and BMPs will be incorporated to the project throughout the permit application
process.
C ,
J
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 75 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
In addition, City Municipal Ordinance 13.16.030, Control of Urban Runoff, requires that a
water quality management plan for significant redevelopment projects shall be prepared in
accordance with the existing established city standards; and that any conditions and
requirements established by the City Engineer, which are reasonably related to the reduction
or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site shall be adhered to.
Therefore, the project's wastewater impacts are expected to be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Golden State Water Company (GSWC) services the
project area. GSWC Region III operations are focused in more than 30 cities and
communities serving more than 93,000 customer connections. Region III is divided into
three districts and 10 customer service areas operating 21 separate water systems consisting
of more than 1,180 miles of transmission pipelines, meters and hydrants. Water delivered to
customers' homes is surface water or pumped from local groundwater basins. On average,
approximately 64 percent of the Region III water supply is pumped from 132 company-
owned and operated wells. The remaining water supply is surface water purchased from the
MWD, Imperial Irrigation District, Municipal Water District of Orange County and Three
Valleys Municipal Water District 35
Water service to the project site is available from an existing water main within Garvey
Avenue. Given the small size of the project, the project would be accommodated within the
existing capacity of the GSWC operations. The project will not require or result in the
construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus causing
significant environmental effects. Property owners are required to inform GSWC of any
change in the character, size, or use of property or buildings other than for which the service
connection was originally intended. The Applicant is further responsible for the payment of
applicable fees and other charges, as may be set by GSWC.
Operation and maintenance of the regional trunk sewer lines is the responsibility of the
Publicly Owned Treatment Works of The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(Districts) 36 The Districts' has formulated average sewer generation rates for a wide range
of residential and non-residential land uses. In accordance therein, "condominium" units
generate an average of 156 gallons of wastewater per day. Based on those generation rates,
the projects' residential component would generate a total of approximately 26,832 gallons of
•
E
35 htto://www.aswater.com/Orpmization/Comymv Links!Reeions/Reeion 3/region 3.html .
16 The Sanitation Districts' service area covers approximately 800 square miles and encompasses 78 cities and unincorporated •
territory within the County. The Sanitation Districts' operate ten water reclamation plants (WRPs) and one ocean discharge
facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant), which treats approximately 510 million gallons per day, 200 mgd of which are
available for reuse.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 76 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07.02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225 _
Conditional Use Permit #1090
wastewater per day. The proposed commercial uses would also contribute to wastewater
generation. Average daily usages vary according to the specific uses prescribed.
The design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment plants are based on population
forecasts contained in Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) "Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide" (RCPG). The RCPG is part of the "Air Quality
Management Plan" (AQMP). The AQMP and RCPG arejointly prepared by the SCAQMD
and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
In order to conform to the AQMP, all expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and
service phased in a manner that ensures consistency with the Growth Management Element
(GME) of the RCPG. The GME contains a regional forecast for the Counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial, as prepared by SCAG. Specific
policies in the RCPG that deal with the management of growth are incorporated into the
AQMP's strategies to improve air quality in the SCAB. The available capacity of the
Districts' treatment facilities is assumed to be limited to those levels associated with
approved growth identified in the RCPG.
® Projects that are consistent with local general plans are, therefore, adequately accommodated
by the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities. Conversely, projects that are not consistent
with existing general plan and which would generate wastewater quantities in excess ofthose
levels that could otherwise be generated based on allowable land uses may not be adequately
accommodated by Districts' facilities. A final determination of plan consistency rests with
the City's decision-making body. If deemed consistent, the Districts' facilities would be
deemed adequate to accommodate project-related demands. If deemed inconsistent, the
project could not be approved by the City absent an amendment to the City's General Plan.
An amendment to the General Plan is proposed for the proposed project. Given the small size
of the project and the fact that the project is an infill project, the District's facilities are
expected to be adequate to serve the project site.
The Districts' is authorized to charge a fee for new connections to the Districts' sewerage
system or for an increase to the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to
a particular parcel. The connection fee provides a revenue source for the construction and
incremental expansion of the Districts' sewerage system to accommodate the proposed
development. Payment of the County-imposed connection fee, which is required prior to
issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer system, serves to mitigate the impact of proposed
project on the existing sewerage system. The project will not require or result in the
® construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 77 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
causing significant environmental effects. The proposed project would to be accommodated
within the existing wastewater treatment facility
b) No Impact. The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The project is required to comply with
the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This
SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates do not exceed
pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. The proposed project site is
relatively small approximately 3.68 acres, with structures covering more than half of the site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or the expansion of the existing facilities, and would have no associated
'significant impacts to storm water drains.
c) No Impact. As a small infill development, the project would have sufficient water
supplies available from existing entitlements and resources; no new or expanded entitlements
will be required. The Golden State Water Company provides water to the subject site and
proof of water availability and willing to supply water to the project will be required to be
provided to the City of Rosemead prior to issuance of any building permit. The City of •
Rosemead is supplied with water from various sources, including the Colorado River
Aqueduct, Local Ground Water and the State Water Project. The existing water supplies are
anticipated to be adequate to serve required amount of water to the project.
e) No Impact. As a small infill development, the project's wastewater demands are expected
to be adequately met by existing Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts facilities. No
significant wastewater impacts are anticipated from this project.
Q No Impact. There are no landfills in the City of Rosemead. The project would be served
by either of the following Landfills: Arvin Sanitary Landfill in Kern County, Bradley
Landfill West and West Extension in Los Angeles County, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill
in Los Angeles County, City of Whittier - Salvage Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County,
Puente Hills Landfill #6 in Los Angeles County, Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Los
Angeles County, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in Orange County or Olinda Alpha
Sanitary Landfill in Orange County. The proposed project involves the excavation of 88,046
cubic yards of soil to allow for development of a subterranean parking garage. The soil could
be sold/recycled to developers for infill for other projects, or taken to a landfill. The exported
material, as well as other solid waste materials associated with construction would not affect
the handling of solid waste on the local or regional scale and would not generate solid waste
in excess of the landfill capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by existing •
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 78 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
® Conditional Use Permit #1090
landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs.
g) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City operates a three-bin residential
curbside refuse, recyclable collection, and residential greenwaste collection program,
whereby all property owners or occupants generating garbage, waste, refuse, trash or
recyclable materials are required to pay to the city's designated contractor, Consolidated
Disposal Services, a fee for the collection of garbage, waste, refuse, trash and recyclable
materials. This program will be applied to the operations portion of the proposed project.
Project implementation has the potential to generate substantial quantities of construction and
demolition (C&D) wastes as a result of the construction of the proposed land uses. The
USEPA estimates that generation rates for C&D debris range from 2.41 to 11.3 pounds per
square foot of floor space. 31 Studies conducted by the Solid Waste Department of Portland,
Oregon estimated that approximately four pounds of C&D wastes are generated for every
square foot of new construction 38 The National Association of Homebuilders' (NAHB)
"Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide" also estimates that
C&D wastes average 4 pounds per square foot of floor area. 39
• Additionally, although no grading plans have been submitted for City review, based on the
proposed presence of subterranean parking, it can be assumed that grading activities will
necessitate the off-site transport of earth (inert) material.
Recycling of C&D wastes at construction sites is typically undertaken either directly by each
builder or under contract to other parties. If no effort is made to either promote the recycling
of construction wastes, such as through job site segregation of C&D wastes into distinct
categories, a greater tonnage and volume of wastes will require off-site disposal.
Although sufficient landfill capacity exists to accommodate project demands, which are
limited to the disposal of C&D waste, landfill capacity is diminishing throughout the State.
The California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city
and county in the State to reduce or recycle 25 percent of the solid wastes disposed in
landfills by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. For those jurisdictions unable to
meet AB 939 diversion objectives and established deadlines, monetary penalties can be
imposed against those agencies. As required under AB 939, the City is required to prepare a
Franklin Associates, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998, p. 2-1,
ra/ California Integrated Waste Management Board, Job Site Source Separation, revised October 1998.
39/ Yost, Peter and Lund, Eric, Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide, National Association of
Homebuilders Research Center, 1996.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 79 of 91
• •
City or Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Like most communities, the City has yet
to obtain its year 2000 diversion requirements. In recognition thereof, Mitigation Measure
UTL-1 is recommended for inclusion to the project:
Mitigation Measure:
UTIL-l: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit for
City Planning Division review and acceptance, a construction debris reduction/recycling plan
designed to minimize the volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal and
incorporating measures for the separation and short-term on-site storage of construction waste
materials in a manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion efforts. The plan shall
include a fire component so that reclamation activities are conducted in a fire safe manner.
_2
X17 Mandatory Flndings of Slgnlfcance;
A.
~ ~
,
~
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑
❑
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of,a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑
® ❑
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑
❑
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) No Impact. The proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status
species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed
•
•
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 80 of 91
•
0
Negative Declaration
City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or
animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. The proposed project would
not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and
thus, would. not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not have a Mandatory Finding of
Significance due to project impacts to biological or cultural resources.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts. Potential impacts associated with the project are site.specific,
and include potential aesthetic, air quality, cultural resources, hazards, noise, geology,
housing, traffic and utilities. Each of these impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels through mitigation measures recommended for inclusion to the project. Therefore, the
proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative
Impacts.
•
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose persons to flooding
or transportation hazards. Occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong
seismic earthshaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The earth
and geology conditions of the site would be alleviated by the required compliance with the
California Building Code and recommended mitigation measures; thus, the proposed project
would not result in adverse effects on human beings from geotechnical considerations.
Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on humans either directly or indirectly.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 81 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
SECTION 4
REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone
Report for the El Monte 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles Region. Seismic Hazard Zone Report
024. 1998.
California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California Office of Historic
Preservation: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21427, last accessed September 10, 2007.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Job Site Source Separation, revised October 1998.
California Public Resources Code.
Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: bttp:Hdofca.gov/HTML/DEMOGFAP.
City of Rosemead General Plan, November 24, 1987.
City of Rosemead Municipal Code. •
Daly and Associates. Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead.
(Historic address 404-441 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County, California.
September 2007.
Franklin Associates, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998.
Goodman, Jack, The Changing Demography of Multifamily Rental Housing, Housing Policy Debate,
Volume 10, Issue 1, Fannie Mae Foundation, 1999.
htto://www.aswater.com/Organization/Comr)any Links/Regions/Region 3/region 3.htm1
bttp://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Map_index/city.htm#P-R.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, last accessed August 23, 2007
Mecky Meyers and Associates. Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii
Properties Mixed Use Project. June 2006.
RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. Rosemead, California. August 15, •
2007.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 83 of 91
City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
• Conditional Use Permit 91090
Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue.
Rosemead, California. July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,
June 2003.
State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, El Monte Quadrangle, March 25, 1999, available at
/
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov
shm D/MaDProce ssor. asD?Mar)NavA ct ion=&Action=l M ap&Location=S oCal &FC lass=0u ad &FID=Lo
s%20An geles&Liq=false&Land=false&Bore=false&Road=true&Ciiy=false&x 1=381650.908885592
3&v1=3777023.268147673&x2=399169.49239040765&y2=3762424.448560327 , last accessed
August 23, 2007
Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Air Quality Analysis.
September 2007.
Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Noise Analysis. September
2007.
Yost, Peter and Lund, Eric, Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide,
National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, 1996.
E
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 84 of 91
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
SECTION 5
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
The following environmental mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project
development as conditions of approval. The project applicant shall secure a signed
verification for the mitigation measures that indicates that the mitigation measures have been
complied with and implemented, and fulfill the City environmental and other requirements
(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.) Final clearance shall require all applicable
verifications as included in the following table. The City of Rosemead Planning Division has
primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation
measures. The mitigation measures are identified by impact category and numbered for ease
of reference.
•
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
AESTHETICS
AES-1: Prior to approval of building permits, the
Prior to City
Planning
applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for
approval of
Division
Planning Division review and approval. All high-
building
pressure sodium (HPS) out door light fixtures/luminaries
permits;
shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light
subject
poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light
g
final
building
over to adjacent properties or directs light into the
public ri t-of-way.
inspection.
AES-2: All proposed lighting for the exterior of the
Subject to
Planning
project shall be directed away from adjacent residential
final building
Division
and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on
inspection;
addressing the south exterior of the property adjacent to
On-going.
residential uses. The developer shall be required to
provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or
light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and
restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively
minimize residual negative impacts to residents to the
0
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 85 of 91
•
J
11
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #07.1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
north.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-l: NOx Emissions. Heavy truck hauls shall be
During Planning
limited to no more than 97 on any given day.
construction.. Division
AQ-2. NOx Emissions. A log shall be kept at the site
During Planning
denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during
construction. Division
soil hauling activities. The log shall be available for
City of Rosemead inspection.
AQ-3. Paints and Coatings. All primers and top coats
During Planning
shall average no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (102
construction. Division
gram/liter) VOC.
AQ-4. Miscellaneous. The Applicant shall abide by any
During Planning
other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead
construction. Division
and/or SCAQMD.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL -1: Monitoring during excavation shall be
During site Building and
conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If
excavation. Safety
paleontological resources are uncovered during site
Department.
excavation, the developer must notify the City of
Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of
Engineering immediately and work must stop within a
100-foot radius until a qualified paleontologist has
evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue
unimpeded on other portions of the project sites. If the
find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a
unique paleontological resource, as defined by Section
21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be
treated in accordance with the provisions of Section
21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find is
determined not to be a unique paleontological resource,
no further action is necessary and construction may
continue.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 86 of 91
• 0
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development 107-01 - Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment 107-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit 107-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
--d
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading
Prior to the
Building and
permits, the Applicant shall submit and, when
issuance of
Safety
acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and
any building
Department.
design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in
or grading
accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of
permits.
Geotechnical Reports" (County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised
May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be
established by the City Engineer and City Building
Official. That investigation; as prepared by a
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will
determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and
associated details that, when implemented, will ensure
that the project is constructed in accordance with and in
recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of
the recommendations contained in that investigation will
become project-specific conditions and construction
activities will be monitored to ensure the
implementation of those measures.
HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZ-1: Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey
Prior to the
Building and
shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for asbestos
issuance of
Safety
certification. If asbestos is found, contractor
any building
Department.
recommendations for safe removal shall be followed
or grading
demolition.
permits.
HAZ-2: Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint
Prior to the
Building and
survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for
issuance of
Safety
lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is
any building
Department.
found, contractor recommendations for safe removal
or grading
shall be followed during demolition.
permits.
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 87 of 91
l I
City of Rosemead
Planned Development 907-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
46 0
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #07.1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
NOISE
N-1: At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the
On-going
Planning
southern-most residential units shall be constructed with
Division
batten insulation or of masonry construction.
N-2: South-facing rooms in the southern-most units
Prior to
Planning
shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30
issuance of
Division
percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC
any
rating of 28. These'windows are to be well fitting with
demolition,
vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting.
grading or
Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut.
building
permit; On-
going
N-3: All exterior fitt ings that enter the southern-most
Ongoing
Planning
residential units (e.g., electrical conduits, HVAC ducts)
during
Division.
are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are
construction.
rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is
exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed
and insulated to avoid noise transference through the
ducting.
N-4: All residential units within 307 feet and all
Ongoing
Planning
commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue
during
Division.
centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed
construction.
and installed in accordance with the California Uniform
Building Code.
N-5: In accordance with the Municipal Code,
Ongoing
Planning
construction shall be restricted to between the hours of
during
Division.
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No
construction.
construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on
federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply
any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of
materials to or from the site.
N-6: All construction equipment shall be properly
Ongoing
Planning
maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions.
during
Division.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 88 of 91
• 46
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090 •
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07.02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07.01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
construction.
N-7: All equipment shall be fitted with properly
Ongoing
Planning
operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine
during
Division.
shrouds no less effective than originally equipped.
construction.
N-8: The contractor shall specify the use of electric
Ongoing
Planning
stationary equipment that can operate off of the power
during
Division.
g .g., compressors). Where
rid where feasible (a
construction.
unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and
compressors) shall be located as far from residential
receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the
Garvey Avenue as feasible.
N-9: To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first
Ongoing
Planning
perform building construction on those proposed
during
Division.
structures located toward north side of the parcel. These
units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents
construction.
to the north from construction toward the south side of
the parcel.
N-10: The construction contractor shall provide details
Ongoing
Planning
of the construction schedule, as well as an on-site name
during
Division.
and telephone number of a contact person for local
residents.
construction.
N-11: Construction shall be subject to any and all
Ongoing
Planning
provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning
during
Division.
Division.
construction.
HOUSING
HOUS-1: Mitigation includes compliance with Section
Monitor
Planning
B of the Mecky Meyers and Associates, Relocation Plan
during
Division.
and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties
relocation
Mixed Use Project, dated June 2006. The Applicant
shall provide each mobile home household with $8,000
Process.
in relocation benefits, in addition to the purchase of each
mobile home at Fair Market Value as determined by a
State licensed appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible
dis laced persons upon submission of required claim
10
J
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 89 of 91
•
•
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
• •
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY.MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07.225
Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07.01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMING
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
forms and documentation regarding the rental or
purchase of decent, safe and sanitary replacement
housing.
TRANSPORTATION
TR-1: For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves
Prior to
Planning
Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the fair-share
construction
Division.
funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable
or when fair-
levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009)
share funding
conditions. This signal is warranted under existing'
is determined.
traffic conditions.
TR-2: For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and
Prior to
Planning
Garvey Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the
construction
Division.
fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive
or when fair-
left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound approach
share funding
to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025
is determined.
conditions.
TR-3: For the project access driveways, the Applicant
Prior to
Planning
shall provide funding for the re-striping of the existing
construction.
Division.
center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide
exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west
project access driveways.
TR-4: The Applicant shall provide funds to install stop
Prior to
Planning
signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access
construction.
Division.
driveways.
TR-5: During all construction operations, the Applicant
Ongoing
Planning
shall ensure to the City of Rosemead's satisfaction that
during
Division.
flagmen will be used to control traffic because large
construction.
trucks have a wider turning radius and will require turns
across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress from the
site.
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
Page 90 of 91
C
City of Rosemead
Planned Development #07-01
General Plan Amendment #07-02
Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #1090
is
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project
•
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT
General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225
Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01
MITIGATION MEASURE
TIMI NG
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
UTILITIES
UTIL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
Prior to
Building and
Applicant shall prepare and submit for City Planning
issuance of
Safety
Division review and acceptance, a construction debris
grading
Department.
reduction/recycling plan designed to minimize the
permit.
volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal
and incorporating measures for the separation and short-
term on-site storage of construction waste materials in a
manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion
efforts. The plan shall include a fire component so that
reclamation activities are conducted in a fire safe
manner.
•
Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 91 of 91
•
0 0
•
PARK MONTEREY
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
City of Rosemead, California
Prepared for:
Ms. Joann Lombardo
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SERVICES
2916 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Prepared by:
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
3991 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 310
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Kahn, P.E.
Kerin Smith, E.I.T.
1. 0T. 12/3110?
August 15, 2007
RK:K5/ng1RK5827.doc
JN: 0905-07-07
OT OF ATTACHMENT C
25
• •
EM3 engineering
group, inc.
PART OF ATTACHMENTiC
August 15, 2007
Ms. Joann Lombardo
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SERVICES
2916 Clay Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study
Dear Ms. Lombardo:
ii,Onsportation planning - traffic engineering
acnustical engineering - parking studies
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to submit this traffic impact study for the
proposed Park Monterey project. The project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of
Garvey Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of Rosemead
and is proposed to consist of 127 residential condominiums and 59,230 square feet of
mixed-use commercial space. The project will have three access points onto Garvey Avenue.
The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review existing and future conditions with and
without the proposed future development. Future conditions include area-wide growth
and other development in the vicinity of the site as well as city buildout projections. A
shared parking analysis has also been performed as part of this study to verify adequate
parking is provided on the site.
Based upon our analysis of existing and future traffic volumes, all study area intersections
are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of service with the recommended
improvements. In addition, the project is expected to have sufficient parking spaces as
noted on the site plan for the proposed uses. Therefore, the project can be accommodated
in the City of Rosemead with the recommendations included in this report.
RK is pleased to provide this traffic study for the proposed Park Monterey project located in
the City of Rosemead to Comprehensive Planning Services. If you have any questions
regarding this study, or like further review, please do not hesitate to call us at
(949) 474-0809. apFESStO;::.
Sincerely,
~GINEERING
Robert Kahn, P.E.
Principal
Attachments
RK: K5: nor'RK5821.doc
JN:0905-07-07
INC. m-:?~ ~y
No.~SS^
~ r 07
r~FFT,,G t~`P er• Smith, E.I.T.
Transportation Engineer
ma arthur I'ioulrvaId, eui;e .i19
no;vp~,rt beach, callfornia 9-1660
i:•I4l4!!.-74.0rW'1 iaa 94; i,,J 74Urg1) '
htlp:ih~w~e. rkenGirccccnm
24
E
•
•
e
Table of Contents
C
Section Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Existing Conditions 2-1
3.0 Intersection Analysis 3-1
3.1 HCM Analysis 3-1
3.2 ICU Analysis 3-3
3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact 3-6
4.0 Trip Generation 4-1
5.0 Trip Distribution
5-1
6.0 Trip Assignment
6-1
7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis
7-1
7.1 Existing Plus Project
7-1,
7.2 Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project
7-1
7.3 Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project
7-2
7.4 Year 2025 Without Project Conditions
7-3
7.5 Year 2025 With Project Conditions
7-4
8.0 Signal Warrant Analysis 8-1
9.0 Fair-Share Analysis 9-1
10.0 Parking Analysis 10-1
10.1 Parking Analysis 10-1
10.2 Shared Parking Analysis 10-2
10.3 Shared Parking Results 10-3
10.4 Overflow Parking 10-5
11.0 Findings 11-1
12.0 Recommendations 12-1
13.0 Conclusions 13-1
26
•
•
E
• List of Attachments
Location Map
Site Plan
City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element
City of Rosemead General Plan Roadway Cross Sections
Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls
Existing Traffic Volumes
Inbound Project Trip Distribution
Outbound Project Trip Distribution
Project Traffic Volumes
® Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Other Development Location Map
Zone i Trip Distribution
Zone 2 Trip Distribution
Other Development Traffic Volumes
Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Traffic Volumes
Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Traffic Volumes...
Year 2025 Without Project Traffic Volumes
Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes
Peak Month Weekday Parking Demand
Peak Month Weekend Parking Demand
•
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
27
11
0
0
® Exhibits (Cont'd)
Peak Month Daily Parking Demand U
Recommendations V
Tables
Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions... 1
Trip Generation Rates 2
Project Trip Generation 3
Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions 4
Other Development Trip Generation 5
Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Conditions..... 6
Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Conditions 7
® Intersection Analysis for Year 2025 Without Project Conditions 8
Intersection Analysis for Year 2025 With Project Conditions 9
Summary Intersection Analysis 10
City of Rosemead Parking Code Requirements 11
Peak Month Parking Demand 12
Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution 13
Appendices
Traffic Count Worksheets A
Existing Level of Service Analysis Worksheets B
Existing Plus Project Level of Service. Analysis Worksheets C
Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets.... D
® Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets......... E
28
0
0
r
® Appendices Continued (Cont'd)
Year 2025 Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets F
Year 2025 With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets G
Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets H
City of Rosemead Parking Code I
Shared Parking Worksheets (City of. Rosemead Rates) J
Shared Parking Worksheets (ULI Rates) K
•
•
29
CJ
0
0
1.0 Introduction
El
•
The proposed Park Monterey project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of Garvey
Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of Rosemead, as
shown on Exhibit A. The proposed project consists of 127 residential condominiums and
59,230 square feet of mixed restaurant and retail space. Access to the proposed project
will be provided via three (3) unsignalized driveways along Garvey Road. The west
driveway (project access driveway A) will restrict left-turns exiting the site, the center
driveway (project access driveway B) will provide right-turn in/right-turn out access only,
and the east driveway (project access driveway C) will provide full access. The site plan for
the proposed development is illustrated on Exhibit B.
After discussions with Comprehensive Planning Services and officials from the City of
Rosemead, the following intersections have been analyzed in this traffic impact study:
Nortif Soutb Street
East-.West.Street
Alhambra Avenue
E Garvey Avenue
Hellman Avenue
Emerson Avenue
New Avenue
Garvey Avenue
Newmark Avenue
_
Graves Avenue
Project Access Drives
Garvey Avenue
Jackson Avenue
Garvey Avenue
Del Mar Avenue
Garvey Avenue
The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review Existing, Existing Plus Project, Project
Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project, Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project, Year 2025
Without Project, and Year 2025 With Project traffic conditions. The traffic impact study
will determine any recommendations necessary to accommodate the project.
1-1
30
• 0
C~
L
11
• 2.0 Existing Conditions
Exhibit C shows the City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit D
shows the Existing Roadway Cross Sections. The City of Rosemead is currently in the
process of updating their General Plan. Exhibit E identifies the existing roadway conditions,
number of through traffic lanes, and the intersection controls for the study area roadways.
Existing traffic volumes on roadways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit F.
These volumes are based upon weekday traffic data collected in July 2007 for RK. The
traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A.
Table 1 represents the Existing conditions intersection levels of service. All study area
intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service during Existing peak
hour conditions. Level of service worksheets for Existing conditions are included in
0 Appendix B.
0
2-1
31
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
•
t-2
•
•
• 3.0 Intersection Analysis
The levels of service determined in this study for unsignalized intersections are calculated
using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000) methodology while the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology has been used for signalized intersections.
3.1 HCM Analysis
The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM2000). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative
measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in
terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate
LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the
• traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted.
The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the
existence of traffic control devices) are:
• LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the
presence of others in the traffic stream.
LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic
stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively
unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow
in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by
interactions with others in the traffic stream.
3-1
32
• 0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1
9
•
2-2
• 0
® LOS D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver
are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort
and convenience.
• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are
reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause
breakdowns in traffic movement.
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever
the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse
the point. Queues form behind such locations.
Uninterrupted flow is generally found only on limited access (freeway) facilities in
urban areas. The level of service is based on the HCM, Exhibit 23-2.
® The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the
existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on
the type of traffic control.
The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the
intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at
an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The
HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The
levels of service determined in this study for unsignalized intersections are calculated
using the HCM methodology.
0
3-2
33
P J
•
The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: •
`Average Total Control Delay;Per -
Vehicle (Seconds)
LOS
Signalized -
Unsi nalized
A
0.00-10.00
0.00-10.00
B
10.01 - 20.00
10.01 - 15.00
C
20.01 - 35.00
15.01 - 25.00
D
35.01 - 55.00
25.01 - 35.00
E
55.01 - 80.00
35.01 - 50.00
F
>80.01
>50.01
Adjustment factors for elements such as lane width, trucks, grade, obstructions,
parking or pedestrians are as stated in the 2000 HCM. For all analysis conditions,
the higher of either a default peak hour factor of 0.95 or an average peak hour
factor taken from the counts collected for RK has been used at each study area •
intersection in order to provide an accurate analysis comparison.
Saturation flow rates of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through and
right turn lanes, 1,600 vehicles for single left turn lanes, and 2,880 vehicles per lane
for dual left turn lanes have been assumed for all capacity analysis.
3.2 ICU Analysis
An alternative technique used to assess the operation of an intersection is known as
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate the ICU level of service, the
volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the
intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that
portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all
intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The levels of service
•
3-3
34
• 0
® determined in this study for signalized intersections are calculated using the ICU
methodology.
The calculation method consists of the following:
Calculation Method:
a. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for study area intersections;
b. Saturation Flow Rate:
Saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour for through lanes,
1,600 vehicles per hour for single turn lanes and 2,880 for dual turn lanes;
no adjustments are used for protected movements with dedicated lanes
(including both right and left turns).
® c. Clearance Internal:
A clearance interval factor of 10% (0.10) is applied to the ICU calculations.
d. Level of Service Ranges:
The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the resulting
LOS:
LOS
Critical Volume to:'
Capacity'Ra'tio;
A
0,00-0.60
B
0.61 -0.70
C
0.71 -0.80
D
0.81 -0.90
E
0.91 -1.00
F
>1.00
•
3-4
35
e. Peak-Periods: •
Weekday peak-hour analysis periods are defined as follows:
7:00 to 9:00 AM
4:00 to 6:00 PM
f. Peak-Hour:
The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as
determined by four consecutive 15-minute count periods are used in the ICU
calculations. Both AM and PM peak hours are studied.
g. Peak-Hour Data Consistency:
Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS calculations because they
vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, no counts are taken on
Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends. The traffic count worksheets for •
this study are included in Appendix A.
h. Right Turn Movements:
If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at least 22 feet
and parking is prohibited during the peak period, right turning vehicles may
be assumed to utilize this "unofficial' right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn
traffic is assigned to the through lane. If a right turn lane exists, right turn
activity is checked for conflicts with other critical movements. It is assumed
that right turn movements are accommodated during non-conflicting left
turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase),
as well as non-conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound right turn
movements and north/south through flows). Right turn movements become
critical when conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns,
southbound left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of WC
ratios that are greater than the normal through/left turn critical movements. •
3-5
36
® 3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact
The following definitions of deficiencies and significant impacts have been
developed in accordance with the City of Rosemead General Plan:
Deficiency
The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from the City of
Rosemead General Plan. The General Plan states that peak hour intersection
operations of LOS D or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection
operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient.
Significant Impact
According to the City of Rosemead General Plan, a project is considered significant if
® it increases traffic demand by 2% of capacity (V/00.02), causing LOS F
(V/C>1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the
project increases traffic demand by 2% of capacity (V/00.02).
C1
J
3-6
37
4.0 Trip Generation •
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a
development. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7`h Edition and San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) Traffic Generation Rates. These publications provide a
comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. Both daily and
peak hour trip generation rates for the uses analyzed in this study are shown in Table 2.
The traffic generation for the proposed project is based upon the specific land uses that
have been planned for the development. The proposed site will consist of 127 residential
condominiums, 17,830 square feet of restaurant space, and 41,400 square feet of retail
space. A reduction of 5% has been applied in order to account for internal trips within the
project between the residential dwellings and the commercial uses. In addition, to account
for the pass-by trips to the commercial portion of the project, a reduction in trips of 15% •
and 25% have been taken for the restaurant and retail components of the site, respectively.
The proposed development in its entirety is projected to generate approximately 3,590 net
trip-ends per day, with 231 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net
vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Both daily and peak-hour trip generation for
the proposed project are shown in Table 3.
CJ
4-1
38
•
C ,
0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4-2
C
39
0 0
5.0 Trip Distribution 0.
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site.
Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location
of employment, commercial, and
recreational opportunities, and
the proximity to
the
regional freeway system. The
directional orientation of traffic
was determined
by
evaluating existing and proposed
land uses and highways within
the community,
and
existing traffic volumes.
The proposed project has three (3) access. points. The trip distribution for this analysis has
been based upon project buildout conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are
in place or will be contemplated over the near-term. The trip distribution patterns for the
project are shown on Exhibit G.
•
•
5-1
40
® 6.0 Trip Assignment
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based
upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and existing arterial highway and local
street systems. Based upon the identified project trip generation and distributions, project
related traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit I.
•
6-t
41
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
C
5-2
•
•
0 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis
Traffic impacts have been projected and analyzed for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Project
Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project, Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project, Year 2030
Without Project, and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions,.
7.1 Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project traffic volumes have been determined by combining existing
traffic volumes with project traffic volumes. Exhibit I shows the Existing Plus Project
traffic volumes.
As presented in Table 4, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an
acceptable level of service during Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions with the
® exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue. HCM and ICU
calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C.
7.2 Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project
Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic volumes have been determined
by applying an annual growth rate and adding traffic generated by Other
Development to existing traffic volumes.
Based on discussions with representatives from the City of Rosemead, an annual
growth rate of 1 percent was identified as being representative of City and area-
wide growth. Therefore, a 2 percent growth rate (1 percent compounded over two
years) was applied to the Existing volumes to generate the Project Buildout (Year
2009) traffic-volume conditions.
0
7-1
42
0
0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK •
•
6-2
• Other Development projects within the vicinity of the site have been determined for
Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This includes all projects within
approximately one mile of the project site. Their location in relation to the Park
Monterey project is shown on Exhibit K. The expected trip generation of the Other
Developments is shown in Table 5. The trip distribution maps associated with each
Other Development project are shown on Exhibits L and M. The expected vehicle
trips generated by Other Development have been estimated and distributed to the
study area network as shown on Exhibit N.
To assess Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic conditions, existing
traffic has been combined with area-wide growth and Other Development within
the vicinity of the site. The traffic volumes for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without
Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 0.
For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions, all study area
intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak
hours. Table 6 presents the intersection analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009)
Without Project conditions. The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are included
in Appendix D.
7.3 Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project
To assess Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, project traffic has
been combined with Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic. Project
Buildout (Year 2009) With Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit P.
For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, all study area intersections
are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours, with
the exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue which is expected
to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. However, with
• the recommended improvements, this intersection is projected to improve to an
7-2
43
• •
acceptable level of service. Table 7 presents the intersection analysis for Project •
Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions both with and without improvements.
The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix E.
7.4 Year 2025 Without Project Conditions
Year 2025 Without Project traffic volumes have been determined by applying an
annual growth rate.and adding traffic generated by Other Development to existing
traffic volumes.
As previously described, an annual growth rate of 1 percent has been applied to
existing traffic in the area. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth
throughout the city. Per discussion with City officials, a Year 2025 analysis
condition was analyzed; therefore, a total of 19.6% has been applied to include the
eighteen-year period. •
In order to determine Year 2025 Without Project conditions traffic volumes, existing
volumes, a growth rate and other developments have been combined and the
resulting traffic volumes for Year 2025 Without Project conditions are shown on
Exhibit Q.
For Year 2025 Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected
to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during peak hours with the exception of
the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue and the Del Mar Avenue
intersection with Garvey Avenue which both operate at an unacceptable Level of
Service during the PM peak hour. Table 8 presents the intersection analysis for Year
2025 Without Project conditions. The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are
included in Appendix F.
•
7-3
44
• 0
0 7.5 Year 2025 With Project Conditions
To assess Year 2025 With Project conditions, project traffic has been combined with
Year 2025 Without Project traffic. Year 2025 With Project traffic volumes are
shown on Exhibit R. As shown in Table 6, HCM and ICU calculations are based on
the existing intersection geometrics and the intersection geometrics necessary to
mitigate the impacts.
For Year 2025 With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to
operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours with the exception of
two intersections. The New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue and the Del
Mar Avenue intersection with Garvey Avenue are both expected . to operate at
unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. With the roadway
mitigation shown in Table 9, these intersections are projected to operate at Level of
Service D or better for Year 2025 With Project peak hour conditions. HCM and ICU
® calculation worksheets for Year 2025 With Project Conditions are provided in
Appendix G.
r
LI
7-4
45
E
0
8.0 Signal Warrant Analysis •
Traffic signal warrants have been analyzed to determine the project's impact at the New
Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue. The intersection currently warrants a traffic signal
based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions.
The traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix H.
•
•
8-1
46
•
•
® 9.0 . Fair-Share Analysis
The project's fair-share contribution is shown in Table 11. The project should pay for its
pro-rata share of the cost of study area intersection improvements through the payment of
adopted City transportation fee programs. This pro-rata share should be based upon the
project's fair-share contribution of the cost of the improvements. The fair-share analysis
shown in Table 11 is based upon a comparison of the project's traffic to the Project
Buildout (Year 2009) With Project growth in traffic and the Year 2025 With Project growth
in traffic.
•
0
9-1
47
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAN
E
0
is
8-2
10.0 Parking Analysis
10.1 Parking Analysis
The City of Rosemead Parking Code requirements are included in Appendix I. Based
upon the current City Parking Code, the various uses (residential condominiums,
restaurants, and retail shops) would require 662 spaces. Table 11 shows the City
parking requirements per land use within the site. However, because of the mixed-
use nature of the Park Monterey project, a shared parking analysis has been
completed to determine if the proposed parking is appropriate to accommodate the
project.
Although the project provides sufficient parking spaces to meet City Code
(662 spaces provided), the analysis will assure sufficient parking is provided due to
® the complimentary uses, which will reduce the demand for parking spaces.
Furthermore, many of the users of the project will utilize multiple uses within the
project site. For example, some portion of the residents will also use the restaurants
and the retail shops within the site.
There are 662 proposed parking spaces as part of the Monterey Park project. Of
these spaces, 254 will be reserved exclusively for the residential use and the
remainder will be used in common for the residential guest, restaurant, and retail
uses. Based upon the shared parking concept, there will be sufficient parking
spaces available for parking to meet the needs of the proposed project.
The project uses are compatible with one another and lend themselves to the use of
shared parking because the uses are complimentary (i.e., residential, restaurant, and
retail), and people could often visit the site for more than one purpose in only one
trip. For example, people visiting restaurants site could also visit the retail shops,
® therefore, reducing the typical parking demand required for the individual uses. The
10-1
48
•
•
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAN •
C
9-2
• multi-use nature of the land uses at the Park Monterey project lends itself to the
reduction in overall parking generation as a result of the mix of land uses within the
site.
10.2 Shared Parking Analysis
RK has used procedures developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) from its 2005
publication, Shared Parking, Second Edition. This document contains the latest
procedures and data with respect to parking demand and shared parking. Parking
demand rates were developed from the City of Rosemead Parking Code
Requirements. The ULI has also conducted a substantial parking demand survey in
conjunction with the ITE to develop parking demand rates. The analysis was
performed using both rates and the results are discussed later in this section.
The ULI shared parking analysis evaluates the types of land uses, parking rates,
• monthly variations of parking demand by land use, differences between weekday
and weekend parking demand, the hourly distribution of peak parking demand for
each type of land use, and captive versus non-captive parking demand within the
project site. The ULI procedures were utilized within this study to evaluate peak
parking demand that will occur at the proposed Park Monterey project.
RK used the proposed land uses in determining the project parking demand. Peak
Parking Demand for each land use at the Park Monterey project was estimated
using City of Rosemead parking requirements for individual land uses. Furthermore,
each month of the year was evaluated and the peak parking demand for both
weekdays and weekends was determined utilizing data contained in the ULI Shared
Parking, Second Edition report and the operational characteristics of the proposed
land uses within the site.
11
10-2
49
The ULI-developed computer spreadsheet was used to analyze parking demand at •
the Park Monterey project. The program that the ULI has developed is consistent
with the procedures included in the ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition publication.
The following inputs were included within the shared parking computer program
for each land use:
1. Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees.
2. Captive versus non-captive parking demand.
3. Hourly Variations of parking demand.
4. Weekday versus weekend adjustment factor.
5. Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over •
the year.
The shared parking demand for individual rates takes into account the peak parking
characteristics of the residential, restaurant, and retail uses. Each of these land uses
has different peaking characteristics with respect to time of day and month of year.
Adjustments have been made to take into consideration both weekday and
weekend peak conditions, based upon the individual types of uses. The latest ULI
procedures also separate visitors versus employee parking demand for each land
use.
10.3 Shared Parking Results
Since the peak parking demand for each land use occurs at different hours, and also
varies by month and day of the week, the peak parking demand is not solely
determined by adding the individual peak parking requirements for each land use. •
Also, there are some captive trips between users within the development, which
10-3
50
• •
• further reduces the parking demand. Exhibit 5 indicates the peak parking demand
for weekday conditions and Exhibit T indicates the peak parking demand for
weekend conditions at the Park Monterey project. Exhibit U shows a comparison of
peak parking demand by hour during the peak month of the year. As shown on
these exhibits, peak parking demand does not occur continually throughout the day
and would peak infrequently during the course of a day.
This study finds that the month of December resulted in the highest peak parking
demand during the year for the Park Monterey project. The computer output
datasheets for the various months are included in Appendix J. The hourly parking
demand for the peak month of December is shown in Table 12. As shown, the
maximum parking demand on weekdays is 572 parking spaces. Peak demand on
weekends is 565 parking spaces.
The Park Monterey project provides for a total of 662 parking spaces. Of the spaces
• provided, 254 spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the residences. The
remaining 408 spaces are used in common and would accommodate parking
demand from the residential guests, restaurant, and retail uses. Based upon this
shared parking analysis, the proposed land uses within the Park Monterey project
can be accommodated by the 662 parking spaces without creating an overflow
parking situation. It is projected that there will be an excess of 90 spaces during
weekdays and 97 spaces during weekends during the peak month of the year with
full occupancy of the development for peak conditions.
ULI-developed parking demand rates differ from the City of Rosemead rates.
Therefore, in order to ensure that sufficient parking has been provided, RK
performed an additional shared parking analysis using ULI rates. This analysis further
confirms the proposed land uses within the Park Monterey project can be
accommodated by the 662 parking spaces without creating an overflow parking
situation. Using ULI rates, it is projected that there will be an excess of 107 spaces
• during weekdays and 26 spaces during weekends during the peak month of the
10-4
51
year with full occupancy of the development for peak conditions. The computer •
output datasheets for the various months and the hourly parking demand for the
peak month of December using ULI rates are included in Appendix K.
10.4 Overflow Parking
Based upon the shared parking analysis, the peak parking demand for weekdays is
projected to be 572 parking spaces and the peak weekend parking demand is
projected to be 565 parking spaces. Of these spaces, 254 are reserved for the
exclusive use of the residences, leaving 318 and 311 spaces required during the
weekdays and weekends, respectively. While residential parking is reserved in the
lower basement level, it is recommended that guests visiting the residences will also
have access to the Resident Parking basement level.
The Park Monterey project has 408 common spaces available, accounting for the •
254 reserved spaces; therefore, at least 90 parking spaces (22% of the common
parking spaces) should be available for any overflow parking needs during the peak
weekday conditions and at least 97 parking spaces (24% of the common parking
spaces) should be available for any overflow parking needs during the peak
weekend conditions.
•
10-5
52
! •
• 11.0 Findings
A summary of the level of service analysis for each condition is included in Table 9.
The study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during
Existing peak hour conditions. The study area intersection of New Avenue and Graves
Avenue currently warrants a traffic signal based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis
for Existing conditions.
The proposed development in its entirety is projected to generate approximately 3,590 net
trip-ends per day, with 231 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net
vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
During Existing Plus Project conditions, all of the study area intersections excluding the
• project access driveways are.projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during
peak hour conditions with the exception of New Avenue with Graves Avenue. However,
with the recommended improvements, this study area intersection is projected improve to
an acceptable level of service during the peak hours.
For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are
projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours.
For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, all study area intersections
excluding the project access driveways are projected to operate at an acceptable level of
service during the peak hours, with the exception of New Avenue at Graves Avenue and
Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue. However, with the recommended improvements, these
study area intersections are projected improve to an acceptable level of service during the
peak hours.
u
11-1
53
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
11
•
10-6
~ w
w Garvey Avenue provides a center turn lane that extends along the front of the site. The
center turn lane improves operations and safety for vehicles turning left out of the site as
they are able to cross westbound traffic on Garvey Avenue and wait in the center turn lane
before merging with eastbound traffic. Taking into consideration the benefits of the center
turn lane, all three project access driveways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of
service.
The project should contribute towards intersection improvements based upon fair-share
analysis included in this report, through participation in adopted City transportation fee
programs.
Based upon the City of Rosemead Parking Code requirements for individual uses, a total of
662 parking spaces are required for the Park Monterey project. The required number of
spaces has been provided as indicated on the site plan. Due to the mix of land uses, the
is shared parking concept is viable for this project.
Utilizing the shared parking concept and rates from the City of Rosemead Parking Code,
peak demand is estimated to be 572 parking spaces for weekdays and 565 parking spaces
for weekends.
The results of the shared parking analysis indicate that sufficient parking is available on-site
to accommodate the project.
w
11-2
54
12.0 Recommendations
Project Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit S.
At the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, participate in the fair-share funding to
install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009)
conditions. This signal is warranted under existing traffic volumes.
At the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, participate in the fair-share
funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound
approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025 conditions.
Existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue may be re-striped to provide exclusive left-
turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways.
Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access driveways.
Participate in City approved development impact and roadway fees.
In conjunction with the preparation of precise grading, landscape, and street improvement
plans, sight distance should be reviewed at all project access points per City of Rosemead
and Caltrans standards.
While residential parking is reserved in the lower basement level, it is recommended that
guests visiting the residences will also have access to the Resident Parking basement level.
Provide 662 parking spaces, as shown on the proposed site plan. After full occupancy of
the Monterey Park project, peak parking demand should be monitored to refine parking
management operations.
12-1
55
•
•
•
•
•
• 13.0 Conclusions
Based upon this analysis of Existing, Project Buildout (Year 2009), and Year 2025 traffic
conditions, all study area intersections are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of
service with the implementation of the recommendations included in this report. Based
upon the shared parking analysis, the project is expected to have sufficient parking spaces
as noted on the site plan. Therefore, the proposed Park Monterey project can be
accommodated within the City of Rosemead.
0
•
13-1
56
• •
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
L7
•
12-2
•
•
•
• •
Exhibits
57
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
•
u
13-2
•
•
Legend:
= Study Area Intersection
N
• •
0905-07-0I (EYA)
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT 5 MDY, City of Rosemead, Calitom6
Exhibit A
Location Map
engineering
group, inc.
58
0
0
0
•
0
• N
0905-07-01 (ExB)
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Caiibmia
Exhibit B
Site Plan
engineering
group, inc.
59
E
0
Exhibit C
City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element •
0
N
0905-07-0I (ExC) engineering
PARK MONTEREY PROJECPTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, CIryof Rosemead, C.Iifoma ® group, inc.
60.
Exhibit D
•
City of Rosemead
General Plan
Roadway Cross Sections
4•LT-
i
Ons. A.r
F
tl••.en °ba.
_
Z
La..l Alut1 tj
4
r LT BI/S
I
`
~
kLT4S I/S
2
2
I
r.u.r er...
/
/
y
4. L7
4
tLT81/S,
2 s
2
'
1(w1+ 'j
4rLT9I/$
2
Z
Wr
N•q 91.
1
T
I
~Z
I O
N u
wm Ar
2
2
bN 1b1..I.b. Plq
tt
2
4. LT
1
-41 LT 8 VS.
j
B•LT
•
Ar.
4t LT
i
'
LEG ENp
j
2
4*LT
i
64LT = 6 LANES PLUS
1
I
LEFT TURN LANES
4•LTa i/S
4tLT
I
4•LT : 4 LANES PWS
4r LT a I/S
LEFT TURN LANES
vw..
. A...
2
4 c 4 'LANES NO LEFT
I~
TURN LANES
4.LT
4•LTai/S 4LANES PWS
R.N 6t
I
LEFT TURN LANES
a
Ar INTERSECTION
o m
; `
= 2 LANES
2
'
I
e
/
~
1 1 = FREEWAY
a
J 1NTERCWINGE
4
I:
a
•
'•er =
tome°• nor
4.1
• N
0905_07-01 (EsD) engineering _
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Ckyof Rosemead, Califomla group, Inc.
61
Exhibit E
Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls •
= Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
4 = Number of Lanes
1 D = Divided
U = Undivided
L_ = Defacto Right Turn
N
•
•
0905-07-01 (EE) engineering _
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Ca urnTa group( inc.
62
•
•
•
LL N
u d
~E
W-'
V
i
C
r
N
W
r J1 JI
_ -1
9
a`$ -~W~.
~'Or ~~-LN~LI9 J~~ /
TL~ 1
L9-/ ~$r .ILVLIJ ~~r
E' m°~ ~uLlfil
(940(4
S'EL
691
e'L
SL
•vvy
W
F
"
0"SZ
02Z
S61
CII L
B
~viuN
S
Z
E
V
L'L
L'S
-VW V+Ytl
~S
3F
zr
'S s
d CI
£ g
S
d A II
J ~'a
IS
63
0
0
0
0
Exhibit G
Inbound Project Trip Distribution
Legend:
10 = Percent to/from Project
CI
09M Z7-01 (E q
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. CRy of Ro ad. G5fomta
engineering _
group, inc.
64
Exhibit H
Outbound Project Trip Distribution •
I*
Legend:
10 = Percent to/from Project
F- 1
L J
GM-07.01 (E engineering
PARK MONTEREY PROJECTTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Califon group, inc. _
65
•
L
•
•
_ N
LY d
W O
V
L
M
V
d
•L
a
S
urol~ a, J~°--'
LIN11 _ won ~1 -
~ J~~ J1~ Jim
• µ `3w ~II
~ ~ J 1 ~ +QQr Ji'- ,Q /F 1¢'
~ '''III IQ' ~~J
~O K 17 C-~ ~^a ~f~ ~IO6~ oj6
x-11 ~1 ~l
I'0
~YeNPo
W
r
i'I
LI
rl (n
90
~
<
s
o
i
IL
T~W~4KWI
w
C y
m C
G~
C O
m w
a~
~r
da
£ G
py C
'O 3 6
u l l
So
Il
66
~ N
d
~E
w?
u
E:
u
d
•L
CL
3
d
to
C
N
W
LN J
,:mo
9
J 1 l ~ JyI' L r'
i~ir/L(-~ ~ 65THA[-1 Cwt..
lan~ msmi ~ 11 Jaa~ Z~ JaW a
alns-s ~ uroL-~ ca wns..~
-61RI ~ ~-WI I
es~Y
y~,`~c -n~sp rtsv -
Sj^ r'1^ Jaa f+s av
gSg/(~jiJ ~`H~ ~u°1
0909
W~
m•-
mo
~a
m~
E
11
g[[
M
~+4'aN Po
PL
9i
avwy umllx
m
W6
P9L
i'Ei
B'Oi co
6'II E6
aunty wry
N
b
S
~
e
i
u
LL
PS
d~
a~
i~
9
d 1 1
-z
67
•
• •
•
•
Exhibit K
Other Development Location Map
Hellman Avenue
Emerson Avenue
e
~
Q'
w
m
o
C
m
r0,
< .
Q
0
Z
q
N
a
SITE
O
Garvey Avenue
Newmark Avenue
Graves Avenue
Legend:
O = CUP 06-1079
I CUP 04-960
• N
OM-07-01(W
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Gry of Rosemead. CalRomia
engineering
group, inc.
68
Exhibit L
Zone 1 Trip Distribution •
0
Legend:
10 = Percent to/from Project
•
0907-01 fd.> engineering
PARK MONTEREY PROJECTTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, C.Iifomiz group, inc.
69
Exhibit M
Zone 2 Trip Distribution
0
Legend:
10 = Percent to/from Project
090507-01 (ExM)
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Otyof Rmmead, California
engineering
group, inc.
70
•
•
L~
0
• •
•
•
•
z~
r~
a
W O
V
L
F
c
d
E
a
0
d
d
O
L
d
0
won z~
F
1"0
Fj)
anuuy xary
~
N
5
i
e
= ~
<
9
'
Z
anvaqugweyry
er
k
iE
~F
D
i~
c
L
m 1 A
Iz
Cti
~ C
N n
C ~
C O
m w
71
• •
O nor-)
O O
% 1Y =
W Q
O^, u
o m
N L
H
yyd v
O
a+ L
7O
0
V
.3
m
O
L
IL
---wso~rest
rY~re C * (40
L9UFEL --9fl/ '-FLL18f
HFL9B/56
F-(Y21SL9 ~ -F ~3
elroi ~1 rs6n Jj
w LIH
LU6i OTBl6ro(Lf~ ~~C ~ '"__r
y5= oNrls-F m islrosl
44($O(ok
W
C ti
~ C
ca
3
•C O
m w
•
\_I
m
pg
S'61
a.~+~tl~eN P.7
B2
97
wrap-
LLI
r
*
4n
5'R
661
5'II 69
a"m^tl ^'aN
y
N
b
Q
y
E
.n
m ~
^
Q
£
S
m
S
~ £
n 6
E
p
~
^
#
"
u
z
CL
B'5
enw,y m9~WV
Bo
Eg
:E
~F
2
i~
£ yFn
'O Q Q
c n e
m o
J ~ m6
72
•
• •
•
C J
3 E
t
W 6`
`O
CD /
N u
yyELO,, b
7 d
~ L
•g a.
m
u
a
'o
aL
Tirol ~^S (94
h aP
~a
eo.N6E- •n r BIfbUIJ 6d GG,O~ =o~ ~
16169 a3 E11rc6-E "af„'c ~ ~ &
-OS/BI mn ~-WIN01
LtflIILL aC
~ EDL/699 m.T~°T~' ~-EGVIBY
~-Y[/SE G l1LIIZJ T~~
^~pJJN IbLA~~` J i L h u1 J l l~ ~I910L
9'r~ ~~C IOIbGJ r
01-E ~~3- lalfllq/19, LI SI~ioSLl-E ~a
94(49
N
YL
761
-Y-W P(1
97
17
~v uo"
d
N
d
_
~ T
9qL
CEL
tIZ En
Z71 F6
-V -N
N
d
6
a
B
m
T
E
z
u
CL
6 S
'~y>JP9~OV -
~E
S~
i~yy
C
EP
v as
e . e
m o
1 x
I
W
C Lj
d C
d_ Q
7
~o
d W
73
a~
a ~
s 7
w O
v
.o
IL
IL
0
0
s
N
O
N
r
•
~B$[/Y85
a-'F
~O~.e E--09ro6
.aw CI/61
Jle JVI~
891[9-I , ~ r
[FUroI 1
I51/U.-E ~ sS/LF+
.n„ 9C/Bt-5 ng
0
9E-d ~
JYLm [I(09
1SUE91J
ZEN18F~
611/101
°u
9-oSAI M E-E01/111
~~gC I[I/!
LI -69U[[L ^ IL 595
T; ~SSR9 _ ~ IH}S JJ L
~ L59/501 $94
58/901-, .cn "a m
J68NII-5 , f r --E r 95[A ItJ
Ql; + CB9/ ~ - C
-5 ~S„ ulroil-5 ~5~
c~
~c
c EiL
Po
d w
•
•
L'6L
b'LC
°`°`Y+4J Mf1
E[ ^
0'C
VIC
V9Z
ra Fn
VEI V01
~
N
1p
g
m
F
m
n s
€
s
n
Z
u
f e
89
•"aY~
:S
S
is
O
e II o
d
Ix
74
~ 1
•
•
•
K N
m
D
K3
W G
V
Y
u
d
.O
IL
s
a+
3
Ln
N
O
N
L.
a~
urol-~ ~a
LINK
a
0
~-09N6 C`0 L6(/BE
~-ECNS ~ ~6[9b0L
J I~ T-avlx J.r, C-6EIM
l}~
aYa
~ 8AL1901-~ `~C
0
--B~E/sLS
Ev/le--f LLroL-f w»s-~ c
°g 6
1 (4()()
F6r66B C~A ~ 1&ILL ~Se ~'IFt/595
L1JK yqn IHS J I 1-LUfB
~ i~ BloJlkl~ RY I`6~EYJ- 1 ~C 9F/6E gg f-LS/bL s~ f-ELIKII
Via= al✓`rL-f gS° uINLI-s ~S~
94(09
F6L
6ZI
anua~VnW I~
F[
FE
~V
m
m
_
W
F
o"IC
TLC
9H (n
I'H B'II
Z
m C
m
{
m
~
m Q
C
98
6l
>~tl~W~NH
E~
v
`e
i~
i~
£ °y
i
9 < 6'
o e e
I S
75
• •
Exhibit S
Peak Month Weekday Parking Demand •
1
700
S00
500
400
N
M
Ot
C
Y
a 300
200
100
0
Weekday Month-by-Month Estimated Parking Demand
Jan Feb M. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nov Dec Lot Do
Month
i N
0905-07-01 (Ed]
PARK MONTEREY PROJECTTRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Cay at Raeemead,
engineering
group, inc.
J
•
76
• •
Exhibit U
• Peak Month Daily Parking Demand
700
wo
wo
Peak Month Daily Parking Demand by Hour
K 400
N
e
Y
6 300
• 200
O
100
6P~ 1 0 9 ~O +^01~ 4411 `QR4 M1Q~ e ?e e e "q'l- ^tiY
Hour
• NN
090.5-07-01 (ExU)
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TR4FFlC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Califomia
eWeekday
OWeekend
engineering
group, inc.
78
• •
Exhibit T
Peak Month Weekend Parking Demand
Weekend Month-by-Month Estimated Parking Demand
N
D•
C
R
6
i
N
0905-07-01 (ExT)
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. Cay of Rosemead, Calllomla
engineering
group, inc.
0
•
•
77
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Od Nw Dec Lat Dec
Month
Ll
0
Participate in a fair-Share Funding for
Intersection improvements shown and participate
in applicable city adopted Roadway Fee
Programs.
Sight distance at each project access should
be reviewed at the time of construction per
City of Rosemend and Caltrans standards.
a Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends
at all project access points.
• a
Existing center turn lane on Garvey
Avenue should be restriped to
provide exclusive left-turn lanes at
project access driveways.
Newmark Avenue
Graves Avenue
Legend:
= Traffic Signal
Defacto Right Turn
= Improvements
Traffic Signal is Warranted fort
Existing Conditions.
9
Exhibit V
Recommendations
m
0
c
Q
E
ti r-
f~
• N
09CS-07-01 (BAO engineering
PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Cafdornia group! inc.
S
79
9
0
Tables
0
is
0
•
•
TABLE 1
Intersection Analysis For Existing Conditions
Intersection roach Lane(s)'
Delay'
HCM Level
ICU Level
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
(Seconds)
of Service
ICU"
of Service
Intersection
Controls
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
TS
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
0.553
0.519
A
A
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
-
-
-
0.725
0.655
C
B
• Emerson Avenue (EWl
TS
-1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
-
-
0.455
0.574
A
A
• Garrey Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
-
-
0.749
0.579
C
A
• Newmark Avenue (EW)
TS
I 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
0 0 0
-
-
0.608
0.441
B
A
• Graves Avenue (EW)
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
16.6
28.6
C
D
Jackson Avenue (NS) at:
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
TS
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.578
0.532
A
A
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1-
1 2 1
0.555
0.760
A
C
•
When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where •1' is indicated for the through movement
and °0•s are indicated for PJL movements, the R and/or Lturns are shared with the through movement.
L =Left; T = Through; R = Right > = Right Turn Overlap; = Free Right Turn; gpjd =I mprovement
a Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
TS = Traffic Signal
. AW5 =All Way Stop
CSS = Cloy Street Stop
94 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
t:kkfabklRK582 r Te
IN:09059]-01
80
0
0
0
0
0
TABLE 2
Trip Generation Rates'
•
Peak Hour
ITE
AM
PM
Land Use
Code
Units
In
Out
In
Out
Daily
Special Retail Center
814
TSF
0.80
0.53
1.19.
1.52
44.32
High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant
932
TSF
5.99
5.53
6.66
4.26
127.15
Residential CondominiurrvTownhou5e
230
DU
0.07
0.37
0.35
0.17
5.86
Shopping Center
820
TSF
1.81
1.16
5.19
5.62
_
119.07
•
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003 and SANDAG Traffic
Generation Rates.
2 DU = Dwelling Units
• TSF = Thousand Square Feet
i:liktabk-SW5921 TO
1N:09OS-07-01
81
• •
TABLE 3
Project Trip Generation
Peak Hour
ITE
AM
PM
Land Use
Code
Quanti
Units'
In
Out
Total
in
Out
Total
Daily
Residential Condominium]Townhouse
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
Shopping Center
230
932
820
127
17.83
41.4
DU
TSF
TSF
9
107
26
47
99
17
56
206
43
44
119
75
22
76
81
66
195
156
744
2,267
1,778
Less 5% Internal Capture
-7
-8
-15
-12
-9
-21
-239
Gro s Total'
13 5
155
290
226
170
396
4,550
F
15% Pass-by (Restaurant)
25%Pass-by (Retail
-25
-6
-24
-4
-49
-10
-28
-78
-18
-19
-46
-37
-536
-422
Total
704
127
231
180
733
313
3,590
OCS = Occupied Camp Sites
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Full Trip Generation Without Pas-by Trips; Utilized for Analysis at Project Access Points
jlrWbresJRK5621 M
JM: 090507-01
•
•
•
82
• 0
• TABLE 4,
Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions
- Intersection Ap
proach Lane(s)'
Delay'
HCM Level
ICU Level
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
(Seconds)
of Service
ICUs
of Se
rvice
Intersection
eontrola
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
TS
1 I 1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
0.563
0.535
A
A
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
0.739
0,672
C
B
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
0.470
0.591
A
A
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.689
0.648
B
B
• Newmark Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
0 0 0
0.615
0.461
B
A
• Graves Avenue (EWs)
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
17.9
36.3
C
E
Project Access A (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
CSS
- 0 0 0
0 1 0
1 2. 0
0 1,5 0.5
15.3
12.5
C
B
-
-
_
Project Access B (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
C55
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
14.5
12.0
B
B
-
-
Project Access C (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
CSS
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
22.6
15.6
C
C
Jackson Avenue (NS) at
• Gar Avenue (EV4
TS
0 1 0.
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.589
0.538
A
A
_
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
• Garvey Avenue
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
0.563
0.777
A
C
•
When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where •T- is indicated for the through movement
and'0's are indicated for WL movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement.
L = Lett; T = Through; R = Right > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement
Analysis Software: Traffik Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of servicefor the worn individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
s TS = Traffic Signal
AWS = All Way Stop
CSS = Goss Street Stop
ICU = Intersection Capacity UtT¢ation
I:IrkrableORK582118
IN 0905-07-(n
83
TABLE 5
Other Development Trip Generation
Peak Hour
ITE
A
M
P
M
Zone
Project
Land Use
Code
Quantity
Unitsl
In
Out
In
Out
Daily
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
230
36
DU
3
13
13
6
211
CUP 06-1079
Specialty Retail
814
5
865
TSF
5
3
7
9
260
1
.
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
932
5.640
TSF
34
31
38
24
717
Subtotal Zone 1 -
42
47
58
39
1188
Residential Condominium/Townhouse
230
50
DU
4
19
19
9
293
3
:CUP 04-960
Sho in Center
820
20.100
TSF
36
23
104
113
354
Subtotal Zone 2
40
42
123
122
647
Total'
82
89
181
161
1,835
r DU =Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
' Numbers may not add due to rounding.
NrkrableY K5871 ra
IN 090807-07
•
11
l/ 11
u
84
•
•
• TABLE 6
Intersection Analysis For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Conditions
Intersection
roach Lane(s)'
Delay'
HCM Level
ICU Level
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
westbound
(Sec
onds)
of se
rvice
ICU,
of Se
rvice
Intersection
Control'
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
TS
1 1 .1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.567
0.539
A
A
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
0.742
0.665
C
8
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
-
-
D.467
0.589
A
A
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.674
0.594
B
A
• Newmark Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
0 0 0
-
0.618
0.448
B
A
• Graves Avenue (EM
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
17.4
34.6
C
D
-
Jackson Avenue (NS) at:
_
- Garvey Avenue (EVh
TS
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
0.593
0.552
A
A
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
0.592
0.813
A
D
is
' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where -I' is indicated for the through movement
and 'M are indicated. for R7L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement
' Analysis Software: Traff ix, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
' TS = Traffic Signal
AWS = All Way Stop
CSS - Cross Street Stop
ICU - Intersection Capacity utilization
i.1&Ubk,W5R2?V
/N: 090407-07
85
• •
TABLE 7 •
Intersection Analysis For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Conditions
In
tersection A roach Lane(s
Delay'
HCM Level
ICU Level
Significant
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
(Seconds)
of Se
rvice
ICI/°
of Se
rvice
Im
ct
Intersection
Control'
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
TS
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.577
0.555
A
A
No
No
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
0.755
0.687
C
B
No
No
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0,5
1 0.5 0.5
-
-
-
-
0.482
0.606
A
8
No
No
• Garvey Awnue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
0.704
0.669
C
B
No
No
• Newmark Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
D 0 0
-
D.625
0.467
8
A
No
No
• Graves Avenue (EW)
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
D 1 1
18.8
45.7
C
E
-
-
-
-
-
-Wtth lm rovements
TS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
-
-
D.376
0.480
A
A
No
Yes
Project Access A (NS) at
• Gary Avenue (EW)
CSS
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
5.5
1
12.6
C
8
project Access B (1,15) at
_
_
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
CSS
0 0 0
_
0 1 0
-
0 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
14.9
12.3
8
8
Project Access C INS) at
• Garvue(EW)
CSS
0 0
0 1 0
1 0
0 1.5 0.5
24.0
16.6
C
C
Jackson Avenue (NS) at:
t
• GarvAvenue(EW)
TS
1 0
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.604
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
TS
1.5 0.5
i
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.600
0.830
A
D
No
No
When a right turn law is designated, the lane an either be striped or unstiiped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehiclestouavel outside the through lanes.Where-l-Ndiotedforthethroughmmment
and M's are indicated for RA movements, the R andror L turns are shared with the through movement.
L = tef ; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; » = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement
2 AruFysh Sof am; Traffic, Version 79. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
servica are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross-stmet stop control, the
delay and kvd of service for the worst individual movement for movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
IS =Trafbcsigrul
AWS = AN Way Stop
CSS = Goss Street Stop
KU = Intersecasn Capacity Utilization
j:lhlahNdRXS@ltB
/N:090S0~-0t
is
C I
86
E
• TABLE 8
Intersection Analysis For Year 2025 Without Project Conditions `
Intersection A roach Lane(s)'
Delays
HCM Level
ICU Level
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
(Seco
nds)
of Se
rvice
ICUs
of Service
Intersection
Controls
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at
• E Gary Avenue
TS
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.647
0.613
B
B
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
T5
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
0.852
0.762
D
C
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
0.529
0.673
A
B
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
0.773
0.677
C
B
• Newmark Avenue(EW9
TS
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
0 0 0
-
0.708
0.508
C
A
• Graves Avenue (EW)
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
21.9
_4
C
F
-
ackson Avenue (NS) at:
• GarvAvenue (EW
TS
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.677
0.628
B
B
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
0.572
0.929
B
E
•
' When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where"1' is indicated for the through movement
and 'CPS are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Fight Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Tom; Bold = Improvement
t Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7,9, Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control, For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
' IS = Traffic Signal
AW5 =Ali Way Stop
CSS = Cross Street Stop
° Delay High. Intersection Unstable. Level of Service F.
ICU = Intersecion Capacity Utilization
I:1ktab1er/RK5871r8
/mm"7-01
87
• 0
TABLE 9
Intersection Analysis For Year 2025 With Project Conditions
Intersection Ap
proach Lane(s)'
Delay"
HCM Level
ICU Level
Significant
Traffic
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
(Seco
nds)
of Service
ICUs
of se
rvice
Im
act
Intersection
Controls
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
TS
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2 1
0.657
0.629
B
8
No
No
New Avenue
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
-
0.865
0.776
D
C
No
No
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
-
0.545
0.690
A
B
No
No
• Garvey Avenue(EVJ)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 1.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
0.803
0.752
D
C
No
No
• Newmark Avenue (EW)
TS
1 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
D 0 0
-
0.715
0.528
C
A
No
No
• Graves Avenue(EVJ)
CSS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
24.5
C
F
-
-
-
-
-
- With Improvements
TS
0 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
0 1 1
0.421
0.552
A
A
No
Yes
Project Access A (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue (EVV)
C55
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
18.1
13.8
C
B
-
Project Access B (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
C55
0 0 0
0 1 0
O 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
16.9
13.3
C
8
Project Access C INS) at
• Garvey Avenue (VV)
CSS
D 0 0
0 1 0
1 2 0
0 1.5 0.5
31.7
19.2
D
C
-
Jackson Avenue INS) at:
_ - -
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
TS
0 1 0
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 2 I
0.588
0.635
B
B
No
No
Del May Avenue (1`15) at
• Garvey Avenue lEW)
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
1 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
-
0.680
0.946
B
E
No
No
- With Improvements
TS
1 1.5 0.5
1 0.5 0.5
2 2 1
1 2 1
-
-
0.663
0.699
8
D
•
•
' When a right turn lane's designated. the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there most be
sufficient width for right turtling vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Whem'1' is indicated for the through movement
and Vs are indicated for RA. movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement.
L - Leh; T = Through; R = Righ% > = Right Tum Ovetiap; =Free Right Turn; )cold -I mprovement
' Analysis Sof mm: Traf h, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or, mowments sharing a single lane) are shown.
n TS = Traffic Signal
AWS -All Way Stop
CSS - CrassStied Stop
° Delay High. hrtenection Unstable. level of Service F. •
s ICU - Intersedon CapacityUSlization
Orkradzs/RK582178
M.'p9p5-07-01
88
I
•
•
6
r
E
Ll
fE
S
`e
m
:
i
E
S
U
Y
~c
6
11
I
~
1 I
_
m
S
E
o
060
^5
'
y
I
1
Y
_
~
„mm
e
I
P
m
Y
o
^al
I
f
I
f
1 <
1
I
g
~
i
~
~
~
[
<
mmm
S
g
F
6
aVm
V
m
I
l d
£
p3
o a o
Fz~
"
E
s
s
E
t
f
<
m6660
o
a
Q
V<mm
6
6
~
Y
gL~
C
I
mama..
Q
nl
~I
a
m a
I
i
-
3
9
2
_
~
I
c
f
`
I n_
l i
I
p
g
•
SS
F
49
89
• •
TABLE 11
City of Rosemead Parking Code Requirements
Land Use
Quantity Units'
Parkin Rate2
Parking Spaces
Required
Residential Owner
127 DU
2SP/DU
254
Residential Guest
127 DU
0.5SP/DU
615
Restaurant
17,830 SF
1SP/100 SF
178.3
Retail
41,400 SF
1SP/250 SF
165.6
1'rotal
661.4
•
•
DU -Dwelling Units
SF - Square Feet
Z SP = Parking Space •
j:1rktable51RK5821T6.x15
IN:0905-07-01
90
0 0
•
•
TABLE 13
Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution
Project Buildout
Project % of
(Year 2009)
Project Buildout
Existing
With Project
Project
(Year 2009)
Traffic
Traffic
Growth in Traffic
Traffic
Growth in Traffic
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• E Garvey Avenue
2,193
2,195
2,334
2,391
141
196
63
85
44.7%
43.4%
New Avenue .
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
2,076
2,549
2,201
2,718
125
169
75
101
60.0%
59.8%
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
1,455
2,242
1,576
2,419
121
177
85
108
70.2%
61.0%
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
3,119
2,674
3,399
3,038
280
364
184
243
65.7%
66.8%
• Newmark Avenue (EW)
1,364
934
1,432
1,003
68
69
40
51
58.8%
73.9%
• Graves Avenue (E1M
839
1,144
914 _
1,252
75
108
40
50
53.3%
46.3%
Project Access A (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
1,992
1,664
2,312
2,096
320
432
246
331
76.9%
76.6%
Project Access B (NS) at
_
• Garvey Avenue(EW)
1,992
1,664
2,180
1,917
188
253
14
1
152
60.6%
60.1%
Project Access C (NS) at
_
.
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
1,992
1,664
2,
1
5
2
1,890
160
226
86
125
518%
553%b
Jackson Avenue (NS) at:
_
.
.
_
-
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
2,1_8.7_
-
2,052
2,312
2,232
125
180
46
71
36.8%
J
39.4%
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
-
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
2,312
3,767
2,505
4,114
193
347
50
74
9%
21.3%
Year 2025
Project % of
Existing
With Project
Project
Year 2025
Traffic
Traff ic
Growth in Traffic
Traffic
Growth in Traffic
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Alhambra Avenue (NS) at:
• EGarveyAvenue
2,193
2,195
2,719
2,780
526
585
63
85
12.0%
14.5%
New Avenue
-
-
• Hellman Avenue (EW)
2,076
2,549
2,566
3,167
490
618
75
101
15.3%
16.3%
• Emerson Avenue (EW)
1,455
2,242
1,827
2,814
372
572
85
108
22.8%
18.9%
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
3.119
2,674
3,948
3,510
829
836
184
243
22.2%
29.1%
• Newmark Avenue (EW)
1,364
934
1,671
1,168
307
234
4D
51
13.0%
21.8%
• Graves Avenue (EW)
8
39
1,144
1,061
1,451
222
307
40
50
18.0%
16.3%
Project Access A (NS) at
_
_
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
1,992
1,664
2,662
2,389
670
725
246
331
36.7%
45.7%
Project Access B (NS) at
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
1,992
1,664
2,530
2,210
538
546
114
152
21.2%
27.8%
Project Access C (NS) at
- -
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
1,992
1,664
2,502
2,183
510
519
86
125
16.9%
24.1%
Jackson Avenue ((JS) at:
-
-
-
-
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
2,187
2,052
2,694
2,595
507
543
46
71
9.1%
13
1%
Del Mar Avenue (NS) at:
.
• Garvey Avenue (EW)
2,312
3,767
2,911
4,777
599
1,010
50
74
8.3%
7.3%
j.1rktab1e5MK5821Ta
1N: 0905-07-01
91
V
C
c
E
E
o
Q
C_
N
g i
W
-i
~O
Y A
m
a
o0
~
c
E
O
C
G
n
Y
$
CL
3
0
z m
m
O
°
v
Pe
4^i
vvin
n
N
N
~r
` o
m
m
m
m
a
N
mm
V
m
1
vo
o
x
rv
~
N
6 N
$
S
O
M
N
N
Q
' b
b
O b
b
S~
NV
IN
m
m
o
a
~
$m
N
4~
~
gs
33
N
~r
.
m
v°~
m to
O1
~i P
m
.
N
-
lo
1O
.°n
wm
°o
N
Q
yM
~
n
~
p
N
y
1G n
NN
O
IN
N P
6N
N
~
N
N
p
100
0
N0
N
m
^
O
O
Q
P
m N
N
VAIN
6
~
N
N
I
m
Em
m
°O-
a
~
N
arv
~
mm
O
a
C
mQ
1N
QN
b
~o
m
o
n
n
rbi °m
~
°nm
.
T m
^
~
W
P
T m
N
N N
N Q
a
c°
~m
~o
m
v
m~
N
°
°
y
.
PT
9:
O
~O
Vm1
Q
T
6
_
~
N
n
m
rv
N
nn
d
om
m
rv
~
m
m
°
°
N
v
i v
i
u
I
n
N
m
Q
N
P
m m
m
Q
m
m
rv
m
i
ry
O
C
M N
O
N
C
m
N~
N
N
S
v
v
P
~
mm
W
n
a
m
em
°
°
a
~
f
u
I
N
o
a
m
mN
~
m
o
m
~ry
~
W
~
rv
°m
b
~
X
a.
E
O
b
~
°
$
oo
o
o
o
o
oy
_
,
°
o
V
4
V
q
t
b
V
j
0
L
;
V
C u
p
V
~
0
E
Z
E E
E
C
E
E
E
.
C
;
rv
~
uW
b
rc
u
E
c`
u°
0
a(.2
& 9
0`9
E
°c
V
0
3
11
m
r
m
n
v
vv
rv
N
~
i
y
a
6
~
v
i
.
N N
N
n
y
m
m
n
e
m-
o
4N
i
.Y
g
o
m
rv u
I Vmi
~
rv
~
m
n
v
mm
m
4~
I
W
T
N
rv
N
~ ry
N
N N
T
3
~
a
^
a
o
m
n
n
v
mN
~
Q~
e
6
}
T
O
4
N
a
rv Q
m
P O
a
rvm
m
N
m
P
~o
m
4r
~
ry
N
N W
N
N b
N
N T
N
P
W
P
p
O
N
6
<
b
T
N
rv 4
O
6
N
N
Q
N
h
b b
4
N P
N
rv
N
m
m
v
ao
-
aN
6
m
m
W
m
N
m
01
m
N
P
v W
ma
rv
m
Q m
Ni.
+
6
~
n
6
Q
W
N
m
P
m
N
4
N
m V
m N
I 4
N
4
N N
m
E
o
m
~
`u
v
mN
N
N
~°nrv
,
N
ry
T
b
0
C
M m
~
M
N
~ N
N
N O
4
6
m
m
n
o
~
mNm
N
NP
rvP
6
m
y
m
O
O.
n
6
m
m
m
Nv
~m
rvo
N m
4m
o
o
m
~
m
i
rv~
f
T
~
T
n
v
m
mW
V
~
~
m
m
rv
Nm
m
m
a
m
N
vm
a
r
O
a
rv
a
m
S
r
m
-
N
~o
V
N
~
m
~
nn
mm
a
i..
m
a
m
S
ao
.n
m
o
N
m
mi..
~
m
3
rv
m
-
m
a
a
a
rv
n
m
d
b
a
a-
°
~
E
2
~
g
g
o
o
g
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ti°
-
,
~ E
s
0
P
V
N
~
c
C
V
Q
C
-
9
Y
V
O
L
O
9
d
rv
°
a
m
o
E
E
rv
`
W
s
N
N
YY~
2 N
O
92
•
•
0 0
0RT OF ATTACHMENT C
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the Commission should make a motion to move it
with conditions added.
City Planner Everling stated staff would want to add the conditions.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to add the condition on reversing side yard
set back.
Commissioner Vuu said he wants staff to work with designer to redesign the front
elevation.
City Planner Everling and Senior Planner Agaba agreed.
There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the
public hearing segment for this project.
MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON,
to APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1076 WITH CONDITIONS ADDED.
Vote results:
YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: CAM
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
C. General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090,
Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044. 7419-7459
Garvey Avenue - Patrick Yang has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use
development project consisting of 127 residential condominium units (145,649 square
feet) above 59,230 square feet of retail and restaurant space on 160,434 square feet of
land (3.68 acres) located on the north side of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and
Prospect Avenue.
Resolution No. 07-52 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY
AVENUE (APN: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018, and 023).
Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 8 of 27
•
•
• Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMEND to the City Council adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and RECOMMEND
approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225,
Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract
Map 070044. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution 07-52.
City Planner Everling stated in response to a request from adjacent neighbors, staff has
been asked to continue this item to the November 19th Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Bevington questioned why.
City Planner Everling stated the adjacent neighbors have made a request to continue this
item, since they are unable to voice their opinions tonight on this project.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there are a lot of people here tonight and those who will not
be able to make it to this meeting may have an opportunity to speak at City Council. He
said he spent a lot of time this weekend reading these reports and asked for this project to
move forward.
Commissioner Bevington stated it's addendum to discussion. He said at this point, he
• moves on.
Chairman Lopez moved on with this public hearing.
City Planner Everling presented this item.
During the presentation, Commissioner Bevington questioned the access point.
City Planner Everling stated there are two access points off Garvey Avenue that will
remain. He said access will not be impeded to the existing mobile home park to the
north during construction. He also said staff has added conditions to the staff report and
resolution, maintaining access to the mobile home park and its residents. He said the
applicant originally wanted to take the mobile home park area and use it as a staging area
for construction of the primary building, but staff didn't feel it was appropriate under state
laws requiring relocation of those residents. He added the City is in the process of
creating a mobile home relocation ordinance. He said it's not required that the ordinance
be into effect prior to adoption of the Phase II area, but the City feels that it's not good
faith to enact upon that area without that ordinance in place to benefit the people.
Commissioner Bevington stated there was a relocation packet in the staff report.
City Planner Everling stated it's included for the Commissioners reference only.
• At the end of the presentation, City Planner Everling stated the applicant, representatives,
and EIR Consultant Joann were present to answer questions from the Commissioners.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 9 of 27
• Commissioner Bevington questioned if the western boundary of this development is
Monterey Park.
Matt answered yes.
Chairman Lopez called asked the designer to come up and speak.
Mr. Daniel Amaya of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, the architect of the
project, stated he's present to answer any questions the Commissioners have. He said
they have worked with staff to meet all the requirements. He said Mr. Yang is unable to
attend tonight, however, the Principal Architect, Michael Sun is also present to answer
any questions the Commissioners have. He added they would like to adhere to any of the
Commission's Conditions of Approval.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the condition on garbage chutes for the second, third,
and fourth level. He said he doesn't know if there is a city ordinance in regards to this, but
should we worry about trash separation.
Matt stated he's not sure if the city has an ordinance requiring that, but the trash chutes
were not an original part of this project, but staff felt that it's needed for the residents that
plan to live there. He said as far as separation, he's not sure if the city requires that or if
that's something the applicant sets up with the trash service. He said the Commission
• can require that.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned where the 8 foot wall will be located.
City Planner Everling stated along the north property line. He said there will be some
temporary fencing between the two phases, to protect the existing residents from noise,
dust. and odor.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't know if it should be conditioned to have a
temporary wall.
City Planner Everling stated it's a good idea to add a condition of approval requiring that.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated after it's completed, residents probably wouldn't want a
permanent wall there, so they can have visual connection to the shopping center.
Matt agreed.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is any intention of bringing a grocery store in
the 13,820 square foot space.
Mr. Amaya stated he's not aware of it yet.
• Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated a grocery store would reduce the number of trips there.
He said he would certainly like to see that in this project. He then questioned if there is an
open space area for children to throw things around without risking any injuries.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 10 of 27
• •
~J
•
•
Mr. Amaya said this is something they would consider this in Phase II.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka said it's something to consider. He said there are open space
areas to walk, but if you're a kid, it might not be sufficient recreation. He said it's
something he's concerned about.
City Planner Everling questioned if the Commission is interested in seeing more of an
active recreation.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka answered yes. He said more open space for people to run
around.
City Planner Everling asked the applicant to take that into consideration.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned condition 41 & 42 on lighting. He said he's happy to
see how low-pressure sodium lighting is considered more preferable than mercury night
lighting. He then questioned condition 47, regarding a paleontologist.
Senior Planner Agaba stated its part of the proactive mitigation measure. He said there
was prior development, so this condition is saying that if something is recovered during
construction, it will be stopped. He also said the environmental consultant is here to
answer the questions.
City Planner Everling added to what Senior Planner Agaba said. He said it's a standard
condition in other jurisdictions and it's just saying that in case of any cultural findings,
there are certain steps that must be taken. He also said it's just a proactive condition.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application:
Ms. Holly Knapp of 8367 Whitmore Street, a resident, stated she is not in favor or against
the project. She said in every city has to develop low income housing. She is wondering
if this project could be considered as a low income housing project that could
accommodate the residents at the mobile home trailer park.
City Planner Everling stated 10% of the residential units, or 12 units in this project are
planned to be dedicated to moderate income. He said it's the Commission's prerogative
to require low income, very low income, and moderate income and under state law, there
are different percentages that need to be allocated depending on the type of income. He
also said Senior Planner Agaba has been working with the applicant in dedicating some of
the units to be available first to the residents living in the mobile home.
Ms. Knapp questioned if the other projects that are being proposed will also provide low
income housing.
City Planner Everling answered yes.
Commissioner Bevington stated there has to be.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 11 of 27
•
• City Planner Everling said all mixed use projects coming into the City of Rosemead will be
asked to set aside X amount of units on which income category they would like to set
aside for low, very low, or moderate income households.
Ms. Knapp questioned how this information gets out to people.
City Planner Everling stated this information usually comes up at these public hearings.
He said people within a 300 foot radius are notified of the public hearing. He said it's also
advertised in the newspaper. He said the staff report information is also available at the
counter. He added the city is in the process of revamping the website and one of his
goals is to get everything on the website, so people can get access through the internet.
Ms. Knapp stated there are two senior housing projects in the City and questioned if there
are any future senior housing projects.
City Planner Everling stated not in this project, but it's something that staff discusses with
all the mixed use applicants.
Ms. Knapp said she just wants to make sure the City of Rosemead will aim at
accommodating people in that category.
• City Planner Everling stated yes.
Ms. Knapp said she wants the city to keep that promise.
Commissioner Bevington informed the audience of all the items that the Planning
Commission were given to read in one weekend. He stated there is a great deal of effort
and time to get into these projects. He stated Phase I is very acceptable.
City Planner Everling stated the conditions of approval don't include any type of deed
restriction on those 12 units, so he would like to read a condition for the Planning
Commission to consider in the minutes to be added to the Conditions of Approval: "Prior
to issuance of building permit, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City Attorney,
will be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the
requirements for affordability for moderate income families and meet all other criteria
outlined in Government Code Section 65915."
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to anyone else IN FAVOR of this application:
Mr. Flournoy asked everyone to turn to page 41 of the EIR. He read item 6ai) and said it's
okay to be less than significant with mitigation, but the verbiage is incorrect. He said it's
not in the Alquist-Priolo Zone. He then read the second sentence and three other faults
that dealt with the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake were not mentioned. He said both
• of them are closer than the Raymond Hill fault zone and even one of them is at the corner
or Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. He said another fault towards Monterey Park
was also not mentioned. He said the seismic considerations need to be taken into effect
as well. He then discussed about page 42 and said in 1987, those two inactive faults
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 12 of 27
• •
• became very active, because it killed people. He said if the mitigation measure is done, it
will pick up some stuff, but it won't pick up the extra shake and it needs to be corrected.
He also said the site is in a geologic unit called "uplifted alluvium," where you have two
instances of fissures in the soil. He said one is at the Walmart site and the other at the
Southern California Edison project. He also said these are not recorded in the literature,
so only the city would know. He said a geologist who doesn't work in the city would not
be familiar with these geologic reports.
Commissioner Bevington said we will correct and follow the mitigation measure.
Mr. Flournoy said we are making progress.
City Planner Everling asked EIR Consultant, Ms. Joann Lombardo to come up and
answer the questions.
Ms. Lombardo stated she would like to clarify some issues. She said what makes this
somewhat unusual is that they did not have a site-specific geology report to work from, so
the information that they worked from is from the general plan and state maps. She said
that is why they added the mitigation, GEO-1. She said she recommends in the future, as
part of the application process, that the city requests the applicant to prepare a
preliminary geotechnical study, which will identify site-specific information. She also said
they have a historical archaeologist that looked at the site, but nothing showed up.
• Commissioner Bevington stated a condition should be added regarding page 42. He said
he is concerned. He said if this is added as a condition, designers won't miss it.
City Planner Everling stated it's the Commission's ability to take this GEO 1 condition and
add it to the Conditions of Approval. He said in the long run, if the Commission would
like, staff can add this to projects as a standard condition.
The Commissioners agreed.
Mr. Flournoy stated we need to know if the fissures go that far, for the next project.
Mr. Scott Yun of 9136 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he supports this project and
believes this development will improve the community.
Mr. Rodney Quoc of 9240 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he's here to support the
project. He said it looks like a well planned project.
Mr. Suzuki questioned if the demolition of the mobile home part of this project.
City Planner Everling stated no.
• Mr. Suzuki questioned if the motion today affects Phase II. He then questioned whether
the mobile home park gets demolished or not has yet to be determined or will be
determined at a later date.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 13 of 27
• •
• Chairman Lopez answered yes.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application:
Ms. Margaret Clark stated she is on the City Council, but is speaking as a resident. She
said she lives down the street and has some concerns. She said she is also speaking on
behalf of her neighbors as well, who were unable to attend tonight. She said she was a
bit frightened by what was just said on whether the second stage of the project has
anything to do with tonight. She said she is under the impression that the zone change
and general plan amendment affects the entire parcel. She said her request is that the
general plan amendment and zone change does not affect the back portion of this parcel.
City Planner Everling stated Mr. Suzuki was referring to the current condition of the mobile
home park and if this will require the demolition of the mobile home park.
Ms. Clark stated so the zone change and general plan amendment does not affect the
back portion at this time. . She said she wants to start out by saying that she has been
reading the minutes and she appreciates how Vice-Chairman Kunioka and Commissioner
Bevington pay attention to the details. She said she wants to point out there is a grocery
store at the corner of the street.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we want to minimize trips.
is Ms. Clark stated she is into trash chutes. She said she is very much into recycling. She
hopes the City will look into recycling. She then questioned affordable housing and what
moderate income is.
City Planner Everling stated for a 3 person family, the moderate income is $61,000. He
said he doesn't have the other numbers in front of him.
Ms. Clark stated that is not the kind of affordable housing we want in the city. She said
$61,000 is too much and she hopes that the Commission reconsiders that condition to be
low income. She said this is not satisfying anything. She said she read in the staff report
that state law requires incentives for developers who provide so much affordable housing,
such as reduced parking ratio. She also said if we give developers bonuses, it's got to be
for very low income. She referred to page 16 of the staff report on parking ratios and said
four or more bedrooms will only require 2'/z parking spaces.
City Planner Everting stated that is state law.
Ms. Clark said she knows it is. She said we are giving bonuses right now if the Planning
Commission approves and the City Council approves later, we are just doing the
developers a favor. She said if we don't want to have this kind of parking ratio; don't give
them the zone change or general plan amendment. She stated with four bedrooms or
• more bedrooms, you can have a husband, wife, and three teenagers. She said that
would require 5 parking spaces for five cars, not 2 ''/z. She said she's very concerned with
the parking.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 14 of 27
• •
• Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there is nothing larger than three bedrooms,
Ms. Clark stated with 2 or 3 bedrooms, you can still theoretically have a husband, wife,
and three teenagers. She said you can still have the 5 cars.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the restriction of parking takes place during the
permitting process.
City Planner Everling stated under state law, even without an affordable housing
component with this project, if the applicant requests concessions for parking, cities
cannot require additional parking for any project.
Ms. Clark questioned even without affordable.
City Planner Everling stated yes. He said we under state law, they can still request
concessions for parking without an affordable housing component.
Ms. Clark questioned if he's referring to all condos.
City Planner Everling said for all mixed use projects. He said the city requires 2-3
bedroom condos to have at least two onsite parking spaces, as well as a guest and
• handicap parking, but under state law, the two onsite parking spaces are inclusive to
guest and handicap parking. He said it really restricts the amount of parking a city can
require.
Clark questioned if it's because it's mixed use.
City Planner Everling answered no. He said in any commercial project with a residential
portion. He said we're preempted under state law to abide by that. He said the city
doesn't have to practice this, unless the applicant makes the request. He said in this
case, the applicant understood the law and made this request.
Ms. Clark stated she has a big concern over subterranean parking. She said she would
like the Commission to have this be deferred, so they can look more closely at other
projects in other cities that have used subterranean parking. She said she wants to make
sure people will use this. She then gave an example of the "The Marketplace," located in
the City of Alhambra. She said that parking lot is always crowded. She said they have
wonderful parking behind, at least 57 spaces, and it's always vacant. She wants staff to
look closely to make sure it works, rather than just having it on paper. She then read a
sentence on page 11, "The proposed building is not subject to the City's variable height
requirement pursuant to Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, as the building will not be
adjacent to an R-1 or R-2 zoned property." She said it bothers her and there is a
technicality. She said she's lived down the street for 42 years and where the Mc Donald's
• is located, there is commercial and parking zone. She said on the main boulevards, there
is commercial, parking, and residential homes all the way down the city. She refers to the
plans and said the big four-story building will impact the residential neighborhood. She
said you can say it doesn't apply, but it will impact people. She added we're here to serve
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 15 of 27
• people. She then went back to page 11 and read, "The building would be substantially set
away from any nearby R-2 zoned property located 220 feet north of the mixed use project
site." She said that discussing the homes down the street and ignoring the homes she
just mentioned, so she feels that it should be revisited. She then discussed about the
second portion of the condos and said it's going to be 35 feet and there are people that
live behind them with single-story homes. She said they have no idea this is happening.
She then said the actual density is an increase of 300% than what's in that area and its
way over building. She said the whole picture should be looked at because the Del Mar
Avenue mixed use project is just blocks down. She said she wants this project postponed
and hopes it will become 2 parcels, so a zone change and general plan amendment won't
be made.
Mr. Jay Harveyson of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated the residents
of the mobile home are concerned with safety issues since there are families, children, .
and elderly people. He questioned what steps would the Commission take as far as
safety for the park, such as privacy walls and sound barriers. He said they want to make
sure all of Phase I is taken care of before Phase 11. He questioned access through the
mobile home park during the construction.
City Planner Everling stated the condition of approval in the staff report prohibits
encroachment in the mobile home park area.
• Mr. Harveyson questioned if a wall or fence will be installed as far as privacy for the
mobile home residents and the safety of the children before construction begins.
Chairman Lopez answered yes. He said there will be a temporary wall.
Mr. Harveyson said they have put something up and it's not safe and there are holes.
City Planner Everling stated it's a chain link fence and there will be something more
substantial than that.
Mr. Harveyson said residents are concerned about that.
Someone from the audience shouted an 8 foot soundproof should be installed.
Chairman Lopez questioned the existing fence.
City Planner Everling said it's currently chain-link.
Mr. Harveyson want s to make sure everything is to code and it's safe.
Chairman Lopez questioned if a condition should be added to ensure the applicant will a
temporary fence to be installed.
• City Planner Everling said the Commission can direct the applicant to work with staff
creating a fence that's substantial enough for the residents.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 16 of 27
10
0
• Chairman Lopez wants to make sure dust and noise is controlled from start to finish.
Ms. Elizabeth Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident said she is
directly adjacent to the actual construction and would like to know what the space is from
her mobile home is from the wall. She also questioned why is the Commission discussing
about Phase II, if Phase I should only be discussed tonight.
City Planner Everling stated it's his duty to inform the Commission of the overall project.
Ms. Ramirez stated it hasn't been submitted.
City Planner Everling said correct. He said it's his duty to make the Commission aware of
the overall project, so they can take into consideration all the impacts.
Ms. Ramirez questioned if there are any plans for residents of the 7433 mobile home park
in regards to Hawaii Supermarket submitting plans for their future. She said she would
like to know what the plans are. She said it wasn't until 7 days ago, when she found out
this was the plan. She also said if one of the residents did not walk by the sign, they
wouldn't have known. She questioned what responsibility does the city has to let the
surrounding community know of these hearings and what to take place.
City Planner Everling stated under state law, the city is required 10 days prior to the
• hearing to notify all property owners within a 300 foot radius.
Planning Administrative Assistant Lily Trinh stated we sent out 600 foot for this hearing.
Ms. Ramirez stated they did not get one.
City Planner Everling questioned if they are the property owner or a tenant.
Ms. Ramirez said they own the mobile home.
City Planner Everling stated he's not sure if the actual mobile home spaces received the
notice. He said state law requires ownership.
Ms. Ramirez questioned what state law requires for owners to inform their tenants.
City Planner Everling said he wouldn't know.
Attorney Yin stated he doesn't know at the top of his head either.
City Planner Everling questioned if a sign was posted on the property.
Ms. Ramirez stated yes, about a block over and very small. She said it's on the Mc
• Donald's side.
Senior Planner Agaba stated as an additional noticing measure, staff handed notices to
the park manager for distribution.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 17 of 27
• •
• Ms. Ramirez stated there is no park manager. She said their lives are being placed on
hold as of right now and there's nothing they can do about it. She then questioned if
placing 32 families in the City of Rosemead concern the Commission at all.
Mr. Harveyson questioned if the city is working on a relocation plan.
City Planner Everling stated we have a relocation plan that was submitted by the
applicants.
Mr. Harveyson questioned when the residents can get copies.
City Planner Everling stated staff will have it ready at the counter tomorrow morning. He
said staff will make every effort to assist them.
From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated she will hold staff to it.
Mr. Harveyson questioned if twelve units will be moderate/low living, what happens to the
rest of the families that are low income. He also questioned if there is a waiting list.
City Planner Everling said that is something staff has to get back to him on. He said he
has to defer Mr. Harveyson to the housing specialist. He also said he believes there is a
waiting list.
Mr. Harveyson questioned if there is a possibility that mobile home residents be
prioritized.
City Planner Everling stated staff has been working with the applicant to set aside those
units on a "right of first refusal," for the existing tenants to have the first opportunity before
anyone else. He added Vice-Chairman Kunioka is trying to establish a condition in these
projects to give Rosemead residents first rights. He also said if it's in the Commission's
interest, they can direct staff to work with the applicant and revise the plans.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated for low income, they would only have to set aside 5% of
the slots, which is about 6 units.
Mr. Harveyson stated there are 32 mobile homes, but only 12 units.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated the relocation benefit is available to everybody.
Mr. Harveyson said they have been left in the dark.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he understands.
• Mr. Harveyson stated he would like the City of Rosemead to take care of its residents first.
Commissioner Bevington questioned in Phase I and Phase 11, when will the actual
relocation take place.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 18 of 27
• •
• City Planner Everling stated when the applicant decides to start Phase II.
Lopez said we need to direct staff to speak with the applicant to come up with an
agreement, so people can afford it. He said he has been a resident in the city for 32
years and it hurts to know that we're allowing privates to come in. He also said he's not
against this project, but he thinks we need to set a standard for our community.
Ms. Leah Simon-Wesberg, an attorney for several of the residents for a few years, stated
she wanted to share that when the park owners started to think about this development,
they tried to get people to leave. They would try to increase the rent, so the tenants can't
afford to remain because it's cheaper to evict those who can't pay, rather than pay the
relocation fee at the end of this. She said she's concerned about the contracts. She also
said she wants to make sure the applicant does not increase their rent within the next two
years.
Commissioner Bevington questioned if there is a housing person who works for the city.
City Planner Everling stated yes, Michelle Ramirez.
Commissioner Bevington said we need to get her involved before we go any further.
is Attorney Yin questioned if Chairman Lopez wants the City Attorney to look into if the City
have the jurisdiction over rental increases.
Chairman Lopez stated yes.
Commissioner Bevington said he is concerned about setting the moderate income.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't remember the date, but there is a fair housing
symposium that will take place. He said he saw it on the website.
Ms. Ramirez introduced Ms. Bo Quan, one of the mobile home residents who is very low
income. She said she has no family and her husband died years ago. She said these are
the people that are impacted and she wants the Commission to know at first hand. She
asked the Commission to please keep low income in consideration, and low income
means under $1,000. She added Hawaii Supermarket has a representative who comes in
when someone is ill and tries to get them out. She said please let the applicants know
that they know what the applicants are trying to do.
Mr. Amaya stated he understands their concerns. He said he's not pushing them out right
now, it's in phase two. He said they will work with staff regarding moderate to low
income. He also said they have to look at what's legal. He said he wants this part of the
project to be moved on and he's willing to work with the neighborhood.
• City Planner Everling clarifies that this is only Phase I with 12 units.
Commissioner Bevington questioned if Phase II consists of single family residences.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 19 of 27
• City Planner Everling said it's yet to be decided.. He said it's just conceptual right now.
He added that if it's proposed now, it would be attached town homes.
Mr. Fred Nakamura, representing neighborhood legal services in El Monte, stated it
makes sense that if any action is taken, it's only done on Phase I. He said doing a zone
change during Phase II means we're giving them a green light on Phase II. He said he
thinks it's essential that anything done in this phase will not affect Phase II.
Chairman Lopez said we're not considering phase 2 at all.
Mr. Nakamura questioned even with the zoning issue.
Chairman Lopez stated yes.
Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked with the title to acquire some of the information
as far as affordability concerns. He then read some numbers that were taken out of the
Health and Safety Codes, Section 50052.5 (attached to minutes). He also added the
existing general plan designation allows commercial uses. He said the applicant can
come in and bring in plans for commercial use. He also said under commercial zone
requirement, the structure can be built at zero setback.
From the audience, Mr. Harveyson said they can build up to the mobile home property
line.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka clarifies the audiences' concerns. He said this project is mixed
use which means the total retail of this project is a little under 60,000 square feet and if it
was pure commercial, they can put up to 180,000 square feet of commercial, up to the
property line.
City Planner Everling added that it can be as high as 75 feet high under current zoning.
Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked on the Conditions of Approval to make sure
residents of the mobile home park is protected. He said if the applicant comes back with
Phase II, they would have to do an environmental impact report.
Mr. Gilbert Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated he has a 90-
year-old neighbor that was never notified about this. He said when he gave her the
paper, she started crying. He said she said she has no family and nowhere to go. He
also said she said she wants to go find a job. He added, they have family there,
especially children, and it's not considered. He said he has a 1-year-old child. He
questioned what you would do to a 90-year-old or a 1-year-old child. He said $60,000 a
year is too much and we must think about this. He said it's not right.
• Mr. Flournoy stated he would like to talk about the sound wall issue. He said there is
another project in the city that required a 14-foot decorative concrete sound wall that was
installed without approval in the middle of the construction. He said they didn't install it
where it's supposed to be installed and after 45 days, they were told to remove. He said
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 20 of 27
• •
• he is concerned with the sound wall.
Chairman Lopez called for questions from anyone else in the audience.
Commissioner Bevington motioned to go to closed session to discuss this project.
Attorney Yin stated we can't do that.
Commissioner Bevington stated we have been discussing Phase I. He questioned if the
Commission can condition things in Phase I that they want to be done in Phase II. He
also said the notification process was incorrect. He said the property owner of the mobile
home park was notified, but not the residents. He said he is concerned, but we aren't
discussing this project, just the commercial construction in the front. He said he hasn't
heard enough to vote against or vote to delay Phase I tonight.
City Planner Everling stated he has come up with a draft for the temporary fence
condition.
Commissioner Vuu suggested a solid concrete wall similar to Caltrans. He said it's not
easy to be removed.
City Planner Everling read, "The applicant shall submit an 8 foot tall temporary fence
• detailed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division for the purposes of sound attenuation,
privacy and dust control."
The Planning Commissioners agreed.
From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated they prefer 10 feet.
City Planner Everling stated it can be 10 feet.
Commissioner Vuu questioned if it is a fence or wall.
City Planner Everling stated it would be a sound wall.
Chairman Lopez said Commissioner Bevington brings up a good point. He said we are
only looking at Phase I tonight.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to run through the conditions. He said they
have already agreed on the "right of first refusal" for the mobile home residents. He Then
he said in the mitigation, there isn't a rule 403 condition. He said that should be added.
He also said the geotechnical report should be included. He then discussed about trash
separation other than the two chutes. He said there should be at least two chutes on both
sides. Then he referred to the sound wall, and said it should be up until the end of the
• construction. He also discussed about the notification process and said staff should
consider specifying that the actual residents be informed as well as the owners.
Ms. Ramirez questioned if there is a time frame in regards to the Phase I and Phase II.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 21 of 27
• •
• City Planner Everling said he will defer it to the applicant.
Ms. Ramirez questioned when this information is available for Phase II, where can they go
to get this information
City Planner Everling stated the front counter.
Mr. Amaya stated it depends on going through the process of building permits. .
Chairman Lopez questioned how long they think Phase II will go into effect after they
obtain building permits for Phase I.
Mr. Amaya said probably 8 months.
Mr. Flournoy questioned if we do a general plan amendment and zone change on one
piece of property on two buildings.
City Planner Everling stated it's good to be consistent with each other.
Mr. Flournoy stated we're discussing about Phase I and Phase II and doing separate
general plan amendments and zone changes.
• City Planner Everling stated there are 7 lots on the property. He said for the overall
project, the Commission can just leave the general plan amendment and zone change for
Phase I and leave Phase II for a separate date.
Mr. Flournoy questioned if it has to be two pieces of property.
City Planner Everling stated it doesn't matter how many pieces of property there are.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if we're only considering in Phase I, the zone change
and the general plan amendment is already considered for Phase ll.
City Planner Everling stated correct. He said staff thought it would streamline the project
to get overall zoning in place and at a later time bring forward a tentative tract map and
environmental review for Phase II.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated at previous meeting there was a limit of general plan
amendments that can be passed a year.
Attorney Yin stated 4.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we wouldn't be precluding any previous change.
• Mr. Harveyson stated if Phase I is passed tonight, you're changing zoning.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 22 of 27
0 !
• City Planner Everling said if the Commission decides to change it. He said the request for
zone change tonight is for both phases. He also said the Commission can change it to
Phase I only.
Mr. Harveyson thanked the Commission and staff.
Mr. Brian'Lewin of 9501 Ralph Street, a resident, questioned when construction projects
are underway, is there anything that requires postings of hours of operations.
City Planner Everling said he has to defer this question to Building Official Jim Donovan or
Jim Guerra.
Mr. Lewin said there was a large construction in the southern part of the city that
continually violated this and there was nothing in the setup to deal with this violation. He
said in the City of Burbank, there is a sign at the entrance of the project that clearly states
hours of operations and contact information for any violation.
City Planner Everling said he's not sure if it's required for every project
Mr. Lewin stated he's suggesting this to be considered.
City Planner Everling deferred the question to Ms. Lombardo.
• Ms. Lombardo stated as a mitigation measure, it's required.
Ms.Ramirez questioned the time frame.
Ms. Nancy Eng of 3146 Jackson Avenue, a resident, stated her biggest concern is with
the increase of commercial use, more trucks will be coming into Ralph Street into Jackson
Avenue. She questioned if any mitigation has been considered to minimize delivery trucks
going through residential streets.
City Planner Everling stated it's a prohibited use under city ordinance.
Chairman Lopez said we will make sure to condition that.
Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the
Commissioners.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we have capped the number of trips in the conditions. He
said we would have to define truck routes in the city. He said another change is limiting
the general plan and zoning permit to only Phase I.
Lopez questioned If this project shall be moved to the next meeting or approved tonight.
• Commissioner Bevington said he moves to approve Phase I of this project with the
changes that has been agreed to by the conditions tonight.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007
Page 23 of 27
• Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated with all the things that he said earlier.
Attorney Yin stated there's also a trash separation, subject to the City Attorney's review.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka also added the truck route condition.
Chairman Lopez asked developer if they agree.
Mr. Amaya stated yes.
Ms. Clark questioned if they will require it to be very low income.
Attorney Yin said it can be subject to review by the City Attorney's office.
Chairman Lopez said we're shooting for as low as possible.
Vice-Chairman Kunioka said he doesn't think that would be fair to the developer.
Ms. Clark said we should shoot for very low income people.
Commissioner Bevington said he doesn't think we can force these people to un-financial
positions for their projects. He said he doesn't agree to very low income. He said his
• motion stands on low income, not very low.
Mr. Flournoy stated he doesn't know if this is appropriate, but maybe we should look at
subsidies, such as one room studios or Section 8.
Mr. Suzuki stated our city is revising our general plan. He questioned if we can find
balance in acknowledging very low, low, and moderate income in the future and
incorporating this into the general plan.
City Planner Everling stated all cities are required to revise their housing element every 5
years. He said the City of Rosemead is in the process and will submit it to the state next
year.
Mr. Suzuki questioned if there is a designation for this area.
City Planner Everling said he's not currently aware.
Mr. Suzuki questioned if it's broken down by regions.
City Planner Everling stated no.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA
• to APPROVE PHASE I WITH THE CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION HAVE MADE AND
CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MODERATE TO LOW, SUBJECT TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S REVIEW.
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 24 or 27
• Vote results
YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: CAM
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
D. General Plan Amendment 07-05 Zone Change 07-228 Conditional Use Permit 05-1013,
Planned Development Review 07-02, Zone Variance 07-349, Design Review 05-127, and
Tentative Tract Map 069258 - 9400-9416 Valley Boulevard. Tammy Gong has submitted
applications for a new three-story mixed-use development project consisting of 38
residential condominium units (27,669 square feet) above 10,010 square feet of
commercial/retail space on 23,406 square feet of land (0.537 acres) located at the
southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Avenue.
Resolution No. 07-53 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 07-05, ZONE CHANGE 07-228, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1013,
DESIGN REVIEW 05-127, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-02, ZONE
• VARIANCE 07-349, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP .069258 FOR CONDOMINIUM
PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9400-9416 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 8593-001-001, 002,
003 and 004).
Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling
Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting a continuance to the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting on November 19, 2007.
MOTION BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to
CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-05, ZONE CHANGE 07-228, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 05-1013, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-02, ZONE VARIANCE 07-
349, DESIGN REVIEW 05-127, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069258 TO THE NEXT
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
Vote results:
YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU
NO: NONE
ABSENT: CAM
• ABSTAIN: NONE
Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007
Page 25 of 27