The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 2A - Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No 07-1103~ M F S A- F 1 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER (SO.0% • -e-.L DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) NO. 07-1103 - 2444 DEL MAR AVENUE SUMMARY Over the last several months, the City has been working with the Garvey School District and East Los Angeles College (ELAC) towards processing a conditional use permit application to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facility located at 2444 Del Mar Avenue, for the purpose of establishing and operating a satellite ELAC campus. The Planning Commission approved the CUP at its' September 5, 2007 meeting. The report and back-up information presented to the Planning Commission at that meeting has been attached to this staff report (Attachment A). Shortly thereafter, Council Member Gary Taylor requested that the CUP be appealed to the City Council. Council Member Taylor's written request is also attached to this report (Attachment B). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 07-1103 and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions with all required findings and be brought back to the City Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting. BACKGROUND The following is a timeline of all major milestones in the project's progression to date: • June, 2006 - Garvey School District closes Williams School; • Late 2006 - Garvey School District proposes to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facilities to ELAC; • May 28, 2007 - Letter from Andrew Lazzaretto to the Garvey School District stating that the City would be requiring that they must comply with the City's zoning regulations for the reuse of the Williams school (Attachment C); • May 31, 2007 - Garvey School District submitted formal CUP application on behalf of ELAC; • September 5, 2007 - Planning Commission unanimously approved the CUP request; O APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: City Council Meeting • September 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 • September 12, 2007 - Notice of Appeal filed by Councilmember Taylor. Since the approval by the Planning Commission on September 5`h, staff has received a written opinion from Rachel Richman of Burke Williams and Sorensen stating that if ELAC and the Garvey School District decide to exempt themselves from the City's zoning regulations, they could probably do so. However, they must comply with all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. It is staffs opinion that the Garvey School District and ELAC have been acting in good faith throughout the CUP process. In fact, the Garvey School District and ELAC have agreed to comply with all conditions set forth in the September 51h Planning Commission staff report. Furthermore, staff feels that the project is an acceptable reuse of the vacant Williams site for the following reasons: The project fully complies with all zoning and general plan requirements including parking. The Garvey School District and ELAC have agreed to make all onsite and offsite improvements as identified in the traffic study to mitigate any potential traffic impacts. ELAC has agreed to limit the total number of classrooms to be used at any given time to seven (7) and to limit the total number of students to 35 per classroom (245 students). With the appropriate staffing, there would be no more than 260 total persons on this site at any given time. It should be noted that for this semester, there will be no more than approximately 115 students on the campus at any given time throughout the day. LEGAL REVIEW This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 9eki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: Planning Commission CUP Application Package (Planning Commission Staff Report of September 5, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes of September 5, 2007, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Amended Conditions of Approval) Attachment B: Appeal Letter, dated February 12, 2007 Attachment C: Letter from Andrew Lazzaretto to the Garvey School District 0 0 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARMENT DATE: September 5, 2007 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103 2444 N. DEL MAR AVENUE SUMMARY The Garvey School District, on behalf of East Los Angeles College (ELAC), has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting the City's approval to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facility for a period of 5-7 years for the purpose of establishing a satellite campus. The subject site is currently zoned R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), and the General Plan designation is Public Facilities. Environmental Determination The City as a Lead Agency has completed a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared by the public agency for a project subject to CEQA when the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions to the project plans would mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. With the included mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment as determined by the lead agency. The City of Rosemead has prepared Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and distributed it for a 20-day public review and public comments as required by CEQA. Municipal Code Requirements Section 17.112.020(6) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) permits the operation of educational institutions in any zone upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. RMC Section 17.112.010 sets the following general findings that must be made by the Planning Commission before Conditional Use Permits are issued: EXHIBIT A Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Page 2 of 8 • That certain uses may be permitted, subject to findings by the Planning Commission that the establishment of the use will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 application for a period of six months, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. ANALYSIS Property History and Description The subject property is located within a residential area, east of Del Mar Avenue and north of Graves Avenue. The Williams Elementary School currently exists on a 5.3 acre site. Over the past several years, the Garvey School District has experienced a significant decline of student enrollment, losing approximately 100 students per year, a trend which is likely to continue into the next coming years according to the provided District information. Subsequently, the student enrollment decline at Williams Elementary School resulted in the loss of State funding for the District amounting to approximately $300,000 annually. In mid 2006, the Garvey District School Board decided to close the William Elementary School due to budget shortfall of approximately $ 512,000. At the date of Williams Elementary School closing in 2006, there were only 269 enrolled students per the Garvey School District provided information. Currently, there are three portable classroom facilities within the northern portion of the site which are currently utilized for a children's "Head Start" program. The Head Start program will continue on the campus and will accommodate a total of 36 pre- Kindergarten-aged children. In addition, ten classrooms are being used for a math and science program; however, this curriculum will not continue if the ELAC use is approved. The southeast and north east portion of the site is vacant. The southern portion of the site consists of an administration building and a multi-purpose building, along with nineteen classrooms and a separate building used for Kindergarten purposes. 9 0 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Paqe 3 of 8 Project Description The ELAC campus will provide General Education and Community Service programs which will utilize seven classrooms. No more than 35 students per classroom will limit the total attendance at any one time to no more than 245 students. In addition to students, a total of 15 staff members will be on campus, for a total of no more than 260 persons on campus at any given time. The proposed hours of operation will be between 7:00 AM and 9:50 PM, Monday through Friday. A few Community Services classes may be offered on Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 3:00 PM. In an effort to create a more safe and enjoyable environment, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department will have an officer on campus, with hours coinciding with the scheduled ELAC classes. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The General Plan designates the area where the project site is located as public facilities. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential South: General Plan: Public Facilities & Mixed Use Residential/Commercial Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) & NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Land Use: Residential East: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential West: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential Site Improvements The applicant is proposing to attach an opaque vinyl material to the existing chain link fence along the east and north property lines in an effort to reduce automobile headlight glare into adjacent residences. In addition, lights will be installed in the parking lot and walkway areas to create a safer environment during night classes. • Planning Commission Meeting September 5. 2007 Paae 4 of 8 FJ Parking & Circulation Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.84.080 requires that educational uses provide one parking space per staff member and one space for every two students. Accordingly, the site would be required to provide 15 staff spaces and 123 spaces for students, for a total of 138 spaces. A total of 139 parking spaces are provided on site to accommodate students and staff parking needs. The applicant shall also install painted medians and bolted cones within the parking lot to separate drive isles from the parking spaces and improve vehicular circulation on site. At no time shall ELAC increase the number of students and/or staff on this site above 260 people as indicated in this report unless adequate parking is provided and approved by the City of Rosemead. If ELAC desires to increase the number of students or staff on this site in the future, a new site plan, project description and other supporting material shall be submitted to the City of Rosemead Planning Department for review and approval before enrolment. Concerns have been raised in the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding traffic impacts at the Del Mar/Garvey intersection. In an effort to mitigate potential future impacts, the applicant is proposing to add an exclusive right turn lane that will transition vehicles into the east-bound traffic along Garvey Avenue from Del Mar avenue. Therefore, providing an exclusive right turn lane on Garvey/Del Mar and painting red curb along the south side of Garvey-eastbound approach will mitigate project traffic impacts to a less than significant level. To protect the existing residential neighborhood and students on the subject site, staff has recommended the following specific conditions of approval as an effort to ensure safe and sustainable environment in the neighborhood. 1. The applicant shall install security lighting poles within the parking lot of ELAC site. The parking lot lights shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height and shall be shielded to direct light away from the adjacent residences. The lights shall be on timers and shall turn off at 10:30 PM. (Condition No. 7) 2. A 6-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed along the boundary between the existing Head Start site and the ELAC campus site to provide a physical buffer and additional safety and security for the children at Head Start site. (Condition No. 11 ) 3. The applicant/developer shall widen the southerly driveway to a minimum of 26 feet wide to allow easy ingress/egress from the subject site. The applicant/developer shall submit construction plans showing such improvements to the City Engineer for approval prior to installation (Condition No. 14) Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Paoe 5 of 8 E 4. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. Upon determination by the City of Rosemead that students and/or faculty staff are parking off-site on adjacent roadways, a new parking lot plan shall immediately be prepared and submitted to the City of Rosemead for review and approval. Such parking plan shall be designed to provide additional off-street parking spaces and to eliminate overflow parking concerns in the neighborhood resulting from ELAC campus (condition no. 19) Conclusion Staff supports the adaptive reuse of the existing vacant school facilities by ELAC as a compatible land use suitable for the subject property. Staff also believes that the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate for this project and when implemented will reduce impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, specific conditions have been incorporated into the project to address possible negative issues related to the proposed project that may impact the existing neighborhood. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius property owner notification, postings of the notice at five (5) public locations, along with on-site posting and filling the initial study/mitigated negative declaration with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for public comments. Submit 4Georrga a ' Senior Planner Attachments A. Conditions of Approval B. Site Plan dated August 13, 2007 C. ELAC Class Schedule D. Assessor's Parcel Map E. Zoning Map F. General Plan Map G. Application dated May 31, 2007 • • Planning Commission Meeting ' . September 5, 2007 Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL September 5, 2007 1. Conditional Use Permit 07-1103, is approved for a satellite campus for East Los Angeles College (ELAC) to be operated in accordance with the submitted application plans marked Exhibit "B", dated August 13, 2007. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 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 of the conditions set forth in the letter of project approval and this list of conditions. 3. Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 is approved for six (6) months. The applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension within 30-calender days prior to expiration date from the Planning Commission approval date. Otherwise, Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 shall become null and void. 4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 5. Building permits will not be issued in connection with this project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance with the applicable School District requirements. 7. The proposed hours of ELAC operation at this site will be 7:00 AM to 9:50 PM, Monday through Friday. Community Services classes shall be offered on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. No Sunday classes shall be allowed and no music tutoring shall take place on the subject site without prior approval of the City of Rosemead Planning Department. r~ u Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Paqe 7 of 8 8. The City of Rosemead staff shall have access to the subject property at any time and shall not be denied such access. 9. If construction plans are required to be submitted to the City for review, all conditions of approval listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 10. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 11. A 6-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed between existing Head Start site boundary and the ELAC campus site to provide a physical buffer between Head Start and ELAC site. The chain link fence shall be installed to provide additional safety and security for the children at Head Start site. 12. Prior to operation, the applicant/developer shall install a chain link fence to provide a physical separation between ELAC site and Head Start site. The applicant/developer shall fence off the grass area located to the east and north of the site to ensure vehicles do not cross over onto the grass field area. 13. All requirements of the City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department, Engineering Department and Planning Department shall be complied with at all times for the life of this project. 14. The applicant/developer shall incur 100 percent of all improvement costs including widening of the southerly driveway at High cliff and Del Mar to a minimum of 26 feet wide, painting red curb along the south side of Garvey as well as providing an exclusive right-turn lane at Del Mar/ Garvey intersection. The applicant/developer shall widen the southerly driveway to a minimum of 26 feet wide to allow ingress/egress from the subject site. The applicant/developer shall submit construction plans showing such improvements to the City Engineer for approval prior to installation. 15. The applicant shall install security lighting poles within the parking lot of ELAC site. The parking lot lighting poles shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height and shall be shielded to direct light away from the adjacent residences. The lights shall be on timers and shall turn off at 10:30 PM • Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Page 8 of 8 16. The applicant/developer shall ensure that the grass and landscaped areas on site are improved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and such areas shall not remain dirt. 17. The applicant shall install painted medians and bolted cones within the parking lot to separate drive isles from the parking spaces and improve vehicular circulation on site. The applicant/developer shall also install a physical buffer between the parking lot and the grass field area to limit vehicles from crossing over. 18. Violation of the conditions of approval or any applicable regulations may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings of this permit. 19. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. Upon determination by the City of Rosemead that students and/or faculty staff are parking off-site on adjacent roadways, a new parking lot plan shall immediately be prepared and submitted to the City of Rosemead for review and approval. Such parking plan shall be designed to provide additional off-street parking spaces and to eliminate overflow parking concerns in the neighborhood resulting from ELAC campus on the subject site. 20. Prior to beginning of every semester, ELAC shall submit semester enrolment report to the Planning Department indicating the number of students and staff to be accommodated on the subject site for that particular semester. CO Cy') w C') Cfl C9 C Y) C 7 N 07 CO C7 O r r O 0 O 0) N d c- CO CO Cy') C9 00 It F- m N N N N N N N N N r CM Z w Z w ~ J ~ 0 D w U Z w J - > - ~ > j F- F H F- F- F- I- F- I- O w p 2 1~ N N 2E ~ ~ 2 2 2 ~ r 2i ch CO) Q Q Q Q a_ a a_ a w a a_. a_ CL N J F- U•) U) In LO O O LO O O O CD: 0 0 J Cl) Z Uh co N N O V CY) LO N N N O O w 6 C6 O O N CV 1-_ d~ (7) Q) O O U r r L) Q G C 2 C C G 2 F- Q Q Q Q Q a d a- a- m a- 0.. J 0 O O O O O O w Q N N O O LO 0 O CY) LO LO Lr) LO LO Cf) ti O O O N M Cp CO CO C~ CO 00 (C) r O O N LO N Il- N = = o = W w N U U w w w U) U) 0 - O J 00 ~ O O L r o LL LL Z Z Z O . (D = N o0 0 = a: J (n = = co - o r r F - - F N Z Z F - ~ C/) J = - = - Z J J D Z J (n Q F- :E F- :E Q Q Q C~ Q Q Q J Z Q D Q D a- W w z w a_ w = U w e Q 2 Q Cn = 2 w w (n = w EXFIIBIT C C~ o r% 1 1. EXHIBIT E Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential - Mixed Use= Realdentlal/Commercial .:lo c Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial 7- FT77 Commercial Public Facilities .4 5-j FIGURE LU-5 Land Use Policy Planning Area 5 City of Rosemead General Plan COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES o` e:NNING AREA I EXHIBIT F • City of Rosemead PLANNING APPLICATION FORM SFEE TEPOSIT SQ50.00 S87`_.00 S138:.00 S1?85.00 5975.00 S1.05000 56;5.00 S390.00 5300.00 S?90.00 APPLICATION T1TE _ GENERP-L PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP _ TENTATIVE TRAC7 MAP _ ZONE VARIANCE _ ZONE CHANGE _ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CM4FR (CEOA REVIEW, ETC.) APPLICANT APPLICANT_ CITY CONTACT PERSON ADDRESSQ3C CITI' t~4c El A1L ADDRESS S PROPERTY C)NN'NER ADDRESS CITY V V SEND CORRESPOND: RECEIVED 1 2007 CASE NUMBER GPA CUP = TPM TI bl Z\- ZC _ PD-R _ DR _ MOD_ LLA 'E lr L~PHON'E cc~ah 3C~ -3`t G~ CELL L-) l~tJel FAX 3Cl-~~~ :,A rr \u STATE GZIP q 112 vn- First ~ll AV z.V\ \1z- FAX ~1 l_lC' STATE PROJECT DEticatjr L 1 PROPOSED ~qJECT C~ PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATI~ APN S;4 S`i'_ X3 i- GENERAL PLAN DESIGNAT REQUEST ^ as LGs 3 ~ t CI ,cor_rtt zRt~ ()SED SO FT.. ~ r\C~ PHONE k SJ STA AND BLDG. SQ FT.) 0 EXHIBIT G I/ 0 0 City of Rosemead ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION PROCE SING PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS TO COMPLETE QUALITY ACT (C QA MAYREVIEW THE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION WILL NOT BEGIN U`NTIL THIS APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE. CALL U AT (626) 569-2t 40 IF YOU HAVE ANYQ c.- APPLICANT CONTACT PERSON ADDRESS ~L \N 0~ I' I1U~~ TELEPHONE / 4 u~ I IG,+r APNNUMBER S~ci t _Q- 4 PROJECT LOCATION a t l 1 c+S~.1~ac~ ct 1~ ~1 C BEING PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PRECISELY DEnnt cIBE K7 TFD IUSEPADDIOTIONALO SHEETS O AND ~ATTACH TOOAPPLICATION F SIZE (ALSO ATTACH AN 8_112"X1 I" VICIN~TY MAP AND SITE PLAN) STING SITE ZONING q n C) 3. PRECISELY DESCRIBE ~ ~ ~ ~,JS ~ iS 1.' wry THE ' V~ 4. EXISTING ZONING OF ADJACENT PARCELS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING • 5 ,PRECISL.EY DESC USES AD-] 6. DESCRIBE THE PLANT COVER FOUND ON THE TO THE SITE SITE. INCLUDING THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF ALL TREES r , i v~-n1e, mGp~ l cc. ~Ivm NOTE EXPLAIN AN)'" YES' OR "MAYBE" RESPONSES 11\1 ATTACHMENTS 7. IS THE SITE ON FILLED LAND, SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 10%? IF YES, A GEOLOGICAL AND/OR SOILS INVESTIGATION IS TO ACCOMPANTY THIS APPLICATION. 8. HAS THE SITE BEEN SURVEYED FOR HISTORICAL. P.ALEONTOLGICAL. OR ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES? IF YES. A COPY OF THE SURVEY IS TO ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION. 9. DOES THE SITE CONTAIN ANY UNIQUE NATURAL, ECOLOGICAL OR SCENIC RESOURCES? 10. DO ANY DRAINAGE SWALES OR CHANNELS BORDER OR CROSS THE SITE? 11. HAS A TRAFFIC STUD' BEEN PREPAR-ED? IF YES, A COPY OF THE STUDY IS TO ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION. 12. IS THE SITE IN AN ALQUIST PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES FAULT ZONE? 13. ARE THERE ANY OAK TREES ON SITE? IF YES, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 14. HAS THE PROJECT SITE EVER BEEN USED TO STORE WASTE MATERIALS AND/OR TOXIC SUBSTANCES? IF YES, PLEASE SUBMIT A SITE CLEAN-UP REPORT PER DTSC (DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL) REGULATIONS TO THE PLAN-KING DEPARTMENT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~,ICc~S e. YES MAYBE NO A }s - It 4 x 1-4 COMPLETE T ITEMS AS THEY APPLICATION AND ANY PROJECT. A COPY OF ANY WHICH SWILBLM AS IISSTAINPTHE OF THE PROJECT REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT PURSUANT TO CEQA. RESIDENTIAL PROTECTS: A. NUNIBE►'R AND TYPE OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED N B. GROSS DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. • 0 0 C. TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS EXPECTED D. WILL ANY MULTI-STORY UNITS BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO A HIGHWAY OR FREEWAY? COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS'. A. INDICATE SPECIFIC TYPE OF USE PROPOSED csck1i~e B. LIST THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE BY EACH TYPE OF USE ~(pklC'~ Cr'C,~~ 1l S `a~ ~i1dt S,~ C. LIST THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NUMBER OF FLOORS FOR EACH BUILSDI~NCG L{~~\ ! -1i \ G'l 1 -~nr.CI~SS'CO~ ~ kvlL , ) 5qq ` - S~Ur J D. ESTIMATED NUA~BER O EMPL01'EES N LARGEST SHIFT I v ~ E. IDENTIFY ANY PLANNED OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES Kcne- 3. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PROJECT SITE WILL BE COVERED BY: BUILDING 1,~)- LA?\`DSC,.PING 4. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF C4 Ivi 5. DESCRIBE THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF OFFSTREET PARKIN PROPOSED 6 S. PRELII\4 OF FILL. PLANS TE CUBIC: YAKUJ ur t,u i niL 9. GIVE TIME ESTIMATED DATES FOR THE FOLI A. ]TOUGH GRADING B. FINAL GRADING ~v C. START CONSTRUCTION + D. COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION E. DESCRIBE ANY PROJECT PHASING Flyk"\ Gfc,An . 4w e- a : PCIO(ous I0. LIST ALL OTHER PERMITS OR PUBLIC A CCc..-t-, vc APPROV PAVING ~)J 1 YARDS AL"C-,rc~~ ED OF THIS 7. IDENTIFY ANY OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION (PUBLIC OR PRIVATE) REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT l • [7 11. IS THIS PROJECT PART OF A LARGER PROJECT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE CITY? IF YES, IDENTIFY THE REVIEW PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED PROJECT TITLE(S). NOTE EXPLAIN ANY "YES' OR "MAYBE" RESPONSES IN ATTAcRMENTS ~-ES MAYBE NO 12. DURING CONSTRUCTION. WILL THE PROJECT: ORS? Y A. EMIT DUST. ASH. SMOKE, FURIES OR OD B. ALTER EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN C. CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DEMAND FOR R ENERGY OR WATER? D. DISCI-LARGE WATER OR VIOLATE OR DEGRADE WATER QUALITY? E. INCREASE NOISE LEVELS ON SITE OR FOR ADJOINING AREAS? F. GENERATE ABNORMALLY LARGE AMOUNTS I OF SOLID WASTE OR LITTER? G. USE. PRODUCE, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SUCH AS TOXIC OR RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES, FLAMNIABLES OR EXPLOSIVES? H. REQUIRE UNUSUALLY HIGH DEMANDS FOR SERVICES AS POLICE, FIRE. SEWER. SCHOOLS. NN ATER. PUBLIC RECREATION; ETC.? 1-~ 1. DISPLACE ANY RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANTS? - CERTIFICATION 1 HEREBY CE4TIFY THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED ABOVE AND IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS ~prprf EDGE. }OH BEST OF MY ` DATE (PRINT) ~.`_.•..\V l,c~vir~ 0 0 CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 5, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. _ Commissioner Bevington led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Lopez delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice-Chairman Kunioka, Commissioners Bevington and Vuu ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Saeki, Trinh, and Yin 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Attorney Yin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forwa rd. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Attorney Yin stated the Public Hearings tonight will start with item 3B, Tentative Parcel Map 062930 and Conditional Use Permits 05-1041 through 05-1046. A. Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 - 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue. The Garvey School District, on behalf of East Los Angeles College (ELAC), has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting the City's approval to lease the existing Williams Elementary School facility for a period of no less than five years for the purpose of establishing a satellite campus. The subject site is currently zoned R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), and the General Plan designation is Public Facilities. Chairman Lopez asked Attorney Yin to speak. Attorney Yin stated he is employed by the law firm, "Garcia, Calderon and Ruiz," which also serves as the general council for the Garvey School District. He said he has not worked on Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Psoe 1 of 15 • • this item that is for the public hearing. He said there is no conflict of interest in him serving on the Planning Commission council, but in order to remove the possible appearance of any conflict or bias, he will recuse himself from taking any role in the deliberations. He then introduced Attorney Joseph Montes from "Burke, Williams and Sorensen," who then oversaw this public hearing item. Presentation: Community Development Director Brian Saeki Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - subject to the conditions, for six (6) months. Community Development Director Saeki presented the item and discussed the changes that will be made to the Conditions of Approval. He then stated the applicant and representatives were present and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Felipe Agredano of 7241 E. Tegner Drive, South San Gabriel, a member of the Garvey School Board, stated over the last year, the Garvey School District along with East Los Angeles College (ELAC) have worked together to make sure they are in compliance with City regulations and ordinances. He said the residents of Rosemead and children of the Garvey School District will have the opportunity to enroll in classes from ELAC. He said their Saturday programs will add value to enhancing children's education. He also said it will further enhance the partnerships that Garvey School District has with other colleges. He wanted to let the Commission know that there will be shuttles that will come from the ELAC main campus and other campuses as well. He said this will increase income and revenue to the City of Rosemead. He also said that he was a former ELAC student and is very supportive of this project. He then thanked staff. Mr. Henry Lo of 3205 Angelus Avenue, Rosemead, Vice President of Garvey School Board of Education, stated he is speaking in support of this project. He said this will be a good project for the community. He also said they have built partnerships with the City of Rosemead that will benefit the entire community. He said the first is the Jess Gonzales Sports Complex, which benefits the whole community. He also said the construction of their two new gyms that were built at the middle schools are beneficial to the community as well. He said they have a history of working with the City of Rosemead to provide a benefit to all. This project will provide a benefit to all. He also said he knows that a lot of people in the audience are here tonight because they received a mailer from Rosemead Guardians, which has inaccurate information. He said the Garvey School District has worked with ELAC and the City of Rosemead to make sure that there will be restrictions to mitigate. He ended by saying that those who sent the mailer should take some classes from ELAC. Ms. Irene Flores of 3130'/2 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, a member of the Garvey School Board, thanked staff for working with the Garvey School District. She said they have come a long way and hopes the Planning Commission will approve this project. She questioned how long the Garvey School District and ELAC had to comply with the conditions. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 2 of 15 • • Community Development Director Saeki answered 45 days. Mr. Bob Breush, a member of the Garvey School Board, stated he has done his homework and handed the Planning Commission some handouts. He said this college is a public school that is replacing a previous public school. He also said college campuses do not open everyday. He said if you click on the ELAC college website, you will see that there will not be 650 students at one time and the people who sent the mailer obviously did not study the project. He also said even if you have full attendance, the most students on campus will be 245 (7 classes with maximum of 35 students per class) and with teachers, it will be 260. He said it's adequate to meet all City requirements. He also said the Williams School is on Del Mar Avenue and one of the biggest issues is not traffic, but speed. He said that traffic light is a god send to the community, especially now that there are more students. He then read a statement. He ended by stating that these students are young adults trying to further their education. Mr. Les Nagasaki of 1441 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 18A, President of the Garvey Education Association, stated the association urges that the Planning Commission approve this project. He said in 2005-2006, the Garvey School District, due to the issue of declining enrollment, needed to reorganize the district. The district established an oversight committee to make a recommendation to the School Board. He said the committee consisted of two school board members, the district superintendent, the president of CSCA, a classified unit, and the president of the Garvey Education Association. He said the District Organizing Committee met from November 2005 to March 2006, presenting information, gathering data, and analyzing surveys. He said the work done by the District Organizing Committee was presented to the District Oversight Committee. The District Oversight Committee made the recommendation of closing down the school with the prohibition that enrichment for the district would be gained by these actions. Mr. Nagasaki then referred to the Fall Catalog and stated it will benefit all students in the San Gabriel Valley. He said he knows the Garvey School District followed all the correct process and procedures and asked for Planning Commission approval. He then left the catalog with the Commission. Mr. Ted Saulino of 11720 Capri Drive, Whittier, stated he has either worked or lived in the City of Rosemead since 1951. He said this is a good project and will bring educational renewal to that area. He also said it's the opposite of the mailer by the Rosemead Partners. He then said if there was no partnership, the consequence would be vandalism, graffiti, etc. He said there would also be a possibility of selling the school site that will create more traffic. He urged the Commissioners to vote yes on the proposal. Ms. Virginia Peterson of 2468 N. Highland, Altadena, the Superintendent of Garvey School District, stated she is excited about this partnership with ELAC. She feels that it has already brought benefits to the children of the Garvey School District and City of Rosemead. She discussed about the Escalante Math Program. She said misinformation was sent out and she hopes that gets cleared. She said ELAC has brought them the Escalante Math Program and they plan to continue. She also said looking at this a year ago, she thought the Garvey School District will be the lead agency, but this project is a partnership with the City of Rosemead as well. She said they have the same interest. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 3 of 15 • • She then expressed her appreciation with Planning staff. She said she thinks a very good proposal has come out from this. She also said a lot of demographic studies have been done and a lot of students were from this zip code and community. She then said this will be the City's best interest. She ended by thanking staff and the Planning Commission. Ms. Nancy Eng of 3146 Jackson Avenue, Rosemead, a parent of a student from the Garvey School District, stated she supports this project. She said it will generate revenue for the Garvey School District. She also said it's better than letting the site be isolated and deteriorate. She said its better that the site continues its use as an educational facility. She also said she can understand the concerns of adjacent neighbors because she lives across the street from a school and parents think her driveway is a public parking lot. She said based on the staff report, a total of 138 parking spaces are needed to accommodate students and staff onsite, and there are a total of 139 parking spaces. Traffic flow measures are also proposed to mitigate traffic. She said although she supports this project, she doesn't feel that improvements should be paid by the Garvey School District. Ms. Alicia Saulino of 11720 Capri Drive, Whittier, stated she has either lived or worked in the City of Rosemead for the past 30 years. She said she is the Director of the Head Start Program at the Williams School. She said she was thrilled when she found out about ELAC. She said one of the goals for parents is to advocate how important education is. She also said she is so thrilled that the Garvey School District is partnering with ELAC and the classes that they are providing. She said ESL, writing, reading, and math classes are so needed. She said she hopes child development classes will be added as well. She understands the traffic concerns and she is frightened as well, but she thinks they are covering it really well. She said this will be a great opportunity to be offering these classes. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Ms. Joyce Kiley of 1149 Sweetbriar Drive, Glendale, the owner of 2460, 2464, 2466 Del Mar Avenue, stated she does not object to ELAC; however, the hours of operation of the school will disrupt her tenants. She disagrees with the time. She said she thinks people need to rest. There is too much noise and disturbance to her tenants. She said if a lawyer is necessary, she will bring one in to fight this. She said if the school starts at 7am and ends at 4-5pm, she would be okay with it. She said her property sits right next to the school. She also said she doesn't know what procedures she must take, but she is willing to take legal action. She said she strongly objects their hours of operation. She then questioned what procedures she can take. Community Development Director Saeki stated there is a 10-day appeal period to the City Council. He said she will have to visit the Planning Division Counter and speak with staff. Mr. Brandon Lu of 7823 Graves Avenue, Rosemead, a neighboring resident, stated he physically objects to the approval of this project. He said the adverse impacts to the neighborhood and residents from the proposed plan far outweigh the benefits to the Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting' September 5, 2007 Page 4of15 0 0 community for the following reasons: it will create dangerous road conditions, increase noise for greater periods of time, commercial activity antithetical to zoning and residential character of the neighborhood, decrease air quality, ELAC's unrestricted ability to increase enrollment beyond proposed levels, these are not cumulatively considerable impacts, and estoppel argument that residents purchased the home in reliance that it's an elementary school. He referred to his 3'd point and said it's a light mixed use residential neighborhood. He then thanked the Planning Commission. Ms. Rita Lu-Szeto of 7823 Graves Avenue, Rosemead, a neighboring resident, stated it will create traffic to the neighborhood. Her property is adjacent to the site. She said even if a mesh is placed, the headlights and noise will impact the neighborhood. She said she hopes the Planning Commission considers the welfare of the neighborhood. She said it's a dangerous road condition and increasing traffic is a great concern. She also said there is a liquor store at the southwest corner that creates a lot of traffic. She said the corner of Graves Avenue and Del Mar Avenue has a lot of accidents. She has witnessed two over the last year. She also raised the traffic issues created by the Buddhist Temple. She said she hopes the Planning Commission will consider their concerns. Mr. Victor Vargas of 2515 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, a neighboring resident, stated he is down the street from the school. He thinks the City, Garvey School District, and ELAC have formed a partnership without notifying the residents. He said he's been living here since 1979. He said there is a lot of traffic and it's an intolerable situation. He said he thinks a full environmental impact study should be done. He doesn't think the resident's consideration was taken in consideration. He said he hopes they speak with residents. He added he grew up in front of ELAC and there are tremendous traffic issues. He said he visited the site and personally observed the campus and there is not enough parking. Mr. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated he is not against education, but traffic. He said trucks come in to deliver to the Del Mar Supermarket and it creates traffic. He also said there is the same problem with Mays Produce on Garvey Avenue. He said he lives one block from Garvey Avenue and has observed the traffic. He said staff doesn't live there, so we don't know. He said the school is open for 15 hours and 8 hours on Saturday. He said they only have so many parking spaces for students and staff. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, Rosemead, stated he opposes the project. He said the use hasn't changed and the Garvey School District should have contracted with ELAC. Have the record of problems been brought to the Planning Commission? That needs to be considered. He said he hasn't seen a lot of people go to Traffic Commission to discuss about these issues. He questioned the zone. Senior Planner Agaba stated it's an R-2 zone. Mr. Jim Flournoy stated if the Garvey School District decides to sell the property, it will continue to remain as an R-2 property. Agaba stated unless someone proposes a zone change. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said in the staff report, it states it's R-2 and Commercial. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 5 of 95 • Senior Planner Agaba stated adjacent neighborhoods are zoned Commercial. Flournoy stated additional enforcement is required. He then said he would like to speak under item 6 as well, since he was not called to speak under item 2. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bevington stated looking at the schedule, the most people on campus will be 115. He questioned if that is really what they are proposing. He said under the Fall schedule, the maximum number of people on campus will be 115. He said any commercial operation in the City will have more traffic than this. He then questioned if this schedule is what we should follow. Community Development Director Saeki asked a representative to address this issue. Mr. Michael Coughlin of 713 Dolly Avenue, West Covina, the Assistant Superintendent of the Garvey School District, stated the arrangement that the City, ELAC, and Garvey School District have agreed to is for the first two semesters, the maximum number of classes that will be operating on the Williams School Campus will be 7. He said at any one particular time, there will be a maximum of 245 students and 260 including staff. He also said whether or not ELAC will achieve that remains to be seemed. He then questioned if Commissioner Bevington is referencing the brochure. Commissioner Bevington stated yes. Mr. Coughlin said they don't anticipate 260 students in the Fall Semester. He also said if ELAC chooses to expand, they will come back to the City for permission. Commissioner Bevington questioned the Mitigated Negative Declaration and traffic conditions. He said the maximum is 627 students and staff, and all the conditions required to be met are based on the study. Mr. Coughlin stated when the noise and traffic studies were initially prepared, the initial plan was to allow for expansion to a maximum of 627. Commissioner Bevington stated he now understands. He then questioned if Garvey School District has considered any other proposals. He questioned if this project is not approved with ELAC, is there any other alternative. Mr. Coughlin stated after the board of education decided to close down the Williams School and entered a negotiation with ELAC, they followed all the procedures of the law of the State of California what is deemed excess property by a school district. It first has to be offered to special education purposes. They wrote to all school districts offering special education purposes, but no one thought it was an appropriate use for them. After that, they became involved with ELAC. That is why they came into the City and applied for this conditional use permit. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 6 of 15 0 0 Community Development Director Saeki clarified that the 627 students were initially proposed. He said the maximum proposal tonight is no more than 260 students and staff at one time. He also said in the Fall Semester, there will not be more than 120 students at one time. From the audience, Mr. Vargas questioned how many students and staff are present now. Mr. Saeki referred the question to Mr. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin stated the most classes will be on Tuesday night from 6:15 to 10pm. He said he doesn't have an exact number, but the cap is 35 students per class. He added the total maximum of enrollment, if full enrollment is achieved would be 210, and a total of 225 including staff. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the 245 includes the Headstart Program. Mr. Coughlin stated the 245 is only counted towards the 7 classes that ELAC is offering. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the Headstart program has it's own parking? Mr. Coughlin stated the Headstart was operating when the Williams School was still open. He said there is no change with that program. He also said the number 260 only reflects ELAC and the 139 parking spaces as well. He added the Headstart Program has their own parking spaces. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is a condition of approval for that cap of 245 students at one time. Community Development Director Saeki stated we can add that per the Commission's request. He stated condition 20 does make reference to that. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said it's in the staff report, but not in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Bevington questioned the benefit to the school district. Attorney Montes stated he doesn't know if it's relevant to the Commission. He said it's not one of the determinations that's needed to be made to approve the conditional use permit. He also said if the Commission is interested in the information, they may be be willing to share. Bevington stated an empty building versus income is relevant to him. Chairman Lopez questioned if in the future they decide to expand, they will have to return to the City. Community Development Director Saeki answered absolutely. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 7 of 15 Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the condition about parking that occurs on the street. He questioned if they have a back space available for additional parking spaces. Mr. Coughlin stated with a maximum of 260 enrollment, they are complying with the City's 2:1 ratio. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated even with the 2:1 ratio that doesn't mean all the cars will be off the street. He questioned if they have the feasibility to increase the number of off- street parking. Mr. Coughlin stated if that becomes an issue, it would be brought to their attention. He said there will be a sheriffs department onsite. He said they have asked the sheriffs to patrol the neighborhood. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if ELAC is paying for the sheriffs on campus. Mr. Coughlin answered yes; they have a contract with the sheriffs department. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if they are available to respond to occurrences that are not on campus site. Mr. Michael Williams of 147'/2 W. 52nd Street, Long Beach, the architect of the project, stated yes, there are about 90 more opportunities for parking spaces on the existing site. He said they are told by the sheriffs that there is a substation nearby and the will have a squad car that will come by every hour after the school hours. He said they would call the substation if there is some type of jurisdictional consideration. Community Development Director Saeki stated the substation is in Temple City. Commissioner Vuu questioned if the Planning Commissioners received the mitigated negative declaration prior to the meeting. Senior Planner Agaba stated it was placed in public places and apologized to the Commission for not distributing them a copy. From the audience, Mr. Lu shouted, the Planning Commission is making a decision without reading the mitigated negative declaration. From the audience, Mr. Juan Nunez stated it was not available at the library. Commissioner Bevington stated he doesn't want the audience to shout out of context. He asked Chairman Lopez to ask audience to reframe from speaking. Chairman Lopez asked members of the audience to please reframe from speaking. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the finding on the mitigated negative declaration is based on the 627 maximum. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 8 of 15 • • Mr. Coughlin stated the traffic study was based on the 627 maximum, Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated if ELAC doesn't go forward, what is the Garvey School District's next plan. Mr. Coughlin stated if that becomes a reality, they will have to discuss it with the Garvey School Board. He said they haven't had that discussion and hope they won't have to. He also said it's considered a win win win for the City. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the size of the shuttle and the hours of operation. Mr. Coughlin said he believes it's a 60 passenger shuttle. Chairman Lopez questioned if most students will be shuttled from the main campus. Mr. Coughlin stated they have that ability. He said ELAC is looking for more college space because their main campus is under construction. Chairman Lopez stated with the shuttle, it will reduce the number of parking spaces per occupant. He said the shuttle will reduce traffic. He questioned their hours of operation. Mr. Williams stated they are looking at the shuttle operating once every hour, carrying about 60 students. He said there is a significant number. Chairman Lopez questioned if they are dropped off on Del Mar Avenue or on campus. Mr. Williams said they haven't determined that yet. Chairman Lopez said he doesn't want them parking on Del Mar Avenue. He said it's a fast street, so it will be safer if they are dropped off on campus. Mr. Williams said they will take that into consideration, so they should be able to accommodate that. Chairman Lopez said he is concerned about the drop off and pedestrians walking There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103. Attorney Montes questioned if it includes the amendment to the existing condition of approval. Commissioner Bevington said he thinks it's pretty clearly stated of 260. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 9 of 15 • • Attorney Montes said the 260 is not expressed in the conditions of approval, only in the staff report. Chairman Lopez clarified that the condition will be added to the conditions of approval. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Commissioner Bevington asked for a 5 minute break. Chairman Lopez called for a 5 minute break. B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 062930 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'S 05-1041 THROUGH 05-1046 - 3828-3848 Charlotte Avenue. Long Trinh has submitted a Tentative Tract Map and associated Conditional Use Permits for a proposed subdivision of two (2) lots, totaling 44,000 square feet of lot area, to be divided into six (6) lots for the construction of six (6) new single-family residences, each of which is proposed to be greater than 2,500 square feet, located at 3828-3848 Charlotte Avenue. The subject properties are located in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone. Presentation: Senior Planner George Agaba Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - subject to the conditions, for two (2) years. Senior Planner Agaba stated the applicant and representatives were present and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the applicant or representatives. Ms. Ly Lam of 3226 N. Muscatel Avenue stated at the previous Planning Commission on August 6, 2007, the Commissioners reckoned that the owners and neighbors meet and return with changes to plans to address the neighbor's concerns. She said they have been working with the Planning Department for the past two years and through this process, they have made several changes. She said they are able to legally subdivide the lot into 7 lots, but they are only subdividing it into 6 lots, because it is intended for their family to live. She also said they are installing an 8-inch fire hydrant pipe, which will be beneficial to the public. She said the neighbors will benefit from this in an emergency. She said they have met with the concerning neighbors and Planning staff on Wednesday, August 26, 2007, in the City of Rosemead Conference Room to discuss about issues and concerns from the previous meeting. She added there were two issues that were raised at the last meeting. One was privacy to lot 5. She said the neighbors on lot 5 wanted more privacy to their back porch, so they have agreed to set back an additional 7 feet on Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 10 of 15 0 0 the second floor. She also said the neighbors on lot 4 requested to have a greater side yard setback than 5 feet. She said they met a couple of times and have all agreed to setback the rear yards of lot 1 and 2 to 32 feet. She also said this proposed plan will make them, as long residents, be proud of. She ended by stating that she hopes the Planning Commission approve this project. Mr. Kamen Lai of 8748 E. Valley Blvd., #K, the representative of the project, stated they have met with the three concerning neighbors. He said only one, Barbara Walters of three concerning neighbors came tonight because Juan and Gabriel are satisfied with the changes. He said he believes Ms. Walters is present to support the project. He also said the owners accept all the conditions and ask for approval. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, a resident, stated he has spoken to the Fire Marshall and he said if they can pipe the sprinklers, they may not have to install the fire hydrant pipe. He also said if they go over 4 feet on the second floor setback, they will need a sign off by a structural engineer, because it's an irregular structure. He ended by saying that it looks like a nice project. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to anyone else IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Ms. Barbara Walters of 3861 Delta Avenue, a neighboring resident, stated she is for the project; however neither Senior Planner Agaba or Ms. Lam mentioned the windows in both lot 4 and 5 to be 6 feet high or the setbacks on lot 5 to be setback 10 feet on the first floor and 17 feet on the second floor. She said that was the agreement at the meeting. She said the front and side of the balcony is supposed to be blocked. She brought pictures so the Commission can see how five feet looks. She said if her requests are met, she has no objection. Vice-Chairman Kunioka asked Ms. Walters if she is adjacent to lot 5. Senior Planner Agaba clarified Ms. Walter's concerns regarding the deck. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to anyone else in the audience, None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bevington stated all the issues seem to be resolved and he thinks it's a good project. Kunioka thanked the applicants and neighbors. He said he's glad they had a productive meeting and have come to an agreement. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 11 of 75 • • Chairman Lopez asked for anymore questions. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU, to APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 062930 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 05-1041 THROUGH 05-1046. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE 4 Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. OTHER BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit 06-1077 (Extension) - 2440 Pine Street. Victor Aguilar has submitted a request for an extension for a previously approved application to allow a new two-story addition to an existing single-family residence which will result in approximately 2,866 square feet of living area, located at 2440 Pine Street in the R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) Zone. Community Development Director Saeki stated staff would like to request continuance of this item until the next Planning Commission on September 17, 2007, for further research on the noticing process for conditional use permit extensions. MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ, to CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1077 (EXTENSION) UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2007. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR - These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. A pproval of Minutes - August 6, 2007 Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Page 12 of 15 0 0 Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he had two minor corrections. He said the first is on page 6, 7th paragraph, "setbacks," should be replaced with "stepbacks." He also said on the last paragraph of that page, it should say, "a long standing pressure for national retailers," instead of "of." Planning Secretary Lily Trinh stated she will make the changes. B. Resolution No. 07-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1066, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 53-FOOT HIGH SELF-SUPPORTING MONOPINE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER, LOCATED AT 9117 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING) ZONE (APN: 8595-016-001 AND 002). C. Resolution No. 07-44 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 069577 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07- 1105, REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE ONE EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO (2) PARCELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO (2) NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE WITH MORE THAN 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA, LOCATED AT 8443 GRAND AVENUE IN THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN: 5373-033- 021). Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the other items on the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE 6. Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Bevington read his letter on Rivers and Mountains Conservancy aloud. He said he urges the City to be in touch with this program. Attorney Yin asked Planning Secretary Trinh to attach this handout to the minutes. Planning Secretary Trinh agreed. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he absolutely supports this. He said there are certainly other proposals either in the City or along the powerlines and he hopes the City is aware Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 13 of 15 • • the deadline is November 8. He said there is no guarantee of the money, but we certainly want to get our application in. Mr. Flournoy stated there are several projects begging the City of Rosemead to apply for. He wants the Commissioners to look for spots where projects can be done. He said under the power lines is obvious. He wants the City to get their foot in the door. He then discussed about his handout and said he will discuss about it next time. He also discussed about joint applications. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF None. 8. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:03 p.m. MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU to ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. B S/LT Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 14 of 15 September 5, 2007 RIVERS AND P.IOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY • This morninq• I was invitod to and did attend a meeting of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy - a group that has been for several years, working on a master plan for parks. mini parks and trails along the San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers. This plan will involve the U. S. Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles County, many cities including San Gabriel, El Monte, South El Monte, Montebello, Piro Riviera anc Rosemead pl.:s othors. The plan will receive monoy for master planning, deta,leo plans, site acquisition and site citavolopment from State Bonds ano kcal funding. The work has nov, moved forward to the Grant Application Status. Tha Conservancy leadership will, in the near future, contact the Rosemead City Council, the Planning Commission anc the Parks and Recreation Department for their input on projects within or directly benefiting the citizens of the City of Rosemead. 1 urge the Rosemead City officials to become activoly engaged with this Conservancy. The Iona range benefits to the City and the San Gabriel Valley will be great and Measurable for genera ions to come. There is a rcal sanse of urgency as tho grant applications are duc Novamber 8, 2008. At inis punt these do not need to be in exncr datail but should b° a reality proposal. 1 he prime local contact with this program is Jim Floumey. 8655 Landis View Lane, Rosemead, CA 91770 (626) 2288-1755 Lawrence C. bevington 8372 Rush Street Rosemoad. CA 91770 :626) 572.9428 Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: September 5, 2007 Page 15 of 15 • MAYOR: JOHN TRAN MAYOR PRO TEM: JOHN NUNEZ COUNCiLMEMBERS: MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A TAYLOR • t~ospmc ad 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 ORIGINAL FILED AND AUG 1 62007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Rosemead Planning Commission has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday September 5 2007 at 7:00 PM, at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead: CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 - City of Rosemead (hereafter referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an Initial Study (IS) of the project described as Dan T. Williams Elementary School - East Los Angeles College Project. Dan T. Williams Elementary School (hereafter referred to as "Williams") is located 2444 N. Del Mar in the city of Rosemead, California, on the east side of Del Mar Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue within the jurisdiction of Garvey School District. Due to declining student enrollment, Williams Elementary School discontinued elementary school classes in June 2006-Ongoing Head Start and Escalante Math programs, however, are being held at the facilities currently. Garvey School District is proposing to lease the currently unused facilities at Williams Elementary School to the East Los Angeles College (ELAC) for satellite educational purposes. ELAC proposes to provide General Education, and Community Services (Children's College, Adult Courses, Non-credit Basic Skills) programs at the former Williams Elementary Campus. Classes would be held Monday through Friday from 7:25 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. and on Saturday from 8:00 to 2:50 p.m. No existing buildings would be altered, and no new buildings would be constructed; the only site alterations proposed at this time are improvements to the driveways on site and installation of safety/security lights within the existing parking lot. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental 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 a mitigation measure for identified potentially significant effect from traffic and has, therefore, prepared a Draft 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 Department of Transportation. Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Department 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 Department, Attn: George Agaba. Comments must be received within 20-calender day period from August 15, 2007 to September 5, 2007. The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the IS/MND at its regular meeting on September 5, 2007 at 7:OOpm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. If the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the MND. This means that the Planning Commission may proceed to consider the Dan T. Williams - East Los Angeles College project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 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. Brad Johnson Planning Services Administrator 0 0 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DAN T. u' ILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE PROJECT Prepared for: City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 Prepared b3,: HELD Environmental Planning, Inc. 578 E1 Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91941 August 13, 200 7 • • • DAN T. WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE PROJECT Environmental Checklist Form 1. Projecr title: Williams Elementary- School IS/MND Lead agency name and address: City of Rosemead 88;8 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead. CA Q1770 3. Contact person and phone number: Brad Johnson Planning Services Administrator (626) 569-2140 4. Project location: 2444 North Del Mar Avenue on the east side of road berween Graves Avenue and Garvalia Avenue within the Ciry of Rosemead 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Garvev School District Contact Michael Coughlin 2730 North Del Mar Avenue Rosemead. CA 91770 6. General plan designation: Public Facilities 7. Zoning: R Light Multiple Residential Zone 8. Description of project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its tmplementanon. Attach additional sheets if necessary.): See A.tac n-nent A Proiect Description - Summary of Technical Studies. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the projects surroundings): The prtmiec' site is located in _ _L__-i o k,, cinc le farntiv residences to the a highly urbanized area in a 12rimail isD~u"..~. west and east, multi-family residences adbacent to the northern property boundary, and both single family and multi-family residences to the sourh. A commercial corridor is located about five cirv blocks to the north alone Garvey Avenue. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g_, permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)' Cite of Rosemead requires a Conditional Use Permit Dar: T. 117Wham Eiementan School Ear., L& Angeler College Project initial Stuc~Ylnlztt[aJed ?yefauve Declararior, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmenta! factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ~ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION'. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 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 to 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. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on Elie 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects chat remain to be addressed. I find chat although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately to an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date Signature Signature Date • • Dar, T U'rlltaml Elementar) Scaoo! Eav LoJ Angelej College Proffer. ln:ua! Stud Mur aced Ne atitr Declaration Issues Po(enttalh Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista! b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, r_7 ❑ ❑ ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ El El ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings' d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area., Discussion: a) The project site is located within a highly urbanized area in an established residential neighborhood. The project site is completely developed. There are no scenic vistas on, adjacent to, or to the vicinity of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not affect scenic vistas. b) There are no state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project, and there are no scenic resources on site. Thus, the proposed project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) The proposed project would use existing elementary school buildings and facilities on a site that is totally disturbed. The existing, older buildings are utilitarian in character and have no unique or distinguishing features. These structures would not be externally alcered, and no new buildings would be constructed. Much of the sire is currently paved, with minimal landscaping. The visual quality of the site is considered low due to the absence of scenic elements including natural landforms, extensive vegetation, or open space. Residents in the immediately surrounding area do not have quality views into the sire - their viewing experience is of buildings and developed open areas. There would be no sensitive viewers at the projecr site as a result of project implementation, as the proposed use is educational and there are no expectations of a scenic experience from the users (students and faculry). Installation of an 18-pound vinyl, opaque material on the existing chain-link fence is proposed along the north, east, and south sides of the property site. The fence material would block views both from the site to adjacent areas and from adjacent areas to the site. Fencing in the surrounding neighborhood is commonplace. Light standards are proposed in the parking areas (see response to I.d below for details). The light poles would add narrow vertical elements to the site. Numerous vertical features, including streetlights and utility poles, already exist in the community, and the addition of the light poles would not affect the visual quality of the area. The introduced fence material, light poles, and light sources would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings because the existing visual quality of the site is low and the project elements are consistent with the urban serting to which they would be located. The proposed project would therefore not significantly affect the visual character or quality of the area. d) The proposed projecr would use existing facilities on the project site, and existing lighting sources would remain. Classes would be offered throughout the day and night, with some classes starting at 7:25 AM 0 0 Dar, T. V'illiami Elementart Schoo! Ear. L.at Angelei College Project Initial stud IM to fated Negative Declaration and the last classes ending at 1.50 P7,4; thereby creating a need for additional lighting on the project site for safety and security Light standards would be placed on site. Lights proposed for use in the parking area are Hubbell Magnulner MVL 1000 - 1000 watts Metal Halide quad 12:120S?240/177with positive aiming. The lights are designed to aim below the vertical plane; therefore they would be directed down toward the parking area only and away from existing adjacent residences that front the property on the north, east. and south. The lights are proposed to operate between dusk and 10:45 P.M. The new parking lot lights would not significantly affect surrounding residences because there is already existing security lighting on the site, and also, there are numerous light sources within the urbanized area, including streetlights. Vehicle headlights would introduce a new short-cerm light source to the project site. Headlight beams, however, would be blocked from the view of surrounding residents by the vinyl, opaque material attached to the existing chain link fence. The vinyl material would block out 90 percent of the light emitted from vehicle headlights. Light does not penetrate the vinyl, but does "soft spot" the material. There would be a less than significant impact to aesthetic resources due to light generated from the proposed educational activity. The proposed project would also not create any glare; and there would therefore be no impact from glare. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 11. AGRKULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use' b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ❑ ❑ ❑ or a Williamson Act contract' c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ chat, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use' No Impact 0 Z Discussion: a) The project site is completely developed with an educational facility. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmlands, or Farmland on the site. That portion of the Count), of Los Angeles where the project site is located is designated as "Urban and guilt-Up Land" on the Importanr Farmland In California map (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2002). b) The project site is zoned R-2, which allows for residential development, and not agricultural use. The property does not have a Williamson Act contract. c) No Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of the proposed project because there is no Farmland on the project site. Dan T. p%ilham: Elementan School Ea.rt Lo& Angeles College Protect Initial Stud /Niu: pared Negative Declaration Potenuall, Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 111. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ El ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ El substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulative!} 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)' d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ a ❑ concentrations' e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ number of people' Discussion: . In Plan a, b, c) Air quality plans applicable to the proposed project include the 2003 At, duality Management (AQMP) and the Final Draft of An Ai?- Toxici Control Plan for the Next Ten Yearl adopted in 20000. n order to conflict with or obstruct implementation of either of the applicable plans, the proposed project would need to present new sources of pollutant concentrations in excess of established thresholds. While the proposed project would present new traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site, that traffic would be redistributed from the ELAC campus, which is located approximately five miles from Williams Elementary School. Thus, regional air quality would not be affected as a result of redistributed traffic. Because the proposed project would nor increase regional air quality pollutant concentrations, cumulative effects would also not be significant. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standard or contribute ro an air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact, be it project-specific or cumulative, relating to air quality plans or standards. d) All development immediately surrounding the project site is residential. Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (preschool through 12" grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, day care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. There are no sensitive receptors, as defined above, in the vicinity of the project site. There would, however, be sensitive receptors on the project site - the students of the Head Start program. Although the project may result in some increase in airborne pollutant concentrations as a result of increased localized traffic from vehicles waiting to exit the site (maximum of 138 vehicles), sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, the associated impact would be less than significant. 0 0 Dan T. T illiamt Elementary School Ealr Loi Angeles College Project Initial Studi Mitigated Nepariw Declaration e) The proposed project is an educational use. No objectionable odors would be created, nor are such odors anticipated from an educational facility No impact would occur. Potenually Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation IN' BIOLOGICAL kESOURCES V ouic the project: 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service, c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ rotected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the p 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 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurser), sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ Z protecting biological resources, such as a, tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat E-1 ❑ El LfJ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a) The project site is completely developed with buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas associated with school activities and is located in a highly urbanized area. There are no known sensitive species on site. Thus, the proposed project would not have an effect on 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 d: Wildlife Service. • • Dar, T. VVdham, Elementary School East Lot Angeles College Projetr Inutal Studv/Mu:eaied Neear:ve Declaration b) There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on site. Thus, the proposed project would no: have an effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish & wildlife Service. c) There are no federally protected wetlands on site. Thus. the proposed project would not have an 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) There are no natural open space areas or wildlife corridors in the vicinity of or on the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, wildlife species. established native resident, or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would it impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Chapter 17.100 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code calls for the preservation of oak trees "as significant historical, aesthetic and ecological resources...." In addition, Chapter 17.100 seeks to "create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of this unique irreplaceable plan: heritage for the benefit of the current and future residents of the city." Chapter 17.100 also intends to "maintain and enhance the public health, safety and welfare through the mitigation of soil erosion and air pollution" and "preserve and enhance property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of many areas of the city in which oak trees live." The proposed project would not conflict with the Oak Tree Preservation ordinance as the site is fully developed, no major changes to the site would occur, and no oak trees exist on the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and no impact would occur. f) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El El EK significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? FV_l b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El El significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • • Darr T ~ ";lhams Elemenzar) Scnoo! Eazt Los Angele! College Project I nizta! Stud! ,l.Mitr azed Ne !atzvr Declaration Potenualh Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Signifcant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ I^~ interred outside of formai cemeteries' Discussion: a) The main buildings on the Williams Elementary School campus mere constructed in 19577, which would make them 50 years old. The proposed project would use those buildings and more a recen restlly of ded structures i^ their current condition,, no structural or aesthetic changes would cur as t the project. Therefore. no impact to historic resources would occur. b) The project proposes to use the existing facilities available at the school site, which is totally disturbed. No grading or ground-disturbing activities would result from project implementation. Consequently, the proposed project would not impact any archaeological resources. c) There is no known paleontological resource or unique geological feature on the project site. The proposed project would use existing buildings and facilities. No ground disturbance is proposed, therefore, there is no potential for disturbing unknown paleontological resources, d) There are no known human remains buried on the project site. The proposed project would use existing buildings and facilities. No grading or ground-disturbing activities would result from project implementation. Therefore, there is no potential for disturbing unknown human remains. PotentiaUy Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effectst including the risk of loss, injure, 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. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 0 • Dar, T. William: Eiemenran Scbool Fait Lol Angelo College Project l usual Stud lMiri ated Ne azive Declaration Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation cl Be located on a geologic unit or soil chat is ❑ ❑ LLJ unstable, or chat would become unstable as a resul: of the project, and porenually 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 risk 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 fo: the disposal of wastewater% Discussion: a) The California Geological Survey (CGS; May 1999) identifies Rosemead as a city that may be affected an earthquake fault zone. The project site is not located on a known fault, but is about 1 mile southwest of an unnamed fault segment. The Raymond Fault is located approximately 4 miles to the north, and the Sierra Madre Fault lies about 8 miles to the northeast (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1994). The Raymond and Sierra Madre faults are considered to be active faults that are believed to be sources of magnitude 6 or greater earthquakes during the Quaternary period (the past 1.6 million years). The proposed project would use existing buildings on the site for an educational use. When public schools are designed and submitted to the Office of the State Architect (OSA), they are given a project number (A-Number), which becomes the proof of state approval when the plan check process is completed. The OSA approved as safe for use by teachers and students all buildings that were built for the school. The one building that was on the site before the school was built (the "storage" building near the Head Start buildings) does not have an A-Number and is not approved for occupancy. i) There are no known earthquake faults on the project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts relating to rupture of an earthquake fault. ii) The project site is located near known active faults, including the Raymond Fault and Sierra Madre Fault. In the event of an earthquake from these faults or other faults in the area, the project site would be susceptible to seismic ground shaking. The OSA has approved all structures on the project site for occupancy except the non-occupied building used exclusively for storage. As such, impacts relating to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) The project site is located near the Raymond and Sierra Madre faults, but there are no known faults on the site. The site is overlain with engineered fill, and the conditions chat would result in liquefaction during a seismic event, including the presence of clay-free soil deposits (primarily sands and silts) that could temporarily lose strength and behave as viscous fluids resulting in ground failure, are not present. Also, as stated above, OSA approved as safe for students and teachers all buildings that were built for the school (except the storage building). Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects. iv) The CGS Seismic Hazard Zonation Program (SHZP) map indicates that the portion of Rosemead within which the project site is located is not subject to landslides. Also, the project site is level anC there are no adjacent slopes. As such, there would noc be any potential for landslides to occur on oi near the project site. Dar. T. 11" rlliamr Elernenran School Earl Lot .4n1eles College Project Initial Stud /Alai ared Ne a,*xF Declararron b) The project site has been completely developed with structures, pavement, and landscaped areas, and no grading or site alteration is proposed for the project. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area. As such. no subscanual loss of topsoil or soil erosion would occur as a result of projecr implementation. The project site was historically overlain with Hanford Association soils (Repori and Genera! Sorl Map, Los Angeles Counts, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Revised 1969). which are well drained and have moderately rapid subsoil permeability. The sire is underlain with Pleistocene nonmarine sedimentary deposits (Geologic Mab of California, Cals/ornia Sheer, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1969), which is 'older' alluvium consisting of gravel, sand, clay, and silt. The proposed project would use existing buildings. No geologic unit or soil instabdiry would occur as a result of project implementation. d) The site is highly disturbed, and it is probable that it is not overlain with an expansive soil. There would therefore be no impacts relating to expansive soils. E) Williams Elementary School is served by a public sewer system, and the proposed project would continue to be served by that system. No septic systems or alternative wascev.•ater disposal systems are proposed, and no impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact incorporation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ a environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment' c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste uarter :Wile of an existing or proposed - hi i n one q t w school d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of ❑ El ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the en%,ironmenv 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 would the project result in a safety hazard ort air p , for people residing or working in the project area' f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ a would the project result in a safety hazard airstri p, for people residing or working in the project area% 10 0 0 Dar. T. Vili.a»r Elementan School East Los Angele; College Project Innia! Stud ,'Alni pared Ne atrve Dedaratior Pocentiallv Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mingation Impact Incorporation g) impair implementation of or physically interfere or i r F7 ❑ ❑ ❑ , a with an adopted emergency response p emergency evacuauon plan' h) Expose people or structures ro 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? Discussion: a) The proposed project use would be educational. The transport of hazardous materials would not occur as a result of the proposed project use. As such, impacts associated with the transport of hazardous materials would not be significant. b) The use of hazardous materials would not occur as a result of any activities associated with proposed project use, and the release of hazardous materials would not occur. Executive Environmental Services Corporation conducted a Lead-Based Paint Inspection at Williams Elementary School in 2002. The Inspection Report, dared March 13, 2002, noted, "no regulated lead based paint materials were identified" at the school site. Further, pursuant to state law; the District is prohibited from conducting classes within facilities that contain lead-based paint. In addition, asbestos testing was conducted on restrooms at Williams Elementary School in 2002. The survey firm, Executive Environmental, summarized their findings in a Comprehensive Asbestos Survey Report dated January 24, 2002, which stated that no asbestos was detected in the 14 samples taken from the restrooms on campus. Further, pursuant to state law, the District is prohibited from conducting classes within facilities that contain asbestos. Because hazardous materials would not be used on campus, no lead-based paint has been found on the project site, and asbestos testing did not detect the presence of asbestos on campus, no impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would occur. c) The proposed project would be located at an existing educational faciliry. Proposed operations would not involve activities that would result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As such, no impacts associated with the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste would occur. d) There are no hazardous materials sites on, or in the vicinity of, the project site pursuant to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List 2006). e) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport, the closest airports to the project site are Long Beach Airport (21 miles) and Burbank Airport (22 miles). Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to its location in relation to public airports or airport land use plans. f) The project sire is not located near a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safery hazard for people residing or working in the project area due to its location in relation to a private airstrip, and no impact would occur. g) The proposed project use would be similar to the existing educational use on the project site. Emergency response and evacuation plans in place for Williams Elementary School students would be maintained for ELAC students as well. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of any emergency response or evacuation plans, and no impact would occur. h) The project site and surrounding area has been developed with urban uses. No wildlands are adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the project site. As such, the proposed projecr would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and no impact would occur. II • • Dare T. Wzlhams Elernentai) Schoo/ East Lai Angeles College Project Initial Study/Maiyated Neyattvr Declaration Potenttafiy Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 'Would the project: a) Violare any water quality standards or waste ~X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies o: interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater cable level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop ro a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted), c) Substantially alter the existing drainage patrern of ❑ El 11 ❑X the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substanually alter the existing drainage pattern El El L^J of the sire or area, including rhrough the alteration of the course of a scream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would El Z exceed the capacity of existing or planned srormwater drainage systems or provide subsranrial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El El a g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area B d ❑ ❑ ary or oun as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Flood Insurance Rare Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 0 structures that 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 setche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ F-1 ❑X 12 • Dar. T V,'Xiaiw Elemenra+y Srhoo/ Earr Los Angele, College Proiecr lnmal Stud Aliri aced Ne arive Declaration Discussion a) The existing facilities are not known to be in violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project use would be the same type of use (educational) as the existing use on the project site. The project site would not be altered, with the exception of very minor modifications to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue (i.e.. curb, sidewalk, and parkway in the City's right-of-way, and a portion of the fence and parking lot on the school site). The proposed project would nor result in an impact relating to the substantial violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements b) The project site would not be altered to accommodate the proposed project except for very minor changes to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue. All existing facilities would remain unchanged, and the groundwater supply and recharge would nor be affected. Thus, the proposed project would not present :g to the depletion ofe"rou.^.dwater supplies or groundwater recharge. , an impact ' .elatn c,d) The project site would not be altered to accommodate the proposed project except for very minor changes to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue. In addition, a new area drain and concrete culvert would be installed in the eastern portion of the project site between the existing paved parking area and an existing concrete culvert that drains toward the eastern property boundary via an existing drainage easement. While the proposed project would not specifically alter the existing drainage pattern, installation of these new drainage facilities would improve existing site drainage. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact relating to the alteration of existing drainage patterns such that flooding, erosion, or siltation results. e) Sire runoff would not be altered as a result of project implementation. Surface water on the Williams Elementary School site drains toward the eastern boundary of the property into an existing storm drain. The proposed project would use the existing paved surface for all internal circulation and parking. The project would not result in a significant impact relating to the contribution of runoff or the additional provision of polluted runoff. f) The proposed project use would be the same as the existing use, and the project site would not be altered except for very minor changes to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue. The increase in vehicles parked on the project site would result in a slight increase in pollutants (petroleum products, tire detritus, etc.). Refer to response to VIII.a. g,h) The proposed project would not include a housing component, and the project site is not located within a mapped 100-year flood hazard area. No Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rare Map (FIRM) map was created for any area in Rosemead because the entire city is located within Zone C, which is outside the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact hydrology such that housing would be placed in a mapped 100-year flood hazard area or flood flows would be impeded or diverted. 0 The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and the sire is not located downstream from a levee or dam. As such, the proposed project would not expose people to risk associated with flooding as a result of levee or dam failure, and no impact would result. j) The project site is located within a developed urban area, and no significant bodies of water or vacant/wild land are near the site. As such, the proposed project would not be subject to phenomena associated with bodies of water, including seiche, tsunamis, and muciflows, and no impact would occur. 13 0 0 Dan T 1r,Wiam, Eiemeniary School East Loi Angeie_f College Proffer: Initial Stud IMat aced Ne arive Declaration Potential) Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the protect: a) Physical[) divide an established community" ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ❑ ❑ ❑ a 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 habuat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan' Discussion: a) The proposed project would occupy an existing school campus. No changes co the campus buildings d project would not physically divide an established community, would be necessary. As such, the propose and no impact would occur. b) The project site is designated as Public Facilities in the Rosemead General Plan and R-2, Light Multiple Residential, in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the Public Facilities designation as it is a land use operated for the public welfare or use, which includes educational facilities. The proposed project also is consistent with the R-2, Light Multiple Residential, zoning designation because educational institutions are conditionally permitted within the R-2 zone, and the proposed project would be a continuation of an educational use. The project applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans policies/regulations, and no impact would occur. c) The project site is completely developed and is not located within a habitat conservation plan area. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and no impact would occur. Potentially Significant Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ mineral resource that would be of value ro the region and the residents of the stare% 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' Less Than Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact mitigation impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ a 14 • • Dan T 11 ilhami Elementan School Eatt Lai Angeles Cullegr Protect Initial Stud1,1A4j11ea1ed Negative Declaration Discussion. a) The site is completely disturbed, there are no known mineral resources on the site The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource; and no impact would occur. b) The site is designated for Public Facilities use in the General Plan and residential use in the Zoning Ordinance (with educational use conditionally permitted). Neither the General Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance identifies the site as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As such. the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plat., specific plan, or other land use plan, and no impact would occur. XI. NOISE - would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project" d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 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? Discussion- a) Giroux and Associates prepared a Noise Impact Study (2006) to assess project-related noise impacts associated with traffic and parking, assuming char Williams Elementary School facilities would be fully utilized and chat all classrooms would be occupied at the maximum allowable capacity. The proposed project analyzed in this Initial Study proposes fewer ELAC students/Faculty/staff and consequently substantially less traffic and fewer parking spaces. The parking spaces in the proposed project would occupy only that area that is currently paved, nor the area around the perimeter of the project site analyzed in the Noise Impact Study. Also, the northern driveway would not be used as the exit point for departing ELAC students and staff. Instead. the Highcliff Avenue driveway would be the only point of ingress/egress for ELAC traffic. On-site parking noise would occur from the arrival and departure of automobiles. Cars on site would be generally slow moving, and noise associated with such slow-moving vehicles is nor typically significant. Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporation Less Thar. No Significant Impact Impact ❑ 0 ❑ ❑X ❑ El ~ ❑ ❑ Z 15 0 6 Dan T W`illiarm Elementat), School Eatt Los Angeles College Project 7rrual 5txd IMitivated Ne atrvr Declaration All cars would enter and exit the site using the southern driveway: all cars associated with the Head Start program, would enter and exit the site using the northern driveway. The northern driveway passes within 30 feet of the nearest home; the caicuiated noise at the ciosest home wouid be less than the Ciry's adopted significance criteria. Thus, noise associated with the proposed project traffic, which would be farther away from the nearest residences than Head Start traffic (which would exit from the northern driveway closest the residences) also would be below the City's adopted significance threshold. b) No activities associated with groundborne vibration or noise are proposed on the project site c) The proposed project would nor cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Noise associated with on-site parking would not be sigiiIiiCaiil because protect vehicles would likely be slow' rn oving, and classes would end by 9:50 PM, ensuring that most vehicles would exit the site prior to 10:00 PM when a much more stringent noise standard would apply. In addition, traffic associated with the proposed project would increase noise levels by less than 0.4 dB south of the campus and 0.7 dB north of the campus, which is less than 3 dB, the threshold for noise detection by the human ear. Thus, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not occur, and associated impacts would not be significant. d) A temporary increase in ambient noise levels would not occur at the project site. No construction activities are to occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no other remporary activities would occur on the project site. Thus, no temporary noise impacts would occur. e) The proposed project site is nor located in the vicinity of an airport or airport land use plan area. Thus, associated noise impacts would nor occur. f) The proposed project site is nor located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, associated noise impacts would not occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the pro)ecc a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere' cl Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: a-c) The proposed project is located in a built-out urban area with no potential sires available for new development in the vicinity. The proposed project is a reuse of existing school facilities; no extension of infrastructure is proposed. Students attending ELAC courses at Williams Elementary School would be transferred within the college district; the proposed project would not generate new students. No houses would be eliminated, and no persons would be displaced. Thus, no impact would occur. 16 • • Dan T. U'ilhaiw Elementan- School Eatr Lot Angeles College Proleu l nirial Stud /Mire aced Negative Declaration Potentially, Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant lmpacz Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X111. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; in order to maintain acceptable smice ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilines? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: a) The proposed project would be similar to the existing educational use on the Williams Elementary School site. The project site would not be altered, except for very minor alterations to the site entrance at Highcliff Avenue, and all facilities would remain unchanged. The intensity of use would increase, as the there would be an increase in adult students, but public services would nor be impacted, as described below. Fire Protection. There would nor be additional demand for fire protection, as the existing facilities would remain unaltered, and no new buildings are proposed. Police Protection. The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department is currently providing security on the project site and, to address the presence of adult students on campus, will continue to provide securir~ services for the ELAC programs. The Sheriffs hours of operation will coincide with scheduled classes. Schools No residential development is proposed for the site; therefore, no school-aged students would be generated. The project would have a beneficial impact on schools because the facility would provide classes for the college-aged students and the community at large. Parks. Williams Elementary School was a secured, locked facility that was only open during school hours. The playgrounds and play apparatus were only available to grade-school children during the regularly scheduled school day. No access to the facilities was available to the community after hours or on the weekends. As there was no neighborhood park on site and no play opportunities for neighborhood children, the proposed project would not remove available park area from the City. No impact would occur to fire and police services, schools, parks, or other public facilities. • • Dan T. Williams Elemeniary School Eav Los Angeles Collegf Project Inma!Srudv/MroFated Nerarrvr Declararior. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact lmnact Mitigation Impact Incorporation XIV RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilmes such chat substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ ~J he construction or expansion of recreational require t facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a) The proposed project would use existing educational facilities, and no new development or residences are proposed that would increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the neighborhood and region. Students and employees of the school would not impact existing park facilities. Refer to response to X11I.2 (parks) above. As such, use of existing recreational facilities would not be increased such chat facilities deteriorate, and no impact would occur. b) The proposed use of a school facility for educational purposes would not require the construction of recreational facilities; existing recreational facilities/equipment for the Head Start program on campus would remain. As such, no impact mould occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation XV. TRANSPORTATION,I TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that 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) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location chat results in substantial safety risks? No Impact 0 ❑ ❑ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Is ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Dar, T. I ;Ihams Elementary School East Los .4ngeles College Proiect Initial Stud Mitt area' Negative Declaration Potenuallc Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation e) Result in inadequate emergence access' ❑ ❑ ❑ D F) Result in inadequate parking canacit} ~ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ r7l U supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycie racks)' Discussion: a,b) A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kinney-Horn (2007). The impact analysis evaluated project traffic at maximum use (627 students/faculty/staff) rather than that proposed for the current project (260 students/faculty/staff). Project trip generation at full occupancy was estimated to be 355 new trips in the AM peak hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and 232 new trips in the PM peak hours (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The addition or project traffic to existing conditions would cause operations at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garrey Avenue to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service (LOS) E in the PM peak hour, which would constitute a significant project impact. All other study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions. Under cumulative conditions, the proposed project at maximum use would contribute to pre-existing unacceptable conditions at the signalized intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the AM and PM peak hour. The PM peak hour impact would be greater than the allowable threshold, resulting in a considerable contribution. All other intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or berter. To mitigate for direct and cumulatively considerable project impacts to the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue signalized intersection during the PM peak hours at build-out conditions, an eastbound right- turn lane will be provided at the intersection. The improvement could be achieved by restriping the eastbound approach ro provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane. This can be accomplished within the existing curb-to-curb width if two on-street parking spaces on the south side of Garvey Avenue are removed. The south curb on Gamey Avenue is currently painted red (no parking) for 20 feet from the beginning of the curb return. It is recommended that approximately 35 additional feet of the curb be painted red along the south curb on Gamey Avenue. Approximately 50 feet of on-street parking area would remain in front of an existing video score. The project will provide a fair share contribution toward the above improvements at the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection. Based on the County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact analysis Report Guidelines, the project's fair share contribution would be 45 percent. The District, however, has agreed to pay 100 percent of the improvement costs to mitigate for the future build out condition. Implementation of the above-noted measure will mitigate future project- level and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level (i.e., the intersection LOS would improve to pre-project cumulative conditions {LOS E} in the PM peak hour). c) The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport and would not interfere with air traffic patterns. d) The project site is located adjacent to an existing, improved street. A traffic signal was recently installed at Highcliff Street and Del Mar Avenue to address concerns for pedestrian safety. Vehicles entering and exiting the project site would use existing drivev.a}'s (south driveway for proposed project ingress/egress and north driveway for Head Starr program ingress/egress). Although traffic volumes to/from the project site would increase, no dangerous conditions would result from a design feature, and there would be no significant impacts. In addition, the proposed use is consistent with the existing site use, and associated impacts would not be significant. 19 Dan T. p ilhamt Elementary School East Los Angele! College Puget! Initial SuudyZMiripated Negative Declaration e) The project site fronts on Del Mar Avenue. Emergency vehicles have complete and unobstructed access to the sire. Associated impacts would not be significant. f) The proposed project would provide a total of 138 parking spaces for ELAC use, not including the separate parking spaces alone Del Mar Avenue that are associated with the Head Start Program. This parking supply represents one space for each two students and one space for each staff and faculry member. ELAC proposes parking space dimensions that are consistent with the City of Rosemead parking code requirements; 9 feet by I8 feet. For every 25 spaces. 1 handicapped parking space mould be provided, for a total of 6 handicapped parking spaces. g) The proposed project would not conflict with plans or policies encouraging the development and use of alternative modes of transportation. The proposed project would, in fact, implement measures that would encourage the use of alternate transportation modes, including the provision of a shuttle that would travel between the main ELAC campus and the Williams Elementary School site to allow for parking on the main campus. In addition, ELAC has arranged to have the Monterey Park Spirit Bus (Route 3), which currently provides transportation services along Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue to the Ciry of Monterey Park from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 5:45 PM on Saturday, extend its service route such that it operates along Del Mar Avenue, with a stop directly in front of the project site (Amy Ho, Monterey Park, 2007). As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the provision of alternate transportation modes, and associated impacts would not be significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result to 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 neede& e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ec ' ro ected demand in addition to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ E] ❑ prof t s p j provider's existing commitments? 10 • • Dar: T. )Xillaanu Elenientar) School East Lus Angeles College Project inrrta! Srud 'W itt Cared Neparive Denaratror 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 tc sobd waste' Potentiallt Less Than Less Than No Significan[ Significant with Significaw Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporatiun ID ❑ ❑ Discussion: a) The proposed project would occupy existing facilities a[ Vi%illiams Elementary School and would result in a similar use. Wastewater requirements for ELAC classes would be slightly more than that for the elementary school due to the anticipated number of students and hours of operation. Wastewater generation would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Beard; thus, no impact would result. b,e) Wastewater requirements for the proposed project would be similar to chose for existing site uses. Wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient and would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities. Thus, no impact would result. c) Refer to responses to Section V111. d) Waterequirements for the proposed project would be similar to, or slightly more than, those for existing site uses. Existing water infrastructure on the Williams Elementary School campus would be sufficient to support the proposed project. Thus, no impact would result. f) Landfill requirements for the proposed project would be similar to those for existing sire uses, and landfill capacity would be sufficient. Thus, no impact would result. g) Solid waste disposal requirements for the proposed project would be similar to those for existing site uses and would comply with solid waste regulations. Thus, no impact would result. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 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' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • • Dar T Williams Elementary School Eatr Los Angeles College Project Initial Stud /Mits ated Ne arlw Declaratsor, potentially Less Than Less Than No Impact Significant Significant with Significant Impact N4itigation Impact Incorporation Does the prolea have impacts chat are n ❑X ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulauvel}' considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed to 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 that ❑ ❑ ❑ a will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, etcher directly or indirectly? Discussion: a) The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment or significantly impact habitat, populations, or range of plant or animal species (refer to Section IV). The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory (refer to Section V). b) Under cumulative conditions at maximum facilities utilization, the proposed project would contribute to pre-existing unacceptable conditions at the signalized intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The PM peak hour impact would be a significant cumulative impact. To mitigate for impacts to the intersection, an eastbound right-turn lane would be provided at the degraded intersection; rescriping the eastbound approach to provide an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane would mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. This reduction could be achieved using measures identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis. The project will contribute 100 percent of the cost for the improvements at the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection. Implementation of this measure would ensure that project-related traffic impacts would be less than significant. c) The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirecth . This conclusion is based on the above analysis chat found potentially significant impacts related to traffic and parking. These impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. 22 • • • • 0 0 Traffic Impact Analysis for • Garvey School District / ELAC Project Prepared for: Helix Environmental Planning For Submittal to: Garvey School District August, 2007 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 0 0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / ELAC PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Prepared for: Helix Environmental Planning For Submittal to the Garvey School District 2730 No. Del Mar Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 400 Orange, CA 92868 August, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Existing Site 1 Proposed Project 4 Site Access 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 6 Signalized Intersection Analysis Methodology 6 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Methodology 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT CRITERIA 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Roadway System Existing Transit Service 9 Existing Intersection Conditions 9 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 12 Ambient Growth 12 Related Projects 12 Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes 14 PROJECT TRAFFIC 14 Project Trip Generation 14 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 21 PROJECT IMPACTS 21 Existing Plus Project Conditions 21 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 27 MITIGATION MEASURES 27 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING 31 Proposed Access Plan 31 Project Parking 31 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 35 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS APPENDIX B - INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 0 • LIST OF FIGURES Figure I - Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 - Project Site Plan 3 Figure 3 - Existing Lane Configurations 10 Figure 4 - Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 I Figure 5 - Location of Related Projects 16 Figure 6 - Related Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 7 - Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 18 Figure 8 - Project Trip Distribution 23 Figure 9 - Project Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 24 Figure 10 - Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 25 Figure 11 - Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 28 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Proposed Courses/Schedule at Dan T. Williams School 5 Table 2 - Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation, Existing Conditions 13 Table 3 - Summary of Related Projects Trip Generation 15 Table 4 - Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation, Cumulative Conditions 19 Table 5 - Hourly Summary of ELAC Student and Faculty Occupation of Site 20 Table 6 - Summary of Project Trip Generation 22 Table 7 - Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation, Existing plus Project Conditions 26 Table 8 - Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation, Cumulative plus Project Conditions 29 Table 9 - Summary of Peak Hour Intersection Operation, with Mitigation 30 • • TRAFFIC STUDY FOR GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT / ELAC PROJECT INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed re-use of the Dan T. Williams Elementary School site in the City of Rosemead. The Dan T. Williams School, in the Garvey School District, is located on the east side of Del Mar Avenue, north of Graves Avenue. Due to a drop in enrollment, the District decided to discontinue the use of the Dan T. Williams Elementary School facility in the spring of 2006. East Los Angeles College (ELAQ proposes to lease the school site as a satellite classroom facility, while the main ELAC campus undergoes construction projects. The ELAC campus is located at Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles to the southwest of the Dan T. Williams school site. The proposal to temporarily relocate programs and services will allow ELAC to maintain its current enrollment and also provide additional educational opportunities to area residents that live near the Dan T. Williams site. A lease of at least 5 years is currently being negotiated between the Garvey School District and the Los Angeles Community College District on behalf of East Los Angeles College. The project site is shown in its local setting on the vicinity map in Figure 1. A copy of the proposed project is provided on Figure 2. This Traffic Study evaluates the change in traffic patterns resulting from the change in use from an Elementary School to a local college use. The study describes the methodology for estimating the change in traffic patterns that will result from the proposed project, and will address project-related traffic impacts on the surrounding street system, project access, parking and internal circulation. The report also identifies necessary mitigation measures associated with project traffic impacts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Site The Dan T. Williams Elementary School site occupies 5.3 acres and consists of 3 Head Start classrooms at the front (west side) of the site, 17 regular classrooms, a library, multi-purpose building, offices, and a lawn area and playground outside. Parking consists of a small parking area of 18 spaces in front of the Head Start buildings, along Del Mar Avenue, and a larger paved area behind the Head Start and playground area, for the school portion of the site. Access for the site currently consists of two access drives on Del Mar Avenue - one signalized driveway aligning with Highcliff Street and one unsignalized driveway approximately 130 feet to the north. Garvey School District / ELAC Project - 1 - August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study 0 0 W V N O O Z • 7~ df+~9 • Z c. ~ I - r .r A ' j s. ~ .c .a . ~ .r .t o ~ 241 ~ owls ,a- ti ~ .o-., c L g U O v w z N 1 PM A+l .1 .tr T I z O U cr U Z III I u w F" Cf) r11~1 AV -z]-VW N U WW M: DO acc ~OL- C h V O 11~ 0 0 Project Components ELAC proposes to use the site for a number of educational programs, as described below. General Education courses for ELAC students will be held at the Dan T. Williams site. ELAC proposes to conduct General Education courses from 7:25 AM to 9:45 PM. Classes are generally 1-'/z hours in length. Community Services Courses - ELAC proposes to offer Community Services Programs for the residents of the community in the vicinity of the Dan T. Williams site. The Community Services program will include Children's College and other educational programs for children, and non-credit courses and programs for adults. The Community Services courses will be scheduled based on classroom availability after ELAC class needs are accommodated. Courses will generally be 1 to 1-'/z hours in length. Escalante Math Program - The Escalante Math Program will be offered for school-aged children, grades 1 through 6. The course will be offered from 2:50 to 6:40 PM weekdays, depending on classroom availability after ELAC class needs are accommodated. The Escalante Math program will consist of 12 faculty members and up to 350 students in the classrooms at one time. Interim Project At start up, and for the short-term future, ELAC plans to operate the General Education and Community Services courses only. The two programs would use seven classrooms with no more than 35 students in each classroom. Maximum student class attendance on campus at any one time would be 245 students (7 classrooms x 35 student each). At any one time on campus, the General Education and Community Service programs would have a total of 7 in-class faculty members, 1 library staff member, 5 administrative office staff, and 2 additional faculty members using adjunct faculty office space. Therefore, a maximum of 260 adult students/faculty/staff would be on campus at any one time. Ultimate Project At its full potential, the ELAC usage of the site could consist of use of up to 12 classrooms, with a class capacity of 45 students for a maximum of 540 students in the classrooms at one time for the General Education program. Although ELAC acknowledges that it will take a number of years before the project would reach the full potential usage, the traffic analysis conducted for this study assumed the maximum proposed site usage, for a worst-case analysis. To minimize project impact on the surrounding street system during the morning and evening peak hours, the College will limit its usage of the facilities to no more than 9 classes starting during the morning peak hour, and no more than 7 classes starting and/or ending in the evening peak hour. A matrix demonstrating these proposed course offerings, class schedules, and the planned site usage for each was developed based on the full program potential information provided by ELAC, and is included as Table 1. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -4- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study a O U v; rr ri 3 F Q A aQ xw F ~ WA U f3: O U A W O a a a F~ r.i }I Q L Q tT, Q Fy W A F "a U Q F OW Q xw w F ~ A F W A F r F r.a U Q W • n r i i i 1 8 • 2 2 1 1 . I I It N z W ~D M 00 00 a, 0 O v i Q 0 O 00 R C O o s a L. y b aw x N Qr 0 M i Q 0 00 0 0 CC{ U cl N .N-. N r1 M u a 0 0 M C1; 8 Ll. s. 0. o a o N p ~ V Cd .G ~ 0 t8 r L W ~ U vi O 'y O O 0"c a ti U 0. ca N " to A w 0 ~n CD te) ^~v°l Mtn V 0 0 V ~ ~ a a n. a a a, ooooo00 ~ooov,~nvi~n g l~ l l l l l e~,ooo O N O O O N N N U n O\ b d q .y Ln V C V W N 4_. G cd r. CN Ln a~ C90 O O O w a a a ~ ~ o .fl wUVUUU..aQ a O O\ N N U U I G 7 0 U w .D ~ O O V .fl y m vn 0 O QG~ o t7 ~ O O U a C Y O O. ,ni O v '3 c o E N ° ton 144 O y U 00 4) 4-. q) ~ 3 A O O q G 3 in O N Cd Y O z 0 c LCOO. cd o y a y cri o a. ~o as 6m o00~ cq Cc',) O Uw .fl .O vJ o o Y ro p o Q 4ti > v y 4 a° ca W y 'aa cc O y on 7 0 d O U P O C3 V V o y b ~ C.3 i>l r c u a~ v Ib O 7 r ; O O 'b 0 O O 73 tr) ° U 3 O o 3 0 U~ b 0ocn"x v) :3 oW( ~N N M '~T kn 0 0 N V7 U y 'b O~ 6g 19 cu u • • Site Access ELAC proposes to use the existing site school classroom buildings and grounds for their operation, with some physical modifications to the parking and access. Ingress and egress for ELAC traffic will be via the southern, signalized driveway only. ELAC parking will be in the larger parking area behind the Head Start buildings. The Head Start parking area at the front of the school will be fenced off from the remainder of the site, and Head Start traffic will use only the northern driveway to Del Mar Avenue for ingress and egress. No parking for ELAC students or staff will be allowed in this area, and no access through the Head Start parking area will be allowed. Signage will detail parking restrictions in the Head Start parking area. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The impact of the project traffic (at full build-out with all project components in operation) has been evaluated for weekday peak hour operations at the study intersections. The evaluation of traffic impacts is conducted in accordance with the Los Angeles County Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (CMP) Transportation Impact Analysis. The study evaluates morning and evening peak hour operating conditions for the following conditions: • Existing Conditions • Existing plus Project Conditions • Cumulative Conditions (including background growth and related projects in the areas) • Cumulative plus Project Conditions Off-site traffic-related impacts have been evaluated at the following intersections: • Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue • Del Mar Avenue at Highcliff Street • Graves Avenue at New Avenue • Graves Avenue at Jackson Ave • Del Mar Avenue at Graves Avenue • Graves Avenue at San Gabriel Boulevard • Del Mar Avenue at Potrero Grande Drive Signalized Intersection Analysis Methodology In accordance with the requirements of the City of Rosemead, peak hour operating conditions at the signalized intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. The ICU methodology provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during a given hour. Garvey School District I ELAC Project -6- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study 0 0 The ICU calculation assumes a per-lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for each travel lane (through or turning lane) through the intersection. A clearance factor of 0.10 (10%) of the total intersection capacity is included in the ICU calculation. The ICU calculation returns a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio that translates into a corresponding Level of Service (LOS) measure, ranging from LOS "A", representing uncongested, free-flowing conditions, to LOS "F", representing severely congested, over-capacity conditions. A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding V/C ratio is provided in the chart on the following page: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of ICU Value Description Service EXCELLENT - No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is A 0.00-0.60 full used. VERY GOOD - An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; drivers begin to feel B 0.61 -0.70 somewhat restricted within ou s of vehicles. GOOD - Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; back- C 0.71 -0.80 u s ma develop behind turning vehicles FAIR - Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower D 0.81 -0.90 volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups. POOR - Represents the most vehicles that the intersection approaches can E 0.91 - 1.00 accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. FAILURE - Back-ups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent F > 1.00 movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuous) increasing queue lengths. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Methodology Unsignalized intersections are analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology for two-way stop-controlled intersections. This methodology estimates the average total delay (in average seconds per vehicle) for each of the movements to or from the minor street, and determines the level of service for each movement. Just as with the ICU methodology, the HCM delay forecast translates to a Level of Service designation, ranging from LOS "A" to LOS "F". The descriptions of operating conditions for each Level of Service are very similar to the LOS descriptions for signalized intersections. A summary description of each Level of Service for unsignalized intersections, and the corresponding delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is provided on the chart on the following page: Garvey School District / ELAC Project -7- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study 0 0 F LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Delay seconds/vehicle Description A < 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and < 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and < 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and < 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and < 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion TRAFFIC UgPACT CRITERIA The purpose of a traffic impact study is to identify the impacts of a proposed development, and to determine whether or not those impacts are significant. If determined to be significant, the project will be required to mitigate the project's traffic-related impacts. The Los Angeles County CMP guidelines define a significant traffic impact for signalized intersections as an increase in demand by at least 2% where the intersection would operate at LOS "E" or "F" with project traffic. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Roadway System Regional access to the project site is provided by the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), which is oriented in an east- west direction approximately 1-%2 miles south of the project, and serves the project site via the Potrero Grande Drive, Paramount Boulevard, and the San Gabriel Boulevard interchanges. Access is also provided by the San Bernardino Freeway (US-10), which is oriented in the east-west direction approximately 1-%! miles north of the project, and serves the project site via interchanges with New Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard. Local access to the project is provided by several local roads: Potrero Grande is a four-lane, east-west roadway, located 1/2 mile south of the project site. In the project vicinity, Potrero Grande provides two travel lanes in each direction, with raised medians. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -8- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study • • Del Mar Avenue is generally a four-lane, undivided roadway oriented in a north-south direction, located adjacent to the site. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the project. San Gabriel Boulevard is a four-lane, north-south roadway, located 1 /2 mile east of the project site. In the project vicinity, San Gabriel Boulevard provides two travel lanes in each direction, with a two-way-left-turn lane. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Garvey Avenue is a four-lane, east-west roadway, located 1/2 mile north of the project site. In the project vicinity, Garvey Avenue provides two travel lanes in each direction, with raised medians. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Graves Avenue is a two-lane, east-west collector, located immediately south of the project site. In the project vicinity, Graves Avenue provides one travel lane in each direction, with a two-way-left-turn lane. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Existing Transit Service Transit service in the area consists of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Route 70 / 370, Montebello Bus Lines Route 20, and Monterey Park Spirit Bus Route 3. MTA 70 / 370 provides service from downtown Los Angeles to the El Monte bus terminal, and travels along Garvey Avenue in the vicinity of the project. Route 70 / 370 operates 24 hours a day, with 15-minute headways throughout most of the day. The closest bus stop on Garvey Avenue is approximately one-half mile north of the Dan T. Williams site. Montebello Route 20 provides service along San Gabriel Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. Route 20 operates from 5:30 AM to 11:00 PM with 10 to 15-minute headways throughout most of the day. The closest bus stop on San Gabriel Avenue is approximately one-half mile east of the Dan T. Williams site. The Monterey Park Spirit Bus Route 3 currently operates along Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue in the City of Monterey Park from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 5:45 PM on Saturday. ELAC has arranged to have this transit line extended so that it operates along Del Mar Avenue, with a stop directly in front of the Dan T. Williams school site. (Source: Amy Ho, Monterey Park, 2007) Existing Intersection Conditions Existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 3. Peak hour turning movement traffic counts were conducted during the morning and evening peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections in September, 2006, and are depicted on Figure 4. Copies of the traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -9- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study • U z o N Jul. Z SAN GABRIEL BLVD Uj ~tn N ~ U- 1 J I 0 l = I JACKSON I II i AVE I NEW AVE I I II I ~ 1 \ I f • 1f t~ 0 O \ldo W W N y= 2 J J W y 2= ~ W U W O N O r ? W 2Z`4 ~ N ~2 N pp~~ N ll V 1 11 J N II C N v VO O Ilo k CA O g F a: D s z O R V w z 10 Q J l/ RJ R v 1 wz X ;LL W 10 W U d n Q i O o YZ~ L-9(14) f-6545 6) z 24(34 661(525 58(122 47(„-/ 1 I 660(735 I I \ 15(14 m ~ SAN GABRIEL BLVD F- La F \ O In I II I JACKSON I T I NEW AVE I II I . 3 14 592 84 254117, a F- N J ~ U ~ AVE \ a \ \ ~C7 w 65()4) m ~l 34 134 J 1 r ,93(166}-~ 157(74 I } ~ p W N N O _ ~ n N a z ~ W O O~ =3 W io a Z 22 > 30 Z3 n u J x \ W L30(50) O J 1 ` 22 X201 > 56(90 526(450 32(36 mm N ^ u~7 _ n O J ~Z1o2) 62(62) _ Y 6(17}~ r ~O W a WZ D~ 0x LL W III 1] C O WzZ 11 • Existing morning and evening peak hour operating conditions were evaluated using the ICU methodology for signalized intersections, and the IICM methodology for unsignalized intersections, as previously described. The results of the existing conditions analysis are summarized on Table 2. Copies of the intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Review of Table 2 shows that all study intersections are currently operating at Level of Service "D" or better in both the morning and evening peak hours. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A short-term future analysis evaluates traffic conditions for the Opening Year of the project. Short-term future traffic consists of existing peak hour traffic with an annual growth rate, applied for each year between existing conditions and the Opening Year for the project. In addition, traffic from any Related Projects in the vicinity of the project is added to the peak hour volumes. Related Projects consist of any project which has been approved and is not yet occupied, has been proposed and is currently being processed, or is otherwise a reasonably-foreseeable project. Ambient Growth Cumulative peak hour traffic projections for the study intersections have been developed for the proposed opening year of 2007. An ambient traffic growth rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes at each of the study area intersections. The growth rate was based on growth rate factors published in the Los Angeles County CMP. The CMP indicates a growth rate factor of 4.16%between the years 2005 and 2010 for the San Gabriel Valley, which equates to an annual growth rate of 0.82% per annum for projects expected to be completed by Year 2010. Since the proposed project is expected to be completed within one year, an ambient traffic growth rate of 0.82% for one year is assumed in the analysis. Related Projects In addition, potential added traffic from Related Projects (projects that have already been approved, or are pending and likely to be approved) has been added to Existing plus Ambient Growth traffic volumes. Information regarding Related Projects was derived from a number of sources. The following jurisdictions were contacted to request information about related projects: • City of Rosemead • City of Monterey Park • City of Montebello • County of Los Angeles Garvey School District I ELAC Project -12- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS I Del Mar Ave @ Garvey Ave 0.882 D 0.879 D 2 Del Mar Ave @ Higheliff St 0.348 A 0.424 A 5 Del Mar Ave @ Graves Ave 0.556 A 0.516 A 6 San Gabriel Blvd @ Graves Ave 0.536 A 0.611 B 7 rlol AA~r Ava (n) PntrPrh (:rnnrla r)r n rQQ R A 577 A Garv Traff 0 0 In all, seven related projects were identified. A list of the related projects, along with their trip-making potential is provided on Table 3. The location of each related project is shown on Figure 5. Trip generation information for each project was obtained, where available, from traffic impact studies for each project. For related projects without traffic studies, trip generation estimates were developed using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, (7"' Edition). The resulting trips that would be generated by each related project are also summarized on Table 3. Table 3 indicates that the related projects would generate about 3,464 trips on a daily basis, with 180 trips during the morning peak hour and 595 trips during the evening peak hour. The total combined traffic generated by all the related projects through the study intersections is shown on Figure 6. Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes The traffic to be generated by the related projects was then added to the Existing plus Growth traffic volumes to represent Cumulative Conditions. The resulting Cumulative Base traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. The study intersections were re-analyzed for Cumulative Conditions. Intersection worksheets are provided in Appendix B, and the results are shown on Table 4. The level of service analysis indicates that with Cumulative traffic volumes, the intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue will worsen to LOS "E" in both the morning and evening peak hours. The remaining study intersections will continue to operate at LOS "D" or better during both peak hours under Cumulative conditions. PROJECT TRAFFIC Project Trip Generation To evaluate the impact of the proposed ELAC use of the Dan T. Williams Elementary School site, it is necessary to identify the amount of traffic that the proposed uses will generate. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7`s Edition) publication is the most recognized resource for trip generation rates for many types of development. However, this resource does not provide adequate trip rate data for the combination of uses proposed by ELAC (satellite classrooms for a Community College, community services programs for adults and youth, and a specialty math program). Trip generation estimates for the proposed East LA College use of the Dan T. Williams School site were developed for the morning and evening peak hours using the arrival and departure patterns of students and faculty for the proposed programs to be offered. These estimates were developed based on the ultimate proposed usage of the site (shown on Table 1). It is assumed that the students, faculty, and staff would arrive during the half-hour period prior to the start of class, and would leave within the half hour following the end of the class; that the computer labs would experience 50% turnover each hour; and that adjunct staff will arrive and depart according to their individual needs throughout the day. Table 5 summarizes arrival and departure patterns throughout the day, based on these assumptions. Table 5 also shows the cumulative number of students and faculty that will be on campus at any given time throughout the day, assuming full enrollment in every class, and 100% attendance. This information will be used to assess the adequacy of the on-site parking supply. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -14- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study • • Garvey School District ! ELAC Project Traffic Impact Study 5 - May, 2007 W U O 1 r O z 27(57) t JACKSON tt AVE tt l tNEW AVE t t t~ nfl N N J L-16(26) ~ Rov 9 34 (34 1 11(11 ) Nryv 0A ~9A110 8 2(18 0(2 o m N -25(64) SAN GABRIEL BLVD \ \ \ \ 3 o H v-) \ a to LL J U S ~ 1 7)) 1 X 1 ~jW Z O ~ d2 y l Z t ~ N N N I o: 0 \ \ \ \ \ v 0 a" O VJ mw L D J O U U- a ac D L 5 O ~ 2 ~ Q ~ w IL VJ U O it a- co 0 wrW a: R D a° U wr Ii 4 W \ Q ^n ^ ~ b m t Z o -6614581) ` J X911) O Z 234 + r 870 47 581 25 2(o rf-I 47(1 1 ` 692(798 15(14 'm SAN GABRIEL BLVD 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ F- \ OV) 1 l JACKSON 'I I I ~ NEw AvE o: 0 m„~r Mirn 4 M N 1 V) 11 ~ AVE a \ a \ n m ~ s2 tot) -707(558) ° n f---135(196) J t 75) 15 (75) 1 ^ ^ h 159( i Z K _ ? W O W H a= _ 2= T x u cl) / w J 0 N ~ U NY a J ~30(5D) - 22 U- 62(99 1 } r 39(44~-\ m ~ o~ N O 2 ~N W ~2( ) nl I~ J 1 ` 63(u63) W 7(( ~ 1)(3 °0no f ~m W J 5 ~U c O 18 0 0 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 Del Mar Ave @ Garvey Ave 0.935 E 0.923 E 2 Del Mar Ave @ Highcliff St 0.358 A 0.446 A 5 Del Mar Ave @ Graves Ave 0.568 A 0.536 A 6 San Gabriel Blvd @ Graves Ave 0.545 A 0.628 B 7 Del Mar Ave @ Potrero Grande Dr 0.709 C 0.566 A AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Unsi nalized Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS 3 New Ave @ Graves Ave Southbound Approach 14.1 B 11.8 B 4 Jackson Ave @ Graves Ave Northbound Approach Southbound Approach 12.0 11.3 B B 13.2 11.8 B B Garvey School District / ELAC Project Traffic Impact Study - 19 - May, 2007 M Q Vl b N N N I~ ~D N I cw~ Q O N N M1 +D N N <t N N M1 ~O N b n ~ ~ ~ N N M1 ~D N V Q V r N N M1 `p N 10 O M O N N h ~O N vi o h p ~O v N N ~D h N r ~ N N M1 N V O ~O N ry r N N V W V7 Q o N N h 'o N b LT - - °v v, CD 10 N N h `O N 10 Z 0 N 7 $ O %O N N M1 ~O N N F ' Gr V ~ ~ ~ N N M1 ~ N b OM C. O N N M1 b N N b O O 7 pO ~O N N h ~O N r ~p F O 1 N N r %O h N r b u u fs, V 10 N N M1 O M1 N r Q a ~ N N n o r4 M1 v W E Q z V ~ N N M1 %0 N N W N F O h N N M1 10 N V U Q ^ N M1 N OV 10 N N h 'O N W v O c h "D 0 N N M1 O N O Qi C* O R b O N N M1 '0 N r 7 N N h ~D N ~ of O Q C, N N r 'D N b 1 Q rn N r D 7 X) OC O 10 O. N N v I Q Ov ~D 'n 10 c P N t' ~D v N 7 cn O v U N ~O N L 7; O V P N M1 'o r a u V) N A W ~ ~ y u in W v U v ~ u c u O ~ u d N ¢ E E o ~ d E ~ ~ ~ ` w u E- u w 0 o slu;opnls 1JUIS pue glinae3 e- C7 h O a b p ~ N N Ov' v i h o N O M O N N p N Q N N V O N N M b N N N ~ ~ N N `O V 00 ' O ~V ~ N N O _ `O y ~ N p ~6 [off ~p N N `O O ry ~ v Q Q ry N M1 oc C. N N v e 'o V ~ ~ ~ O N N N Q O O p ~p b N N N V 7 b r, r Q O ~D p O BOO N N N a _ M Vl J ~ ~ ~ O O N N N ~ ~ M vi ~ ~ V V Ov, O b 'N N ry M1 N N 1 M v1 .0 m N M1 N M1 M f O M1 N M1 N M1 %D N M M • rn v' o rl p ^ +M1 N N M1 ~O N r M M t 1 V O M1 N M1 N M1 b N N P 1 O K N h N M1 N O V1 O ~ ~p ~p N N N M1 ~D M1 N ~ M ~/1 v h ~ ~ ~ N N N M1 ~D M1 N ~ C> Co v r4 N N M1 N m 'n `O OM ON 7 ' O O `O N N N h 10 N N M ~ f a ~ 77 V ' C> N N N h ~D N N M f V M ~ C ~ ~ N N N \O N r `D 0 0 ~ a 'c ` y v v i C _ p , L t ~ N ~ L G y~ !w r u U u a ~ ¢ E ~ ~ d E ~ n w in . a aua i r:ti 1Jel s pU lf ,pl nae3 F v u V u O Lu., N L O O N U ~ = ,H 'D G u L a 8 '3 L U t U v ~ C a u E W O 0. 2 RS `L u a LLI vC O U ,C 'C S= U V H ~ a c 'G[• ~ H V E O V n id V ~ ~ g ~ o t~ E u .E v _ W L C V M1 L e E .9 O a m C_ E V m C .Q 00 U P L. O E O C m A E E U Q 41 C `u O U EM O L n G 0 H V E V O a. ~ 0 L L m c Fo- c u N • • The hour-by-hour student and faculty counts shown on Table 5 form the basis for developing trip generation estimates. It is recognized that students, faculty, and staff may be absent from classes for various reasons (i.e. sickness, vacation, appointments, scheduling conflicts, attrition, etc.). A 10-percent absenteeism rate was assumed for the student, staff, and faculty populations. In addition, alternative travel modes, such as public transit, an ELAC shuttle (discussed later in this report), carpooling, and walking or biking will result in a reduction in vehicular traffic to and from the site. A 20% reduction in overall trip generation was assumed to reflect alternative travel modes, including biking and walking based on: • current transit availability, • the proposed shuttle service to be offered to and from the main ELAC campus, • the proposed extension of Monterey Park Bus to directly serve the Dan T. Williams site, the characteristics of the surrounding project areas, • ELAC records indicate that over 1,100 students live in the City Rosemead Trip generation for the project is summarized on Table 6. After accounting for the factors discussed above, the proposed ELAC programs at the Dan T. Williams location are projected to generate approximately 355 new trips in the morning peak hour and 282 new trips in the evening peak hour. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution assumptions for the project site were developed, taking into account the site use, and the location of area trip producers such as residential areas, and the ELAC campus itself. Since the courses offered at the Dan T. Williams site will be General Education courses, a substantial portion of the trips will be ELAC students coming directly from another class or going directly to another class on the ELAC campus. Trip distribution assumptions are shown on Figure 8. Based on these trip distribution patterns, the new trips to be added to the street system by the project were calculated, and are shown on Figure 9. PROJECT IMPACTS Existing Plus Project Conditions Project traffic volumes were added to Existing traffic, and the resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10. The study intersections were re-analyzed with these traffic volumes to determine the project's impact on peak hour intersection operation. The results of the Existing Plus Project analysis are summarized on Table 7. Table 7 shows that the addition of project traffic to Existing Conditions will result in the following impact: Garvey School District / ELAC Project - 21 - August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION BASED ON MAXIMUM USE OF ALL SITE FACILITIES Project Tri Generation AM Peak PM Peak Proposed Courses Quantity In Out In Out ELAC Gen Ed Courses / Community Services -Students 405 405 40 315 32 - Faculty 9 9 0 7 0 Escalante Math Program - Students 350 0 0 0 0 - Faculty 12 0 0 0 0 Other site uses 2 - Students 60 30 0 0 30 - Faculty and Staff 15 8 0 0 8 Sub-Total Traffic 452 40 322 70 Less 10% Absenteeism, Attrition -45 -4 -32 -7 Less 20% Local Transit, ELAC Shuttle, Carpool, Bicycle, Walk-In -81 -7 -58 -13 'fetal NeNN Traffic 326 29 232 50 ` The Community Services courses will be scheduled based on classroom availability after ELAC class needs are accommodated. 2 Includes ELAC administrative staff, computer labs, library, and faculty offices. Assumes half of computer room capacity will turn over each peak hour, adjunct staff use of staff offices is occasional throughout the day. Traffic Impact Study Garvey School District -22- May, 2007 J Q Z o O Z 0 • 23 T N • Z O Z = O m f V ~ a 1.1 ~ W O ~ U m T W ~ O ~ r a o ~ 11 u II 1 . x i x ~ 1 N X 0 N 00 w M 0 z O F- D co r_ r r) _EL F-- H U w O M IL N ul O O N N L A Q e Z a 8 V Q~ N C L-' P u 0 E Y O S W J Q v N • • C f) Sw L J O U LL LL a O 17 a w IL Q w w U w O M EL V C N U O U O N N Q d C O 3 24 z 173 71,JS)--J r 66 5 -r \ ~m a N O a N ry JACKSON II NEW AVE 1 1 1 • L-9(14) J ~ ~ ---65 566, ,01(61, 34)-J 1_ t r Q25 8)-~ 22 SAN GABRIEL BLVD \ \ \ oV) U- J U A VE 1e n 71((8(4) ) 1 ` ~ 38(2043, ~r ~ mNo o~ o~ N~ a • ry ^ NN( I \oll ji 74 15 (74 ~ r a m = o o W a ❑ a~ o ❑ ~ c N o n r LT-i cl) cW C J 0 U LL LL D v 0 N T zo;3 57'92 535(462 , if 1 1 I 38(48 ~ n ~ rn ■ • ~ " N U W 7 ~n M N N ;2~ 626~(82) IOt iI IL V d J 1 ` co J J fi LL o b ~ z ~ Cc d Q V! x 3 J W W~ J 25 • • TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION L EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour I'M Peak Hour Project Impact No. Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM 1 Del Mar Ave a Garvey Ave 0.882 D 0.879 D 0.885 D 0.933 E 0.003 0.054 2 Del Mar Ave (a Highcliff St 0.348 A 0.424 A 0.383 A 0.473 A 0.035 0.049 5 Del Mar Ave aQ Graves Ave 0.556 A 0.516 A 0.561 A 0.528 A 0.005 0.012 6 San Gabriel Blvd Graves Ave 0.536 A 0.611 B 0.547 A 0.618 B 0.011 0.007 7 Del Mar Ave Potrero Grande D 0.699 B 0.522 A 0.745 C 0.554 A 0.046 0.032 Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pro ect Im act No. Unsi nalized Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 3 New Ave @ Graves Ave Southbound Approach 13.8 B 11.8 B 13.9 B 11 8 B 0.1 0.0 4 Jackson Ave @ Graves Ave Northbound Approach Southbound Approach 11.8 11.2 B B 13.0 11.7 B B 1 L9 11.2 B B 13.1 11.7 B B 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Garvey School District I ELAC Project Traffic Impact Study -26- August, 2007 0 01 • With the addition of project traffic, the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue will worsen to LOS "E" in the evening peak hour, with a project impact of 0.054. This is greater than a 0.020 increase in ICU, and is considered a significant impact. The project will be required to mitigate this impact. Mitigation measures will be discussed in a later section of this report. The remaining study intersections would operate at LOS "D" or better with the addition of project traffic. Copies of intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Project traffic volumes were added to Cumulative Condition, and the resulting traffic volumes are shown on Figure 11. The study intersections were re-analyzed with these traffic volumes to determine the project's impact on peak hour intersection operation. The results of the Cumulative Plus Project analysis are summarized on Table 8. Review of Table 8 shows that project traffic will contribute to pre-existing unacceptable conditions (LOS "E") at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the morning and evening peak hours, with a project impact of 0.003 in the morning and 0.053 in the evening peak hour. This evening impact is greater than a 0.020 increase in ICU, and is considered a significant cumulative impact. The project will be required to mitigate this impact. Mitigation measures will be discussed in a later section of this report. The remaining study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS "D" or better with the addition of project traffic. Copies of intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B. NUTIGATION NLEASURES As reported in the previous section, the proposed project (assuming all project components in operation) will have a significant impact at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue. The intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue will worsen to LOS "E" with the addition of ambient growth and related projects traffic, and the addition of project traffic will result in more than a 0.02 increase in ICU at the already-deficient intersection. The addition of an eastbound right-turn lane would mitigate the project impact. This improvement can be achieved by re-striping the eastbound approach to provide an exclusive right-turn lane. This can be accomplished within the existing curb-to-curb width, if on- street parking on the south side of Garvey Avenue is removed. The south curb on Garvey Avenue is currently painted red (no parking) for 20 feet from the beginning of the curb return (BCR). It is recommended that approximately 35 additional feet of curb be painted red. This would leave about 50 feet of curb space in front of the video store. This on-street parking is frequently used by customers of the video store, who find it convenient for short-term parking when they are dropping off a video. A summary of the intersection operation with the recommended mitigation measure is provided on Table 9. ICU worksheets summarizing the improvement analysis are provided in Appendix B. The mitigation improvement will improve the intersection level of service to reduce the project impact to a less-than- significant level in the evening peak hour. Traffic Impact Study August, W J Q U N 0 0 Z J ~ ~E 173(113 1 692(7981(j-~ \15(1,)-1 :2'2 i ~~d X9(14) J I I y 1/08(92)) 24(34 1 T 870(5473 1 58(125)- 1 °a fir' SAN GABRIEL BLVD • 38(14)--J 1 612(671 262(15, ~v N ' N \ I~ \ 00Ln ~I JACKSON ~I IT_ NEW AVE 1 O J ~ U AVE \ \ \ IN rnN J~ 196 180--1 15L(75)---\ 29) 2 j v 49) o u ~yy3 ~ O 0 yyy 11 11 x = Y W J 0 U ME LL Q o~ D O q!K ~-j 30z z') Q 63(117 552(50 45(54 r 1 J~ 0 ~ n W 1L Q % h ^ N ~ 3 W n ~M ^ r J I ~22d)1 ) f-63(63) V J 1 1 ` , (33)--- f II R \ m b ~ ~ < I N 3 V 28 • • TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Cumulative Cumulative+ Project AM Peak Hour PM Pea k Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Impact No. Signalized Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS [CU LO5 ICU LOS AM PM I Del Mar Ave @ Garvey Ave 0.935 E 0.923 E 0.938 E 0.976 E 0.003 0.053 2 Del Mar Ave 2 Highcliff St 0358 A 0.446 A 0.393 A 0.495 A 0.035 0.049 5 Del Mar Ave @ Graves Ave 0.568 A 0.536 A 0.574 A 0.543 A 0.006 0.007 6 San Gabriel Blvd Graves Ave 0.545 A 0.628 B 0.556 A 0.634 B 0.011 0.006 7 Del Mar Ave a Potrero Grande D 0.709 C 0.566 A 0.754 C 0.598 A 0.045 0.032 Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Im act No. Unsi nalized Intersection Delay LOS Dela LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 3 New Ave @ Graves Ave Southbound Approach 14.1 B 11.8 B 14.2 B 12.0 B 0.1 0.2 4 Jackson Ave rt Graves Ave Northbound Approach Southbound Approach 12.0 11.3 B B 13.2 11.8 B B 12.1 11.3 B B 13.4 11.9 B B 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Garvey School District / ELAC Project Traffic Impact Study -29- August, 2007 TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION WITH MITIGATION Cumulative + Project (without Mitigation) Cumulative + Project (with Mitigation) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Impact AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersection ICU I,OS ICU LOS AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS Del Mar Ave @ Garvey Ave Improvements Assumed: Stripe EB Right-Turn Lane 0.938 E 0.976 E 0.003 0.053 0.938 E 0.926 E Garvey School District / EIAC Project Traffic Impact Study -30- August, 2007 • • The project's responsibility toward this improvement should be a fair share contribution to the cost of the improvement. The County of Los Angeles Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines define "fair share" with the following formula: Project Percentage Share = Project Traffic Project + Other Related Projects Traffic Based on this formula, the project's "fair share" at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue would be as follows: Intersection Project Percentage Share Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue 187 = 45% 187 + 228 SITE ACCESS AND PARKING The following provides a discussion and evaluation of the access plan proposed by ELAC. An alternative access plan suggested by the City of Rosemead staff is also discussed and evaluated here. Proposed Access Plan The project access plan calls for separation of the Head Start and ELAC traffic, with ELAC ingress and egress assigned to the southern, signalized driveway, and Head Start traffic assigned to the northern driveway. This separation will be accomplished with signage and a physical barrier at the entrance to the Head Start parking area. The southern driveway at Highcliff Street is 20 feet wide, and as such, will not accommodate two-way traffic. The driveway will need to be widened by 5 to 6 feet on the north side to achieve adequate width for two-way traffic- This widening would require minor modifications to the existing curb, sidewalk, and parkway in the City's right-of-way, and to a portion of the fence and parking lot on the school site. In addition, traffic signal detector loops should be installed in the driveway, for outbound traffic leaving the school. A traffic signal pole, located 26 feet north of the driveway, and a power pole located 41 feet north of the driveway would not be affected by this widening. The driveway at the north end of the property, which will be assigned to Head Start traffic only, is also 20 feet wide, and may also need to be widened to accommodate two-way traffic. Project Parking At project start-up, ELAC will provide 138 marked parking spaces within the central, eastern, and southern areas of the project site on previously paved areas. This parking supply represents one space for each two students, and one space for each staff and faculty member. ELAC proposes parking space dimensions that Garvey School District / ELAC Project -31- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study F- I L • are consistent with City of Rosemead parking code requirements. The minimum parking space size would be 9 feet by 18 feet. For every 25 spaces, 1 handicapped parking space would be provided, for a total of six handicapped parking spaces. Handicapped spaces would be located in the central portion of the parking area, along the northern boundary of the classrooms on site. ELAC students will be required to obtain a campus parking permit to park in the student parking spaces of the Williams Elementary School parking lot. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -32- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study • SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • Due to a drop in enrollment of approximately 1,000 children over the last 10 years, the Garvey School District decided to discontinue the use of the Dan T. Williams Elementary School in the spring of 2006. The school is part of the Garvey School District. • ELAC proposes leasing the site as a satellite location for selected courses. A lease of at least 5 years is currently being negotiated between the Garvey School District and the Los Angeles Community College District on behalf of East Los Angeles College. • The study evaluated peak hour operating conditions for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative Conditions Without Project, and Cumulative Conditions With Project. • All study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service in both peak hours. • An Ambient Growth rate of 0.82% growth per year (per LA County CMP) and project traffic from seven Related Projects were included in the Cumulative Conditions traffic forecasts. • With the addition of traffic from Ambient Growth and Related Projects, the intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue will worsen to LOS "E" in the AM and PM peak hours. • The arrival and departure patterns for the project were developed using the class schedules provided by ELAC. Assuming absenteeism and alternative mode factors, the project is estimated to generate 355 trips in the morning peak hour and 282 trips in the evening peak hour. • The intersection analysis for the "Existing plus Project" condition indicates that the project will result in a significant impact at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue (worsens to LOS "E" in the evening peak hour). • The addition of project traffic will contribute to the Cumulative deficient conditions at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the evening peak hour. This is considered a cumulative traffic impact and the project would therefore be required to contribute toward intersection improvements to mitigate this impact. • At the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane would mitigate the project impact. This improvement could be achieved within the existing curb-to-curb width by re-striping the eastbound approach to allow for an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane if a portion of the on-street parking on the south side of Garvey Avenue is removed. The mitigation improvement will reduce the project impact to a level of less-than-significant in the evening peak hour. The project would pay a "fair share" contribution (45%) toward this improvement. Garvey School District / ELAC Project -33- August, 2007 Traffic Impact Study • APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Garvey Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 22 111 8 40 86 19 12 59 11 12 137 33 550 7:15 AM 21 122 10 30 123 23 21 88 12 6 196 45 697 7:30 AM 38 248 14 50 164 53 42 143 33 12 206 72 1075 7:45 AM 26 184 10 66 195 69 49 180 37 17 184 49 1066 8:00 AM 35 154 20 80 172 54 63 205 42 20 196 46 1087 8:15 AM 35 107 21 76 133 69 47 161 24 15 213 40 941 8:30 AM 29 141 20 62 118 39 37 179 26 9 195 46 901 8:45 AM 20 109 11 50 84 62 25 158 28 12 216 44 819 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR I SL VOLUMES = 226 1176 114 454 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 13,1 693 65 1 272 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.743 1075 388 1 296 1173 213 1 103 1543 375 1 7136 664 245 1 201 689 136 1 64 0.895 1 0.827 799 207 1 4169 0.922 1 0.959 CONTROL: Signalized • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Garvey Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 26 94 23 61 83 33 42 224 24 11 147 51 819 4:15 PM 33 97 12 60 104 50 38 216 19 12 142 55 838 4:30 PM 28 95 21 77 128 46 29 201 17 9 154 57 862 4:45 PM 27 110 19 61 144 41 44 188 26 10 143 63 876 5:00 PM 54 130 28 67 172 62 35 223 28 16 161 53 1029 5:15 PM 50 131 14 57 130 57 46 254 38 21 159 46 1003 5:30 PM 51 112 21 55 145 61 53 264 34 15 183 57 1051 5:45 PM 39 143 11 58 134 49 52 282 26 21 192 54 1061 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR tL E7 ER VOLUMES= 308 912 149 496 1040 399 339 1852 212 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 194 516 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.925 CONTROL: Signalized 74 1 237 581 229 1 186 1023 126 0.870 0.927 WL WT WR TOTAI 115 1281 436 7539 73 695 210 4144 0.916 1 0.976 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del Mar Avenue DATE: 10/11/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E•W STREET: Highcliff Street DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 06-2362-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 114 0 0 103 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 224 7:15 AM 1 155 0 1 123 2 4 0 5 1 0 0 292 7:30 AM 0 195 1 1 145 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 352 7:45 AM 0 153 1 8 169 4 1 0 2 0 0 2 340 8:00 AM 0 162 9 23 190 4 3 0 2 4 0 16 413 8:15 AM 1 121 1 15 156 2 4 0 3 2 0 11 316 8:30 AM 0 115 0 0 147 3 3 0 0 1 0 2 271 8:45 AM 1 114 0 0 122 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 241 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM VOLUMES = I 3 1129 12 I 48 1155 22 I 24 1 15 I 8 0 32 I 2449 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 1 631 12 47 660 15 1 12 0 8 1 6 0 29 1 1421 PEAK HR. ACTOR: I 0.821 I 0.832 0.714 0.438 0.860 CONTROL: 2-Way Stop E & W 0 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del Mar Avenue DATE: 10/11/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Highdiff Street DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 06-2362-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 0 137 0 0 127 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 269 4:15 PM 3 149 0 0 129 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 286 4:30 PM 0 157 0 0 131 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 293 4:45 PM 4 219 0 0 163 2 6 0 7 0 0 0 401 5:00 PM 1 242 0 1 193 7 4 0 3 0 0 0 451 5:15 PM 5 243 0 0 185 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 438 5:30 PM 4 262 0 0 194 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 468 5:45 PM 0 197 0 0 135 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES= 17 1606 0 1 1257 25 18 0 15 0 0 0 2939 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 14 966 0 1 735 1,11 13 0 15 0 0 0 1758 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.921 0.933 0.538 0.000 0.939 CONTROL: 2-Way Stop E & W • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: New Ave. E-W STREET: Graves Ave. NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-004 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 29 27 23 66 49 14 208 7:15 AM 48 34 27 72 58 10 249 7:30 AM 50 45 30 81 64 26 296 7:45 AM 55 49 38 75 67 48 332 8:00 AM 40 33 29 52 58 62 274 8:15 AM 48 30 28 48 49 59 262 830 AM 63 30 39 45 48 54 279 8:45 AM 51 33 19 30 33 25 191 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM VOLUMES= 384 281 123EL El ER 3 469 0 I OL 42WT WR 6 98 I T 091 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 0 193 0 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.841 157 125 256 0 0 238 195 1164 0.843 0.902 0.877 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop S, E & W 11 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: New Ave. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 48 15 8 52 41 24 188 4:15 PM 54 19 11 60 46 31 221 4:30 PM 44 22 18 58 48 29 219 4:45 PM 40 18 21 47 38 28 192 5:00 PM 48 20 15 37 31 21 172 5:15 PM 59 24 12 43 37 24 199 5:30 PM 35 12 8 28 32 16 131 5:45 PM 31 14 8 31 33 13 130 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 359 0 144 101 356 0 0 306 186 1452 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 400 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 0 186 0 74 58 217 0 0 173 112 820 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.890 0.905 0.925 0.928 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop S, E & W 0 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Jackson Avenue DATE: 10/11/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Avenue DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO3ECT# 06-2362-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 9 0 4 0 0 0 3 72 5 0 53 1 147 7.15 AM 11 1 8 2 0 5 1 87 6 2 61 2 186 7:30 AM 17 0 9 2 0 0 2 92 17 6 82 2 229 7:45 AM 8 0 27 1 0 1 1 75 31 28 88 1 261 8:00 AM 26 1 17 1 0 3 3 82 10 12 116 1 272 8:15 AM 8 0 7 0 0 2 4 76 7 2 60 2 168 8:30 AM 21 0 8 1 0 2 9 66 2 1 66 1 177 8:45 AM 13 0 5 0 0 2 2 52 5 1 62 2 144 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 All 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR E VOLUMES = I 113 2 I 85 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 62 2 61 E PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.710 SR EL ET ER 15 25 602 8~ 336 64 0.536 1 0.917 52 588 12 1 1584 48 347 6 948 0.777 0.871 CONTROL: 2-Way Stop N & 5 • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Jackson Avenue DATE: 10/11/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Avenue DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 06-2362-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 5 0 3 1 2 1 2 38 3 3 27 1 86 4:15 PM 5 0 2 1 0 2 2 47 5 5 29 2 100 4:30 PM 9 0 10 3 2 3 2 73 13 7 81 1 204 4:45 PM 16 0 9 0 1 7 1 67 17 6 106 4 234 5:00 PM 12 0 3 6 0 9 1 104 16 4 106 3 264 5:15 PM 15 0 5 1 0 4 3 84 14 6 118 3 253 5:30 PM 19 0 4 10 0 12 11 102 13 7 108 2 288 5:45 PM 4 0 4 7 0 9 8 71 7 5 80 5 200 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 85 0 40 29 5 47 30 586 88 43 655 21 1629 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 62 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0 21 17 1 32 16 0.830 0.568 357 60 23 0.859 438 12 1 1039 0.931 1 0.902 CONTROL: 2-Way Stop N & S 0 • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 57 96 8 14 89 6 13 19 51 11 26 21 411 7:15 AM 69 110 9 13 94 8 12 20 49 10 24 23 441 7:30 AM 52 114 7 5 123 6 12 38 60 5 38 27 487 7:45 AM S9 125 7 17 131 11 19 46 77 15 44 29 580 8:00 AM 53 133 9 13 128 10 6 40 63 17 38 33 543 8:15 AM 61 121 8 14 136 6 15 35 64 14 35 26 535 8:30 AM 50 116 6 12 133 5 15 43 59 16 30 28 513 8:45 AM 47 124 4 11 129 5 17 34 S3 13 29 26 492 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10;15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 448 939 58 99 963 57 109 275 476 101 264 213 4002 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 74 5 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 223 495 30 56 528 32 55 164 263 62 147 116 2171 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.959 0.969 0.849 0.923 0.936 CONTROL: Signalized • i Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 32 101 11 21 120 6 11 33 34 10 21 7 407 4:15 PM 33 103 12 23 130 7 12 37 35 11 22 8 433 4:30 PM 34 105 12 14 98 9 11 42 39 7 16 13 400 4:45 PM 41 140 7 15 113 10 15 34 41 17 31 13 477 5:00 PM 43 132 10 26 110 15 8 46 45 11 34 13 493 5:15 PM 62 181 16 22 124 6 8 46 62 15 48 20 610 5:30 PM 54 166 14 23 106 5 6 38 52 18 37 17 536 5:45 PM 42 154 10 19 110 10 7 37 60 11 30 18 508 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT N SL ST SR EL VOLUMES = I 341 1 82 92 I 63 911 68 I 78 3E 3 3 8 ER WL I 00 239 09 I TOTA 864 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 201 633 50 90 450 36 29 167 219 55 149 68 2147 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.853 0.947 0.894 0.819 0.880 CONTROL: Signalized • • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: San Gabriel Blvd. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PRO]ECT# 06-2338-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 17 142 1 5 164 7 16 14 37 4 9 5 421 7:15 AM 24 148 3 4 182 8 24 19 39 3 11 4 469 7:30 AM 22 155 0 6 173 6 17 16 44 2 8 2 451 7:45 AM 25 188 5 8 210 12 34 26 43 8 12 4 575 8:00 AM 28 164 2 4 224 15 31 22 48 7 14 3 562 8:15 AM 17 155 2 7 218 18 27 18 38 9 11 2 522 8:30 AM 14 147 0 5 209 13 21 14 33 6 4 1 467 8:45 AM 9 132 1 3 198 8 17 11 24 4 6 2 415 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST 5R LL VOLUMES = 156 1231 14 42 1578 87 187 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 84 654 9 1 24 861 58 113 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.857 0.970 140 306 1 43 80 0.862 162 1 30 75 23 1 3882 41 10 1 2126 0.844 1 0.924 CONTROL: Signalized i • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: San Gabriel Blvd. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Graves Ave. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 18 103 4 7 98 31 26 49 19 4 30 11 400 4:15 PM 10 96 1 5 94 31 49 66 20 9 36 10 427 4:30 PM 15 118 2 6 105 40 54 75 23 12 41 14 505 4:45 PM 19 127 3 8 127 42 61 85 30 19 51 17 589 5:00 PM 14 161 2 9 141 29 57 94 25 10 41 13 596 5:15 PM 21 145 6 10 125 29 74 74 27 5 42 18 576 5:30 PM 16 133 3 7 132 22 66 67 19 9 32 15 521 5:45 PM 11 102 1 4 113 14 51 58 13 3 22 14 406 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL N L NT NR VOLUMES= I 24 985 22 I 55L ST 5R 6 935 238 I 43EL LT ER 8 8 176 I 7~1 295 112 I T 020 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES= 70 566 14 34 525 122 258 320 101 43 166 63 2282 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.918 0.951 0.964 0.782 0.957 CONTROL: Signalized 0 • Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Potrero Grande Dr. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 31 112 1 4 103 47 27 18 37 4 84 4 472 40 118 0 8 110 55 37 27 42 6 99 3 545 42 132 4 9 126 58 42 32 48 5 104 7 609 46 139 5 12 140 63 45 47 55 4 115 5 676 38 137 2 11 147 72 37 44 51 7 96 6 648 62 120 9 8 162 62 35 25 66 7 90 10 656 51 143 7 7 143 57 27 32 67 6 89 11 640 49 133 3 4 122 46 22 18 52 2 74 8 533 VOLUMES = 1 359 1034 31 1 63 1053 460 1 272 243 418 1 41 751 54 1 4779 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES= 197 539 23 38 592 254 144 148 234 24 390 32 2620 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.944 0.953 0.903 0.899 0.969 CONTROL: Signalized 0 0 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: Southland Car Counters N-S STREET: Del MarAve. DATE: 9/19/2006 LOCATION: City of Rosemead E-W STREET: Potrero Grande Dr. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 06-2338-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 15 105 2 5 131 9 14 4 13 0 5 3 306 4:15 PM 16 113 2 7 140 12 17 5 19 1 4 2 338 4:30 PM 19 124 1 3 143 13 19 10 21 2 7 4 366 4:45 PM 27 166 4 10 180 17 22 3 19 2 2 1 453 5:00 PM 32 189 3 2 169 26 28 11 36 3 6 1 506 5:15 PM 31 197 2 5 161 38 34 12 42 1 7 2 532 5:30 PM 34 206 4 3 155 31 38 17 52 3 9 3 555 5:45 PM 34 200 8 4 163 22 34 6 38 0 6 2 517 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 208 1300 26 39 1242 168 206 68 240 12 46 18 3573 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES= 1 131 792 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.963 17 14 648 117 134 46 0.955 0.813 168 7 28 8 2110 0.717 0.950 CONTROL: Signalized • • APPENDIX B INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • • V o o - r o O 0 0 0 0 6 $ w z V E r o 0 0 0- o o r o o i g g m w ° o f o 0 0 0 o f o 0 0 0 o O c 0 > 0 8 N m O N N O N o Q; Q 2 5 N m 8 m N_ O m n % 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 C y fa > _ V O J y O 0 O O O p O O O O O O O ~ G j c O U N p ° E a ~ ~ p m f 1 f N o $ E 3 c m ; E E - p f ~ ^ m n E 8 d O O m M1 M t N f~ N m A N m t o ~ O a ; 0 ~ 'n N N~ p (V m 0 f m N N A F ~ p > Z R + + V m a p ° ° p p ~ _ o p p ~ ry O .p O O 8 .p p S On O ' OV D O D O ,a O N ~ U B o ~o g 8 tv ~o ° O N 8 ~ 8 ~o 8 $ c{ VVV $ O S u u U J r O N - O N N r N ~ J ~ O N ~ O N r N r N ~ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n rm'i O 8 O ° m w j v; U E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 4 m Q$ g m m W 0 m U 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 o N o Q n i (-7 > n m O O o S O c i/i N C n O) r 0 0 o p 0 m O M 0 f (7 r 0 0 N m N 0 m Q~ O 0 m ^ 0 m yy~~ N 0 G I a j d + U 0 a 1 > A N O O v m N O 0 i o 0 m S N 0 0 A N r O S o o m c°9i 0 m m m S r O O n N N O E & a ) _ a A ° E $ s U O J E 8 p E C E H Q O U U O J E m a ° lJ c m E O u CU j V ~ Q) r m m r A m l7 m ut N f~ n P N Of m ^ A N N ~ O ~ f N m u ~ H F ~ O m 7 ~ V O r O . N r ~O - m O t0 N O N E ll O m D N P1 O N t0 ~ ^ N Q1 O f0 A N A N A ~1 c ~ N _m j Z ~ a ; Z W ~ U 4. W a; f m f o O N 0 0 0 0 a A A 0 0 o f 0 0 N E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ $ N g w U E o 0 0 o p 0 0 N + g f7 w U o o o o o l t o 0 o o o O F~ U Q j 1 O 8 O V N A S O M O N f Cl r ~l 8 ~p m N N N O m N r m n N IT, C O G lo y U a l7 N O m O p O P. W m m r p N n N O p O O M m p O A N N ° O E NQ ~ o G O O O O C O O O O C E E° S y u L U ? O O O O O O C O O O O C O E V U 0 5 ° O n N 7 N N m m P N t~1 r ^ 8 p N N N m u t Z z Q L 4 D = j Omi - O r m ~ N p Q O N X N m O N N - y y A~~ o ^ i mp m N cAV n u (n Z u C lL ~ R V Y = > U ; r a F v Q W v V y J a > a o m m Q m o m m m N ( E a j S~ a o m a g gd a a Z O 88 rv b -1 -1 8 S O N rv O N $ ° 8 N $ ° 8 8$ O S N m U - - - - U - - ~ 0 Q W N ~ ~ m W _ 0 0 0 0 0 l o 0 l 0 l O Vf $ O C Y1 8 0 Q 25 _ - czi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol l7 O ^ l~f d w f 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ O O O C C C P 6 _U ~ tmp O pp O U p N ~ O O p 6 ~ N f N m O N YO N 1 ~ ~ V Or a f V a~ N O O p 01 ♦p N m r O Hl A O ^ N } } O o o o C O O C o 0 0 0 Z) U 0 m + o o o G o o 0 0 0 O C C Cp 0 c U U 0 o c E E c $ E w O ^ 0 N N n N r r ^ s 2K U C u m €?@ O N y W YN) ~y t1 ( ° N b ySbu GZ u O > Z W K U n` > Z W 4 U W > Q S; d a +1 - H - 0 ~1~ 0 0 o O o ~j 0 0 0 (.^j O o - o o 0 0 0 0 $ M 88 m o E V j o o o p o p o ° f A O Y O 8 S ° ~ U N O c U 0 0 O 0 0 0 g¢ S E 2 0 0 0 0 0 E N ° V C U f O O o O O n n N o n ° o O a m N m N r CC O O N o f O m N r pp N N G 9 C U a j N o p p f m r m f Q ZS N m 8 O w N O m f O N u c O c d p ? a C ( w m ° Q j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 U 00 o c o c o 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 a E E V n O m q G C Q ` A t p O S! r C ° > c'f r N 0 61 . n N P N t Qp OD O N t`1 2 O N S ^ Z W ~ Ir d V 'o I > Q rT f ^ m h M N N N m . m r N r N O (7 ^ O N rn m fn F W' 8 w C X w E O F 1) S ° 1 8 V- - O n - O N p b- - b - S L 'G V p O p S 8 - a 8 'O O S p O S - S s C C L4 V) W Z~ J r O N S O N r O N ~ N p~ E Z m J O N r O N r O N r N j 0 E p Z 1 C E J Z of Z H Z J N d' (n H V7 J W nf W w 3 I 3 c O O F > C ' E J Z d' Z H Z J N w F a J w Q: w H w _ i a q U W - c U ° _UT m Z • • E d l + + 0 0 0 0 N o $ g Q Z V€ o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o g a Q = ' V 0 c c 0 0 0 6 o 0 0 p q 0 ppp O N pp O S N O O O O O O t Q j 0 0 O O N O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m p T y d r 0 0 0 G o G 0 0 0 C o o C ° m ~ 1N O E V 0 p _ c O ° O > r y li n S N m 0 t t p Ed ~ ° a { 0 ° 3 ° O a > m ^ O N N O E N E z u FC- r ° c y + Z W U I L + z W U f i ° O, U O o o N o O o N o Q 0 15 0 0 ~ > w I.7 O D G n O O o N M O O o ~p O O S .p E ~ I E o V V m w m 0 J 0 Ni O O N O O ~ - 0 0 0 J O N O O N O O 0 0 D h 'C > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p QQ-' 8 0 Q S 0 h Z 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 ' t ' o h W Q O V O O O O O O m V O C o 0 0 0 10 o a s>I oo N 9~ 1 Q 8 25 0 V Q Q 25 2 0 10 ' a +ay $ ~ 8 ~ ~ o $ o m m ? 0 o d d 6 o 0 d d 0 c c o _ U O 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q .E j u ` - J E . ° U o E V u 9 ° ! E o u u S ' S N m 0 t t O F p ^ t H h O N N O 3 gi > ~ ¢ u ) G V p F e ` p r O r 0 0 0 0 0 t t 0 p N O N O O O O O N N O s a [1 s L O O O O 0 0 O O 0 N O H S O m S Q U O D O O g 0 Sp O p s 1 Q N o -8 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 6 01 0 o 0 0 0 V Q. ° 7 N 1D m < ~y O1 w N m 0 Yi N O i z 2 ~ W~ N m V = Q i 7 O pp SO t S A Y 1 O O O O Z J ~ V L Wi J V Q a 0 0 H O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 a E V n a a O O O O h 10 O O O p O H L 7 J V o o S o 0 8 0 0 $ o V o o g o o gN o o ~°p. 0 0 $ i H Y - L u L 11ppp11 ` Z O1 ° W O O N O U N O O O O ~ O O N O O N O - H 0 0 J U j o 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~ fV o D Q ~ O V 0 0 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 0 r N o ~ O O P1 1~ 't Q 3 0 6 0 0 0 O O O o o 0 o O. V O O S S o N i(f N C S O o V1 S 1p O N o G O S H O N O O N S O O G C ~ ? C O O. U a O 0 p S O N 0 O 0 O W ~D N S O S O m O O S O O C O G C O > C + O 0 0 0 O O O W + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tll R c E c v J E I E V - O J ° E ° $ U t W b A ` S f'I m o + t p j Y W 3 3 m ^ ' o o N N O , d > V a > 2 W z j Q p r 0 10+ O O O O O t t O C 1 0 0 0 O O O O N ry 0 N 0.7 O U j 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 0 o N C p o o Q ~ E > U O O O O O O p p I . O S O o t N Q e E E ° a 0 0 0 0 0 0 + c o 6 c d > E q c 7 c U O S O S O N O O o O w O {N p Q 25 e 7 v S o O N O N 0 o y[ O a O E ] N c a> O S 8 O app l7 pp O O S t c,7 N S o p 8 m 0 O O O p 0 p O 0 y C ' ~ c C ° 4 y ° .t Z U 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o c o E V q U 0 0 0 D o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 F o V - 0 m OF 3 s L O r n- 3 V c G A X j' O CV V; W O p N fp ttOO N O O b S O i a: t ~p W E E X ; O m r ~t„ O O O D Z R' V ° W m V o ° g o o °N o o Q yCy ~ t W o o g o o $ o p °o ~ (~7 n n - - ° c 'c n - SA W N ~ ~ Y' Z j J O O N O O N 0 0 0 0 o p Y q E m Z 1 ° J O O N O j O O O W O E w Z j C E J z z H Z J 0 J W d' F W - W ` u r F b J z QZ J N WE W FW.. J g °c N Q U_ 0 0 'C j 0 0 ~ O ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ pp O O ~ OOD Q ~ J CJ Fj 0 0 ~ ~ O X 0 0 0 0 m ~ E 0 0 N O 0 p' m f Q U 0 0 0 o G ~ OO O O O OO 8 O 8 O N p~ o O O O O N 8 8 O O {{m~~ N 4 Q> Q~j pCQ~ O O p8 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w " Q> o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o d U y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > h O f E - o C U J t, . ° E X 0 0 0 m T p~ ~I1 O N 4 l~1 O T N ~ ° ° " c ~ W o ~ 3 ; ° ~ O O O m n O ~j O ry O~ EE b W) m N o" c o > Z m a > Z ¢ j a U ( ° q U O O O S O - p I g O R p O O S G o V O O 8 O U - 8 O - 8 O p - O p p - O O - E - - - - ; ~ U U N m 0 J 0 0 0 - O . 0 0 I m J I O O O O - 0 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ o° ¢ a N N m a a j 55~~ 25 dl.5 S$ • - g S o o = 25 a ~ ? y G G G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ ° _ U) T OO 6 G O o 00 0 O O Oo G G O O y G° ° N Ca V O q E V O W 3 m E O O O m O D O m n Yc-, m E u ° 0 0 0 am D O O O n ~ . aa 1 1 Z w r x U p a > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISE > p - 0 ° 3 O F = E U> O O O 0 0 O O N U O N p O $ Q CC ~ t 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N N O$ C ~ Q I ~Nh ~ O O G O O O O O U O Q 8 O S 8 a p N , Q O pO p O ° p 8 O r , O ° O N E L) a> Qj " 8 8 O m rp O 8 O r p O O O Y 8 O pp O n C ° ? H y Y > 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 G G E $ ° ° U 0 J p 0 0 0 G o c o o G G c o E E U OJ ~ d ° .2 0 00 8 ~o o ~ o m r w V 3 & w` v `1 QQ ° a E o ° o m n ^ p ° o o $ y U 3 f ~v Q ~ I? „ ° > - ~ W ~ > N Q Q I U z 0 E v v° $ a 0 0 0 0 0 o rn o o m a E V > a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W $ o o p $ S 0$ p 0 0 g o ° o Z 15 o g 0 0 0 ~S m W u1 F ? > b M ° ~ c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 o O o J - A L L J - 1 T~ LLcI I ' U E p p O O O O O n o 0 O Q 0 g o c Q 8 O o 'E V O O O O O O O D 0 N 0 O$ O 0 0 t n~ O 0 ¢ m $ 0 a ay s 25 0 0 - X m 0 g 0 0 $ o t~t~ 2G Q5 2i ^ ry m a` U a> o0 0 0 5~ $25 m m $ 0 0 25 h 00 0 - 0 25 o 25 G v m c 'c ' ? + o 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 E c O V 0 J E ♦ 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 . c 1 ] U J E c b~ I- ° ° u w 3 ° 0 0 Opfi Vr1 O N O ° F A Z _ Q W E 3' 0 0 0 h 0 , m O N O Z c E K ~ > O a > e a a j p o 0 0 0 0 0 o m o o m n a> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y o o ° > c E a E~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - p 0°' ° ° f o 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 ~ m ~ ~ N ° $ o v a Q E p Z a f 0 0 0 0 0 E 2 0 0 0 0 0 E o ° $ 25 $ Y o 25 o N ° w m c a j g 8$ m a o$ 25 24 o ° ° c ur t Z c U > o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 G 'G 0 o E E 7 $ U V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 E E° g , V 0 o m c c , ~ E N x 3 > 0 0 0 m °f n tlf v1 O N O N O m m m N f7 J W L ° U C K O O O n O O N O r Z Lu F m d 0: V B m E Z Q W V o 0 0 $ y c W V O 0 Q S o o $ 0 0 e 3 w 01 Z 0 o O o 0 0 $ ° 8 0 0 O o 0 0 n Z c' Ei z zZ (n w w w 3 3 $ ` E J z C F zZ J tnv~ m J a' ww F- w J 3 $ l c ) U 7 U w • • U; o o - - 0 0 0 0 ^ - 0 0 c M Z5 ° Q a i V 0 0 ^ ^ 0 0 0 0 ^ O o ° 0 ¢ i 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 c o 0 c .4 g U 0 $ 0 ° 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 S O ° $ O C°'f ° O ry c o q > S O n O w g O O _ O ^ O o S N f_ O 8 O Qp iV ' O O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ° y Q E > - p U O J O O O O p O O O O O O C 7E 0 a U N O s o m 5 mm 5 N m N m N I n O t o to <D r mf 0 ~p A E V ° u ~ ~ a « I 3 ~ o ~ ['f to ^ N O m Pl 0 ^ m p m - m m "I E U EE U C u W d ° > f I T 2 U a' Q > ^ l ^ ~D v N O U) i w ¢ V f al 0 0 0 0 0 o g o + i o 0 QQ 0 m U o $ a $ ° ~ $ ° •°n d _ _ _ , 7 ~ U U I J O O O O q J 0 U O p U j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ S p p O ~ m V Q N o m f n ~ 0 0 0 o O O O o y~ O N H O O p ~~~+ppf 7 ¢ c^ O O G O 0 O O C C C O IL + q j 0 ° O w o O ♦0 O q 25 O o g O n S o E °o C O n O o C D g g O -c C a + y j 55~~ 25 C ca 0 O ae . 0 - $5~ 0 25 0 0 0 - 0 m N y a 552~ 25 ° E m ;a - j o O C C U O j O 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 C ? q E ° v J E ' a d V O U ' E u c l W V O S N n 0 m V k j L q V m N ° O S m o ~D Y O N ^ S > G G IL a > _ U d U) ;81 o 0 01 0 p o o o o O m a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o ° - - - O 3 I F c E U r2 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 g 0 g O f O ¢ u 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 O c P) g O g 10, ♦ ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 J = U Q j S 0 M 0 ^ 0 SS 0 O S n S C O O h N p S O S O m N N O E c n ^L 0 y 8 0 0 0 pp Cj 0 _ 8 0 0 0 - O O O rn v o S N C ° c ° N } 0 0 0 0 0 c c o o 0 0 0 $ ; 0 O J = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 O 0 0 0 E E $ $ U - LU u C u V c U a a > 3 > N n O m e /O m Z C 4 U ' I Y u~ g O > m N ° m m Om N N - O ° ~ d Q E~ ~ v d ~ v Z $ a o 0 o N o o m o o m d V $ d 0 0 0 o N o o • O J o H 0 - H 0 ~I J' o o ^I o ° I V~ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a $ 0 V E o 0 0 0 0 a 0 O O d o O a > ~ U O S co O Oe O ap~pp p O pppp O pp~pp O fp 88 8 0 l7 N O O ♦ ~i [ ® ~ W ~ ° a U > $ N O O 88 O - 0 N 0 O S m N O 8 O mN D CC F y 1~ > + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ♦ 0 0 0 C O O 0 0 0 O O O c G C H q y~j a a m N m 0 O n f m O W fD N O n M ^ 1O O ♦ > U d >I Z F U d Q C a > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q1 m O O m S O > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N f o o O ^ - v, 0 a _ a N CY.1 U 0 0 . 1. O O O 1O 1 Y Q V 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O N OS e a pi A ~ w `o 0 c o 0 0 E ° c g l 0 o a o o ~ E fA C C U Q j O 0 P] 0 $ O O O 8 S ~Q O N N ° E C 9 C U 8 p O H 8 O O (V O O $ n O g O m 5 $ m ° U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 E o u u U o J e o o U O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 E E E $ d U O v c M N m - O p n f0 m m ♦ l7 m W c d' m m Y U E M x > m N 0 n l'i ^ m p S n O N N ^ f 3 y 3 8 ~c_' ~ m ~ a u C w O S O ° O ~ ° b O ° O 31 L W O O G V ° °o • O E ~ q U O C v, Z ° p ° p m 0 g ° ° a a W Jj E J. p - o - H _ c Z j ~ 2 2 Z Vi V7 N w w W U E 2 z 2 rL f A N y w W 3 L- L- U U • v' - o 0 0 0 o o - - o ? $ g nP~ ¢ v; o 0 0 0 o o o o o $ ~t♦ ¢ Z s~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g U << v O O n 0 S 0 m O O m 0 v 0 J ° q V j r 8 O M N O g O n vii O `8 n (yam O O O - F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o C f m ~ V J. y m O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a y s > = D V U - y E d E EO u y y c C am. d E O O J 1 o T~ (0 N N C7 m W N m (O N P N O v1 C' 11'I ' tC 1 m - N m m M O P W P O U N U c H q O W _ ; P O N g O r r A O N N N W m N Yl W p l7 O U A U ~ C fp ry O Q. z r 0) N m S ° o " c°> Il ° S p ° o `U g °0 'R 8 O ` $ 0 CL m $ b o °o N $ ° $ N $ lk $ ° °O 0 10 0 2 0 1101 U ki k - - _ ry U - - , _ 7 E f E V V I y O N O N N ~ J O N O N N V E o 0 0 0 o o - o m N o O P ¢ O p O ^ v E ~ o 0 0 0 o o o ° «f~~~ go p o Q t~ $ m r N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O I ~ Q o- + Qj P o o m ' W o o r m m ~m tO O M 0 0 r u a + av > m N ~ W A n l 8~ ~n ~ m o a ~ m a c3 m $ c c m j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O G C C W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 < < C N n QEQ yyU U O J E m ° E o d U O W ] U d O _~pp N _ M N N d h N b ~ O Z { J 17 C S2 j'j O U d 7 N el , o Z V V U C I - > v U a j E N O f'l o O o O O i E 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o o $ g 4 U> - 0 0 0 0 ° o . o o ~ v 000 _o m ¢ d L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nl 7 J Q O S W o W O O O t`] m m m 0 0 N ° W 0 r 0 r~p 0 n c G ? ' m p op O ~ ~ N N pp O O S m O P O W N m ° 0 Wp m 0 CdC 6 n > C N Y Q ¢ j o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o O u m Q J O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o $ v c U Q W a d > A j O > m N N O N N N O W M N a _ m t0 O N m ~D O M N W P u f/1 Z d W c ¢ m W N V Z Y ; - E C > yy p N O O M1 N m ~t Oi < O O N N N W c0 h m en Y] r S Z u F- d U a U Q ] V D a o m n m co o ro n a d = U D a a o m m a ° o W ai m Z ¢ O F V m° e ° r°o °oo ° g $ g S r°ot $ o $ e p g $ ' g 00 $ n m ~ - - - - - - - - , - K Q K M> V. O N O N N O N O N N J U E o 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ o m ~ ~ N o O ° ~ 4 °o 0 V~ o o - o 0 0 0 ~ ~ p p W N W ~ O g O o m N 4 n~ i ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a gg 6 52 °f o Q 7 r o o $ I o a a 7 m o $ N m O o o° W fo rn g o W $ r i, ? + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G E O n E V c U N O J + C C G G , O O O O G O G C O c o E o Q p C U N O 7 d 3 O V c m m E 6 c C W j ~Nt~yl N O O N n S h N P t7 N N C N O 01 N r Z ZG F N N f[ W N O N N tp O~ N P P n W_ N r m h W A W 1" R uu m W V d > Z W a' V d Q a~ p O m (O A X 0 0 O O ~ a j 0 0 rj•~ N O N p 0 0 O O M W E U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P O Op $ O m N Q m C U - O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 7 O O N a Q C o 0 0 0 0 0 O E M - O O O O O E D O U ¢ W 0 O O O P b ~O f'1 0 O O 0 M1 pp N O 01 O W t~l O t7 n O O m c c O O. > C N ffi ^ D c j a m N 0 0 t7 N Y] O O p O N lA m A Pl q t l C] O p M1 P m c n E 3: (n d Z 0 L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o E E s $ V O y m y U o o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E 0 0u u 0 a c > N M y ~i n H W P 2 W c CY CT U m s? 10 g c x > _ ° N m °u Z u c a m 5 x E ' W ~U 2 W O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 d C 11 Ft :E n n n c r LLJ 2 N Z J O N O N N SO N Z W 1 E d E a c -MD ? E Z z Z N N ~ w w w 2 2 3 cj: r 5 U r E z z z m w m w w w 3 5 U~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ m ~ g ~ ¢ L UE o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rv 8 0 8 , m 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 o a C ICI m ~ L I~ 8 N N ~ O O O O) n N O 0 N O ~ m o S N o ~ Q ~ ¢ j pp N 5~ 0 25 m N O g O ~ rv m ~ O N e4i N o a O @' E Q> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCm C O W > E - U N 0 j O I a a a 0 a a a a 0 0 0 O C d j N 3 O ' O m S Y N m N o m A 00 o o M u Y V ' I E I u c N _ 3 O > N r ^ mm Y N M ^ N N N M f r m ^D u y 7 7 F L c o a 2 w & V a Z w a U + + N U ' ~ C ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ O 8 ~D pp ~O pp 8 O ~O 8 ~D ~ ~ V ~ N V ~ N D O b ~O `o V u L 1 a J O N O NI = O N O N n O E (J > ~ o 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 o o ~ s M o g g 0 ? ~ u~ Q O •c o 0 0 0 ~ m o o o o ~ ~ m N ry ~ o ~ ~ m ~ N ~ri E 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S o d + U {qq{ O p pp ppp O N N ~O O pq O pp Ql N M A A O O O O m O O ~O ~`1 O C y tp ) d + G d> O4 m m N O O O ~ N ~ M m A OO N 0 N A N O f O _ C j j ¢ 0 0 o O O 1 O 0 0 1 0 O O O G ° C U y O _ p > i 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o. E C V N O 1 E - EEE o E ° E U m Cy m Y O O~ a N y f ^ A m S O f S ` d V E U m 1!7 l a +1 N p V) pop N ' Y ff ~O m 8 u 17 M~ _ > G U > Z W w' v d y Q o d > n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' b a d` > 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 O 3 O JC U t ~ S 0 0 0 0 ~ X 0 0 0 0 ~ S pp O ~ ~ ¢ O O O O ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ N A N O o m m m Ix 2 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 J 5 O S ~ U ~ ¢ j n O S o ' r N O $ ~ M A O O S O o m ~ N O C O ° E C 7 QI ~ d> vl O O m ~ m - O N S O O N 1~f t0 Ol ~O O p tV N O Q d 000 0 C o ] O Y Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 E u u d c U J = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E u m J V W a C > ~ a m O m S Y N ~ o m m o ^ 00 l~ 0 I r ~ 8 m Z ~ c C l° ~ V Y Q ~ O m f N m ~ N nQ lfl ~ N o ~ M f ~ A m s } y L c ~ R W (((q~0001 U a Q V O Z E V 4 a m O m O O N N A 0 0 0 0 f d E U P•' d a O^ O O N O m O O O O m u W U' ct 00 N S O O O O O, V O O N b O N C O D b ~ V m n _ W c w ~ O N O N ~ I ~ ~ O N ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G c 'C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O- ~i 0 0 0o 0 0 g 0 ^ "A 0 0 0 J U2 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 M N ~ g N O g m fp m npp p W 0 0 00 0 0 0 I IL U > y0 0 8g 25 r 0 O 0 O H v O o a O pp O N O C C O 9' O ? 1 d ] h o O o m N o p O O O N 40 y m C p O (V N o M OO aY p C R N > + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 o a 0 o E u _c u 0- COL + 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 o a 0 o o a ~ o E c > O • m W o o o o o o 0 oa' d> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o ¢ 0 0 0 c o 0 0 c 0 o C Q N 0 N > m o S C N o 0 3 - 43 o > v 4 o 0 o 7 a cx E 0 > ° m m v~ w w z z g m vi w w w w 3 3 U F • 0 i U a O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t'l N o S S U Z U j 0 0 0 0 O D O M S pp o eepp h Q Z I L 0 0 0 0 0 `s ~ a 0 0 a 0 m N U Q N - 8 O tp m N O 8 O A N N O O 0 pp N 0 ' A L~ U Q> p Op11 o oQ N 88 O m Y1 N Q~ N O - ^ O yg O N O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O a O a 0 O O ? C _ U 0 O ~I C O 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 O a a O m C U - N O G Y m • u u o E ~ E o 8 0 O a O N N N N m N N N 17 n y f Y m G ; O mN ^O m N h ^ m N 2Y y A > z ¢ V Z w C a a U A U S ~ O SI N S O O S S$ p S N p $ O S O p S [V o 4 U e o n ~ ~O ~ S S S S S S _ _ U ~ V m m J S O N S O N ~ N ~ N m A ~ -1 ~ O N O N N N o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 . o o g o U o m o 0 o 0 - 0 0 0 - I I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a ¢ > a 2f s O' 0 O 25 G r O G G g O o G o O O O T°i C ' a > a a a a a a a o o 0 o °o C o 0 m N _ F 2 0 rs E V _ O J m W E U Y t~1 N IOnC 4l'1 m 1'f lN0 N N m Y N N N N N M I fn u 1- m V I a e F 7 U Y j O ^ N m off P m O N t0 O O 1~ m 0~ a V_1 V ~r m E m ; z a z w tL a O o o ^ o m o o O o o a j o 0 0 0 N Y o 0 0 0 0 O H v E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M x N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U V E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o g a g o a Q S 0 Q N 88 O m O 8pfJ O pp N 1 O y O 0 0 O yy C > a j O O N mpmp 0 SS 0 m 0 yp pO O 0 Y C y Y > 0 0 0 O a CI O 0 0 O O O O Y m u U O J O O O O a 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 S U O r ' b O N N m N N fNII y Z U 2 W F7 m • E G W a ^ m a 7 s ~O „1O ^ m M O 6 Z F`- fY Q G a V O V a 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 a U 6 a Q O N O N ~D N O 0 0 h O W O C ~ ~ ~ O ~ S O ~ ~ S O $ ~C n V Op O r b O cOi W ~ gg 11 9 ~ m ' O N S O N ~ N I ~ N F F F ~ ~ O N S O N ~ e N ~ ~ N v a J z E o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 $ u^i S a ° r E ' $ Q o W 0 0 o a o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 O a U N 0 0 8 O 0 IL 0 a N O O O O ^ m N O V n O1 v 0 0 o m 0 0 Al 0 0 O N 0 0 NN 0 C m j0 •T d ~ U a 0 0 S 0 N O O S O f N N 0 O O 8 p G Q O O C T O ; 0 0 O O O 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C fn c w V J E e U O E w Y gyp} N p~ ~f'! N f~`/ N lN'1 o ~yj IL V m co N m m 1~ m c 8 L Z a' Q a m Q n> D D r 0 m m o 0 0 0 0 a> 0 0 o 2 N Y 0 0 0 0 0 L J C m 6 v E 0 0 o O O o O o N $ S m E v 0 0 0 0 0 o o $ 8 Q O o 0 a 0 0 E 0 0 0 o c VI C t7 N pOp O m ^ Y O 88 G y~app N pD~ OD O Y m O ^ O O O ~~yy N m n E ~ C N y ~ ~ a~ mNm 0 88 f7 pppl pOp CCpp]]~~ ~ ~ y Q♦ pN p~ C ~ C 9y~ O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o a o o fa E $ S ~ U O m U 0 0 0 N 0 Q 0 O 0 N 0 o c O o O 0 O 0 O 0 F x F 3 E 0 g G U U) 0 J L m n C - N pi h O N N N OI N N pp~ l'1 V y Z V 1>2~I ~ H a' N A d~ Q, C N P ~O W m m A m N ~S Y G h m ~j7 % . _ V 4 ~ % z 0.' V Y O w ~ $ O O N p O ~O O S p S O O V O p O D p O D p D N D r w U O O O O N O ~G O O N pp 'O pp `O 8 N O lD pO ~D O N 4 L U _ M W U) p yy!~ O N O N • - N N E m 'y^ Z W O N O N - N N m rl i x w Z c. J E „ J A E Z D E iou z z z z u) rn w w w 3 5 i i j " E J z a' z E m U) m w w w m mq v i , c U F- • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Gents I tk~ ' ,1 .,ys _ ZZ ti -t ` - ~ Jam . . : Analyst JAR Intersection New/Graves Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction City of Rosemead Date Performed 10/30/2006 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period AM Peak Project Description Garvey School District EastANest Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: New Ave Intersection Orientation: ` East-West .':J.~... Study Period _ (hrs): 0.25 and Ve_hjgiC iVolumes Major Street Atl ust en Eastbound . Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 125 256 0 0 238 195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 - Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 193 0 157 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent qrade Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 " 0 1 1 0 1 1-~ Configuration ~on~~ol>be~ ~ • Approach ~en Eli ,:Lev EB L i af_~erv c '~`s~a~*~>?k, :s'~: WB Northbound Southbound R _ Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 125 193 157 Capacity, cm (vph) 1137 527 711 v/c ratio 0.11 i 0.37 0.22 Queue length (95%) 0.37 1.67 0.84 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 15.7 11.5 LOS A I C B Approach delay (s/veh) - 13.8 Approach LOS - - B Hcs2ooort•f Copyright 0 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst AR Intersection New/Graves A enc /Co. imle -Hom Jurisdiction City of Rosemead Date Performed 1013012006 nal sis Year Existing nalysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: New Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 58 231 0 0 185 114 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 58 231 0 0 185 114 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane TT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 188 0 75 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 188 0 75 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 D 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Control Delay, Queue Len t h Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 58 188 75 Capacity, cm (vph) 1274 664 802 /c ratio 0.05 0.28 0.09 Queue length (95%) 0.14 1.16 0.31 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 12.5 10.0 LOS A B A Approach delay (s/veh) - - 11.8 Approach LOS - - B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id 0 • Genes fnf r . Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _ INN M1 JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 10/30/2006 Analysis Year AM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Existing Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street Graves Ave North/South Street : Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: 1/.h~cle V,olumes;an Major Street East-West dnAd ustme[tt s:y Eastbound Study Period hrs : 0.25 ALL,ti , Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 7 336 64 48 347 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 7 336 64 48 347 6 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - - 0 Median type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 62 2 61 6 0 9 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h ) 62 2 61 6 0 9 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration sue- GontrolrDl.~ Approach LT cthLe'vll EB B R L Northbound TR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 7 48 64 61 6 9 Capacity, cm (vph) 1217 1170 523 682 477 698 v/c ratio 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.09 0.01 0.01 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.13 0.42 i 0.29 0.04 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.0 8.2 12.8 10.8 12.6 10.2 LOS A A B B B B Approach delay (s/veh) - 11.8 11.2 -~i Approach LOS - B B HCS2r100TM Copyright 0 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id • E G hMl Jr d`rm j. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ~ i Sit¢ Infor rail n>u ' Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period JAR Kimley-Horn 1013012006 PM Peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Existing Project Description Garvey School District EastfVVest Street. Graves Ave 'North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehkcle Volumes,:and Adjustments _ Stud Period ft hrs d.:= ~ : 0.25 _ _ h..~ _ ' - Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 16 357 60 23 438 12 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 357 60 23 438 12 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - :7 - 0 1 - Median type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 62 0 21 17 1 32 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 62 0 21 17 1 32 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration C6r►te6 Del' "61,46e,Len ` LT thi'.Level of Se rvice,.: R L TR Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT j R L TR Volume, v (vph) 16 23 62 21 17 33 Capacity, cm (vph) 1121 1153 472 665 493 613 v/c ratio 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.05 Queue length (9511/co) 0.04 0.06 0.45 0.10 0.11 0.17 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 13.8 10.6 12.6 11.2 LOS A A B B B B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 13.0 11.7 Approach LOS - B B HCS2000Tt`t Copyright 02003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4,1 d Configuration L T TR HCS2000TIt Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Rescrved Version 4 Id 'G~neral'aat~ Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period r t t~,~r~!1 JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 1013012006 ~ Analysis Year AM Peak New/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative Project Description Garvey School District East/V11est Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: New Ave Intersection Orientation: Uiieh_cle 1lo"1uri~es~_ ' d Major Street East-West ~i`ustments '~.E Eastbound Stud Period hrs : 0.25 `d4.<~. ; . " ~ Westbound Movement 7 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 126 267 0 0 249 197 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 126 267 0 0 249 197 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 - Median type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 p Lanes i 1 0 0 1 p Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 196 0 159 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 196 0 159 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 p Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 p RT Channelized? 0 p Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 i Configuration ~ritro ~ eCa~ t Qom. ' Co Approach t t=o EB "r"~ii WB _ ' L x ~ ~ ~ Northbound r Southbound R • Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 126 196 159 Capacity, cm (vph) 1125 518 700 v/c ratio 0.11 0.38 0.23 Queue length (95%) 0.38 1.75 0.87 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 16,1 11.6 LOS A C B Approach delay (s/veh) - 14.1 Approach LOS - - g • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst JAR Intersection NewlGraves Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn i Jurisdiction City of Rosemead Date Performed 1013012006 Analysis Year Cumulative Analysis Time Period PM Peak Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 59 231 0 0 185 114 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 59 231 0 0 185 114 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - 0 - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 188 0 75 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 188 0 75 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L Approach EB WB Northbound R Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 ! 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 59 188 75 Capacity, cm (vph) 1274 663 802 v/c ratio 0.05 0.28 0.09 Queue length (95%) 0.15 1.16 0.31 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 12.6 10.0 LOS A B A Approach delay (slveh) 11.8 Approach LOS I - B 1-IC.S2000TM Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Vernon 4 Id • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst JAR Intersection Agency/Co. Kimley-Hom Jurisdiction Date Performed 1013012006 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period AM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative IPmIP.ct Description Garvev School District East/West Street: Graves Ave North/South Street : Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: _Vehicles,Vo_Wrne_s'an Major Street East-West dsAdjustme ntsa Eastbound Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 8 348 65 48 358 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 8 348 65 48 358 6 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 i 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 63 2 62 7 0 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 63 2 62 7 0 11 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Co-.figurat!on Control Defa ` Queue"6 Approach LT 7 th Leireho EB f 86MM;- WB R L logo E! JIM Northbound TR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 8 48 65 62 7 11 Capacity, cm (vph) 1206 1157 513 671 467 688 v/c ratio 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.02 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.13 0.43 0.30 0.05 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 8.2 13.0 10.9 12.8 10.3 LOS A A B B 8 B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 12.0 11.3 Approach LOS I - I - B B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 d • • GenXal~llnorrn i'' Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY N :..,.It@ forma a . JAR Intersection Kimley-Hom Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year PM Peak :_:>l Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street: Graves Ave _ North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation. 'Vehicle Volumes a Major Street East-West nd Ad'_stments Eastbound Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 18 371 60 23 453 13 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 18 371 60 23 453 13 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 - - Median type Two Way Le ft Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 63 0 21 18 1 33 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 63 0 21 18 1 33 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration C6ntlrolDel Approach LT EB WB R L Northbound Southbound TR Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 18 23 63 21 18 34 Capacity, cm (vph) 1106 1139 459 653 481 600 v/c ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.05 i 0.06 I 0.47 0.10 0.12 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 14.1 10.7 12.8 11.4 LOS A A B B B B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 13.2 19.8 Approach LOS - B B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 0 TWO WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY e era t ~ Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year AM Peak New/Graves City of Rosemead Existing plus Proj Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street: Graves Ave North/South Street : New Ave Intersection Orientation. East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 VW W6- Major Street Eastbound R EW Westbound Movement 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 125 266 0 0 240 195 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 125 266 0 0 240 195 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - - 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 193 0 157 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 0 0 0 193 0 157 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 ; 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration Qeiu' Approach W 11 n EB IN IN 111111 El WB L 1 . 111113111 Northbound R outhbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 125 193 157 Capacity, cm (vph) 1135 522 709 v/c ratio 0.11 0.37 0.22 Queue length (95%) 0.37 1.69 0.84 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 15.9 11.5 LOS A C B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 13.9 Approach LOS - B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 d • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst JAR intersection New/Graves Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction City of Rosemead Date Performed 10/30/2006 Analysis Year Existing plus Pro% Analysis Time Period PM Peak Period ctroot Eastbound I Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 58 239 0 0 175 112 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 58 239 0 0 175 112 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 _ 0 - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h 0 0 0 186 0 74 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 186 0 74 Proportion of heavy vehicles, Prey 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 _ 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration Co~rol Dela 8 111 31 Approach EB WB L Northbound R " Southbound . Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 58 186 74 Capacity, cm (vph) 1287 661 813 v/c ratio 0.05 0.28 0.09 Oueue length (95%) 0.14 1.15 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 79 12.6 9.9 LOS A B A Approach delay (s/veh) - 11.8 Approach LOS - - B HCS2000TM Copyright ®2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version4 1 d • • Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time.Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year AM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Existing plus Proj Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Veh~cleuVolurnesa dF.. Major Street astbound Stud Period hrs : 0.25 estbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 7 346 64 48 349 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 7 346 64 48 349 6 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV D - 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 62 2 61 6 0 9 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 62 2 61 6 0 9 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration C"6::: I D Approach LT SEE" EB ee:K ' WB R L Northbound TR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 7 48 64 61 6 9 Capacity, cm (vph) 1215 1160 520 673 471 696 v/c ratio 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.09 0.01 0.01 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.13 0.42 0.30 0.04 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 8.2 12.9 10.9 12.7 10.2 LOS A A 8 B 8 B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 11.9 11.2 Approach LOS - 8 B HCS2000T M Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 d • • ae: al ►aftna~o~i Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ::Iltelrif a JAR I Intersection Kimley-Hom Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year PM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Existing plus Proj ' Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street. Graves Ave North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: 1l6h cle aluriaes a Ma'or Street East-West d u.st_n rjW R Eastbound Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ' Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 16 379 60 23 440 12 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 16 379 60 23 440 12 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - 0 - Median type Two Way Leff Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound ! Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 62 0 21 17 1 32 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (vehlh) 62 0 21 17 1 32 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration Approach LT EB WB R L Northbound TR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 16 23 62 21 17 33 Capacity, cm (vph) 1119 1132 468 647 485 612 v/c ratio 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.05 Queue length (95%) 0.04 0.06 0.45 0.10 0.11 0.17 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 13.9 10.8 12.7 ' 11.2 LOS A A B B B B Approach delay (s/veh) - 13.1 11.7 Approach LOS - - B B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. td • Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY JAR Intersection Kimley-Hom Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year AM Peak New/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative plus Pro/ Project Description Garvey School District East/West Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: New Ave Intersection Orientation: !1►' . Major Street East-West Eastbound Stud Period f hrs : 0.25 Mgr ~ nr. : Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 126 277 0 0 251 197 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 126 277 0 0 251 197 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 196 0 159 Peak-hour factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 196 0 159 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration 1$`9. Approach EB WB L Northbound R Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 126 196 159 Capacity, cR, (vph) 1123 513 698 v/c ratio 0.11 0.38 0.23 Queue length (95%) 0.38 1.78 0.87 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.6 16.3 11.7 LOS A C B Approach delay (s/veh) ' - - 14.2 Approach LOS - - B HCS2000TM Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GerXeralflnformation Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period JAR Kimley-Hom 1013012006 PM Peak s::1l, ~ Site Info mafiq Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year i NewlGraves City of Rosemead Cumulative plus Proj Project Description Garvey School District EastlWest Street: Graves Ave North/South Street : New Ave Intersection Orientation: V:.ehicte=,Volumes<and Major Street East Vilest 'Ad'ustments Eastbound 1Study_Period (hrs ~25 A-- Westbound movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 59 253 0 0 187 114 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 59 253 0 0 187 114 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 188 0 75 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 188 0 75 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration fs~ e r tr o° ot;Dla rT:Q~ Approach .o n th reverofSe EB Y c irvlce WB L r r a Northbound R outhbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R Volume, v (vph) 59 188 75 Capacity, cm (vph) 1272 648 800 v/c ratio 0.05 0.29 0.09 Queue length (95%) 0.15 1.20 0.31 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 12.8 10.0 LOS A B A Approach delay (s/veh) - - 12.0 Approach LOS - B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 0 0 .f edl - Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year AM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative plus Proj Project Description Garvey School District EastfWest Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation:~ East-West 9A 1-91w Major Street Eastbound Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 8 358 65 48 360 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 8 358 65 48 360 6 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 - - 0 - - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 63 2 62 7 0 11 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 63 2 62 7 0 11 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 D 0 0 0 Percent grade 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration o ~a Approach LT EB WB R L Northbound TR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R L TR Volume, v (vph) 8 48 65 62 7 11 Capacity, c n (vph) 1204 1147 509 663 461 686 v/c ratio 0.01 0.04 0.13 1 0.09 0.02 0.02 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.13 0.44 0.31 0.05 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 8.3 13.1 11.0 12.9 10.3 LOS A A B B B B Approach delay (s/veh) - - 12.1 11.3 Approach LOS - B B HCS2000''`i Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id 0 0 Cx. wfi" Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY JAR Intersection Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction 1013012006 Analysis Year PM Peak Jackson/Graves City of Rosemead Cumulative plus Proj Project Description Garvey School District EastfWest Street: Graves Ave North/South Street: Jackson Ave Intersection Orientation: East-West Nehic'Ce> w.5 arm Major Street Eastbound Stud Period + p hrs : 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 18 393 60 23 455 13 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate h h - 393 0 3 55 - Proportion of he vehicles, PHv Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelize+ Lanes Configuration Upstream Sign Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement Volume (veh/h) 63 0 21 18 1 33 Peak-hour factor, Hourly Flow Rate Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade Flared approac Storage RT Channelize Lanes Configuration ontrolDela Approach IS EB O WB 'iili"iliioilMl Northbound outhbound Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) 18 23 63 21 18 34 Capacity, cm (vph) 1104 1118 454 635 472 599 v/c ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.05 0.06 0.48 0.10 0.12 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8,3 14.2 10.91 12.9 11.4 LOS Approach delay Approach LOS HCS2000TM 0 0 • Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants • r , r V NOISE IMPACT STUDY WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (ELAC) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Aweo a Hans D. Giroux Senior Analyst Giroux & Associates Prepared for: Helix Environmental Planning. Attn: Karen Brandt 7578 El Cajon Blvd., Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941 Date: May 16, 2007 Ref. No: P06-071 1820 E. Garry Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 - Phonc,(949) 387-5477 - Fax (949) 387-5478 - hgiroux@att.net • • NOISE SETTING Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of sound pressure expressed as a ratio to the lowest sound level detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity is called a decibel (dB). Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing, decibels are a logarithmic progression used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A-weighting" written as dB(A). Any further reference to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be A-weighted. Time variations in noise exposure are normally expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or as a statistical description of the sound level exceeded over some hourly fraction. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Noise Standards An interior CNEL of 45 dB(A) is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and is considered a desirable exterior noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Exterior standards articulated in local general plans apply to recreational exterior space (patio, porch, pool/spa, etc.). They apply to those sources that are pre-empted from local control (traffic on public streets, airplanes, trains, etc.). Because the City of Rosemead cannot directly regulate the noise generation from these sources, it controls the land uses that may be exposed to given transportation noise sources. For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead does have the authority to limit the amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the movement of vehicles on private property. For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes very specific limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The City standard is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.). One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The City of Rosemead noise standards for adjacent residential uses are shown in Table 1. P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAC)-Noise 2 0 0 Table 1 ROSEMEAD NOISE ORDINANCE LUMTS (Exterior Noise for Residential Uses) Noise Level Not to be Exceeded Maximum Allowable Duration of Exceedance 7 AM to 10 PM (Daytime) 10 PM to 7 AM (Nighttime) 30 minutes/Hour 50 60 dB 45 dB 15 minutes/Hour 25 65 dB 50 dB 5 minutes/Hour 8 70 dB 55 dB 1 minute/Hour L1 75 dB 60 d B Never 80 dB 65 dB Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction for facility improvement to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment to not operate until 7 a.m. during the week, and to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line. (8.36.030.A.3). Noise standards are adjusted upward if baseline levels already exceed any of these thresholds. However, activities conducted on public school grounds are specifically exempt from noise ordinance compliance. Such activities would include traffic noise from arrival or departure of student and staff vehicles. For CEQA purposes, the City noise ordinance standards have been used as thresholds of significance for the proposed project even though ordinance compliance is not a prerequisite for project implementation. Background Noise Levels Because the noise ordinance allows for an adjustment of standards if baseline noise levels already exceed standards, an on-site noise measurement was conducted on December 18-19, 2006. Measurements were made at two points along the northern site boundary. Meters were placed for 24+ hours on the chain link fence opposite the front doors of multi-family homes facing the school grounds. One meter was located in the front parking lot closest to Del Mar Avenue, and one was located in the back parking lot at the corner of the grass play area and the property line fence. The measurement detail is included in the appendix. The critical times for "new" campus activities would be the evening arrival and departure of students and staff when adjacent residences would be most noise-sensitive. The 50 h percentile noise standard at the closest homes is 60 dB (1,50). The allowable maximum level up to 10 p.m. is 80 dB. The measured 50`' percentile and maximum levels were as follows: P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAQ-Noise Front Parkin Lot Back Parkin Lot Time Period L50 Level dB L,,,,i Level dB L.5o Level dB Lm„, Level dB 6:00 - 7:00 .m. 57 69 50 62 7:00 - 8:00 .m. 56 67 50 61 8:00 - 9:00 .m. 56 67 51 60 9:00 - 10:00 P.M. 54 71 51 65 Neither the existing 501' threshold. No adjustment applied to the proposed measurements. percentile, nor the short-term maximum, exceeds the noise ordinance of the applicable City of Rosemead ordinance standard suggested to be project as a CEQA significance threshold is indicated by these P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAC)-Noise • • NOISE IMPACTS Standards of Significance CEQA Guidelines identify significant impacts as those that cause standards to be exceeded where they are currently met. Although legally exempt from compliance, project activities that cause a violation of the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance would be considered to have a significant noise impact. An impact is also considered significant if it "substantially" worsens an existing unacceptable noise environment. Substantial in a CEQA sense generally is taken to be the threshold of clear human noise perception. This threshold is approximately 3 dB. However, traffic volumes have to double in order to increase baseline conditions by +3 dB. The proposed project will not cause traffic levels to measurably change on area roadways. On-road traffic noise impact significance is evaluated in terms of a weighted 24-hour CNEL. The school parking lot activity associated with the arrival and departure of students and staff will occur from 7 am. to 10 p.m. without the +10 dB nocturnal penalty assigned to the CNEL metric. Off-site traffic noise is not likely a significant noise issue. Parking lot utilization noise relative to the closest neighbors north of the proposed project is the only applicable long-term noise analysis criterion. Parking lot activity noises, and short-term noise from short-term construction, are analyzed below. The lack of any significant off site traffic noise is also demonstrated. Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated by large, earth-moving and/or demolition equipment sources. During the later phase of construction, less noise is usually generated. Figure 1 shows the typical range of equipment noise during various construction phases. The construction of an internal circulation roadway is the only substantial construction activity required to implement the project. Because the site is flat and requires no substantial use of heavy equipment, construction noise will be on the lower end of the noise generation range shown in Figure 1. Maximum noise levels from limited paving or fencing activities will likely be around 80 dB at 50 feet from the source. The City of Rosemead standard is 85 dB as a maximum. The City noise standard during minor project construction will be met within 50 feet of any site improvement activity. Adjacent residences will not be subjected to excessive construction activity noise. Noise generation will be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. by the municipal code, and is prohibited on Sundays and major holidays P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAQ-Noise • Figure 1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet 00 Compactors (Rollers) Front Loaders Backhoes ' U.j E Tractors w Scrapers, Graders E U Pavers _ E a Trucks c CD Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps 3 E 4 y Ca Cranes (Movable) - E Cranes (Derrick) - LU z Pumps ca s Generators Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches M E Jack Hammers and Rock Drills 5 w Pile Drivers (Peaks) 4) Vibrator L_ o Saws Source: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations: C 1D000MENTS AND SETTINGW=GHLINAPPLICATION DATAQUALCDMEUDOM ATTACROG I TVP CNSTRTN EOP H GEN LVLS2.DOC • Parking Lot Activity Noise Impacts Parking lots are associated with noise from the arrival or departure of a stream of cars. These cars are generally slow moving. Because trucks will not be using this lot, the noise from very slowly moving cars is very low. The lot can accommodate approximately 452 cars. At departure, cars may use either the main driveway (to depart north or south), or the northern drive aisle (to depart north [i.e., right-turn only]); the northern drive aisle passes within 30 feet of the nearest home. If 452 cars depart the lot from the northern drive aisle during a single hour, which would be unlikely to occur, the calculated traffic noise is 58.8 dB at the closest home (FHWA-RD-77-108), assuming a travel speed of 25 mph. This level is less than the adopted 60 dB significance threshold. It would exceed the 45 dB nocturnal threshold if 452 cars departed after 10 p.m. Scheduling classes to end a few minutes before 10 p.m. is recommended to minimize post-10 p.m. traffic. It should be noted that this is an "Leq" calculation. The 5e percentile level is lower than 58.8 dB because 452 cars per hour represents 7.5 cars per minute, and each car will be in close proximity to any residence for only a few seconds. The 50`h percentile noise level will be more influenced by background noise conditions from much higher volume noise sources (such as Del Mar Ave.) rather than from vehicle departure. Any possible off-site noise intrusion could derive from a variety of single-event noises that would be audible above the mid-50 dB background noise level. Single event arrival/departure noise may be audible at the nearest homes in the evening from staff parking in the existing lots closest to the northern site perimeter. Use of these lots is not necessarily a new use, but evening use would be substantially increased. Parking lot activity noise has been measured at a variety of locations. Not every vehicle or every behavior has identical noise characteristics. However, there is a fairly broad consensus on the approximate noise levels from parking lots based on numerous measurement experiences. As a worst-case, parking lot activity noise was presumed to originate at a distance of 30 feet from the source to an off-site residential receiver. The peak noise levels likely to be experienced are summarized in Table 2. Activating a car hom directed at the receiver may cause the single event noise standard of 80 dB to be exceeded at the nearest residence by a substantial margin. Similarly, a car alarm may also cause a violation of standards, particularly if the alarm operates through the vehicle's forward directed hom. Operation of a very loud radio might not cause the " threshold to be exceeded, but the loud thumping of the bass speaker is a nuisance. Most other parking/deparking noise is predicted to be less than the applicable " standard, but the character or time of the noise could still be perceived as intrusive even if ordinance levels are not exceeded. Because the parking spaces bordering the northern boundary are anticipated to be primarily reserved spaces for adult staff, the behavior of the lot users is likely to be more restrained than it might be for younger drivers. On-campus parking is a permitted privilege. Abuse of common courtesy can be remedied by revocation of that privilege. P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAQ-Noise • Table 2 SINGLE EVENT PARKING LOT ACTIVITY NOISE (At the nearest residence at 30 feet from source to receiver, dBA Lmax) Noise source Max. Impact Auto horn directed at receiver 94 Car alarm 82 Shouting and laughing students 63 Door slam 62 Engine starting up 59 Tiresqueal while pulling into parking spot 57 Normal conversation at 3-5 feet separation 54 Alarm "chirp" during activation or deactivation 52 Boom box car radio Unk. Motorcycle acceleration Unk. Source: Edgemar Building Parldng Lot Noise Study, Santa Monica, 1998. P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAC)-Noise 8 r: On-Road Traffic Noise The proposed project will generate approximately 6,400 daily trips. The project traffic engineer estimates that 50 percent of these trips will travel northward on Del Mar Avenue, and 50 percent southward. The noise impact associated with this increment, compared to the baseline traffic noise from existing traffic and near-term cumulative growth, is as follows (dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline): Roadway Segment Existing Plus Growth Plus Project Del Mar Ave. north of campus exit 71.2 71.5 72.2 Del Mar Ave. south of campus entry 71.2 71.5 71.9 Project implementation will increase traffic noise by +0.7 dB on Del Mar north of the campus, and by +0.4 dB south of the campus. The human detection threshold is +1.5 dB under acoustic laboratory conditions, and approximately +3 dB in an ambient environment. Project implementation will not noticeably change off-site traffic noise conditions. P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAC)-Noise • MITIGATION Construction noise impacts during construction of a new drive aisle will be reduced by limiting the hours of operation, location of activities and/ or noise levels of equipment used in construction. Specific measures to implement these objectives include: • Construction activity hours shall comply with the Rosemead Municipal Code. • Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers. • Construction staging areas shall be located away from the closest homes. Late evening departure vehicle noise could exceed the adopted significance threshold if substantial traffic occurs after 10 p.m. The end of the last class period is recommended to be 9:50 p.m. to allow substantial departure to be completed by the 10 p.m. period when a much more stringent noise standard would apply. P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAQ-Noise 10 • APPENDIX Noise Monitoring Summary ( dBA = Voltage X 100 ) P06-071 Williams Elem. (ELAC)-Noise 11 • Dan T. Williams School Conversion City of Rosemead 24 Hour Noise Monitoring Date: Monday, December 18, 2006 - Tuesday, December 19, 2006 Site : Dan T. Williams Elementary School Near Intersection of Del Mar & Graves Monitoring Location: Northem Property Line / Front Parking Lot Nearer to Del Mar Results: DATE TIME LEA(. LMAX LMIN L10 L33 L50 L90 12/182006 1300-1400 57 74 45 61 57 55 48 Monday 1400-1500 57 69 45 61 58 56 49 1500-1600 58 74 50 61 58 56 52 1600-1700 58 74 46 61 58 56 50 1700-1800 59 69 46 62 59 58 52 1800-1900 58 69 47 62 59 57 51 1900-2000 58 67 48 61 58 56 51 2000-2100 57 67 46 61 58 56 50 2100-2200 56 71 45 60 56 54 48 2200-2300 56 73 46 59 56 53 48 2300-0000 54 73 45 58 53 50 46 DATE TIME LEE LMAX LMIN L1O L32 U02 L90 12/19/2006 0000-0100 53 67 44 56 50 48 46 Tuesday 0100-0200 51 67 44 54 48 47 46 0200-0300 50 64 44 52 47 47 46 0300-0400 51 72 44 52 48 47 46 0400-0500 52 67 46 54 49 49 47 0500-0600 55 67 47 59 53 51 49 0600-0700 57 72 48 61 57 54 50 0700-0800 60 74 50 63 60 59 53 0800-0900 59 75 48 62 59 58 52 0900-1000 57 67 47 61 58 56 50 1000-1100 60 80 45 62 58 55 49 1100-1200 58 77 45 61 58 55 49 ' 1200-1300 57 68 45 61 58 56 48 • 0.9-- 0. 8-= 0.7.4. 0.6- i 0.5 V 0 t 0.4-, a 9 e v 0.3 0.2- 0.0= i 12:00 16:00 20:00 19Dec06 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 18Dec06 12:00 DWILL1 S/N 626772 PA Dan T. Williams School Conversion City of Rosemead 24 Hour Noise Monitoring Date: Monday, December 18, 2006 - Tuesday, December 19, 2006 Site : Dan T. Williams Elementary School Near Intersection of Del Mar & Graves Monitoring Location; Northern Property Line / Back Parking Lot Next to Grass Field Results: • DATE TIME LEG LM LMIN L10 L33 L50 L90 12/18/2006 1300-1400 49 67 40 50 48 46 42 Monday 1400-1500 47 59 40 50 47 46 42 1500-1600 48 61 42 51 48 47 44 1600-1700 52 74 43 53 50 49 46 1700-1800 51 64 45 53 51 50 47 1800-1900 51 62 46 53 51 50 48 1900-2000 51 61 46 53 51 50 49 2000-2100 51 60 47 54 52 51 48 2100-2200 51 65 46 53 51 51 48 2200-2300 54 74 46 53 51 50 47 2300-0000 50 61 46 52 50 49 47 DATE TIME LEQ LMAX LMIN L10- 133 L50 L90 12119/2006 0000-0100 50 66 44 51 49 47 46 Tuesday 0100-0200 48 59 43 49 47 47 45 0200-0300 48 55 44 49 48 47 46 0300-0400 49 60 45 50 49 48 47 0400-0500 50 58 47 52 51 50 48 0500-0600 54 69 50 55 53 53 51 0600-0700 54 62 51 56 54 53 52 0700-0800 57 67 50 59 57 55 53 0800-0900 52 62 47 54 52 52 49 0900-1000 50 64 44 53 51 49 46 1000-1100 49 61 41 52 49 48 44 1100-1200 47 57 39 50 47 45 41 1200-1300 48 70 313 49 46 45 41 0.8- 0.7 I 0.6- i N 0.47, O ' I t a e 0.3! V 0.2- 0.1- 0.0- • 0 -0.1 _ v.._..... 12:00 16:00 20:00 19Dec06 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 18Dec06 12:00 DWILL2 S/N 197 EXHIBIT "F" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1103 2444 N. Del Mar Avenue CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Amended on September 5, 2007 by Planning Commission) Conditional Use Permit 07-1103, is approved for a satellite campus for East Los Angeles College (ELAC) to be operated in accordance with the submitted application plans marked Exhibit "B", dated August 13, 2007. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. 2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant/co-applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all of the conditions set forth in the letter of project approval and this list of conditions. 3. The use shall commence within six (6) months from the date of this approval or the applicant/co-applicant may request an extension from the Planning Division within 30-calender days prior to the six month expiration. Otherwise, Conditional Use Permit 07-1103 shall become null and void. 4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 5. Building permits will not be issued in connection with this project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance with the applicable School District requirements. 7. The proposed hours of ELAC operation at this site will be 7:00 AM to 9:50 PM, Monday through Friday. Community Services classes shall be offered on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. No Sunday classes shall be allowed and no music tutoring shall take place outside of the buildings on the subject site without prior approval of the City of Rosemead Planning Division. The applicant/co-applicant shall grant access to the subject property to the City of Rosemead staff within 24-hours of request for access or in the case • • of an emergency as soon as reasonably possible after the request. Except in extraordinary circumstances, City staff shall not request access to the subject property between 10:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The applicant/co- applicant shall not refuse access in any instance. If construction plans are required to be submitted to the City for review, all conditions of approval listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 10. After the Planning Commission approval, the applicant/co-applicant shall be allowed to occupy the subject property. However, all improvements required by this permit shall be completed, inspected and approved by the appropriate Departments within 45-caledar days. 11. A 6-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed between existing Head Start site boundary and the ELAC campus site to provide a physical buffer between Head Start and ELAC site. The chain link fence shall be installed to provide additional safety and security for the children at Head Start site. 12. Prior to operation, the applicant/developer shall install a physical barrier acceptable to the City to provide a separation between ELAC site and Head Start site. The applicant/developer shall provide a physical buffer from the grass area located to the east and north of the site to ensure vehicles do not cross over onto the grass field area. 13. All requirements of the City of Rosemead Building and Safety Department, Engineering Department and Planning Department shall be complied with at all times for the life of this project. 14. The applicant/developer shall incur 900 percent of all improvement costs including widening of the southerly driveway at High cliff and Del Mar to a minimum of 26 feet wide in addition to painting red curb along the south side of Garvey as well as providing an exclusive right-turn lane at Del Mar/ Garvey intersection. The applicant/developer shall widen the southerly driveway to a minimum of 26 feet wide to allow ingress/egress from the subject site. The applicant/developer shall submit construction plans showing such improvements to the City Engineer for approval prior to installation. 15. The applicant shall install security lighting poles within the parking lot of ELAC site. The parking lot lighting poles shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height and shall be shielded to direct light away from the adjacent residences. The lights shall be on timers and shall turn off at 10:30 PM 0 0 16. The applicant/developer shall ensure that the grass and landscaped areas on site are improved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Division and such areas shall not remain dirt. 17. The applicant shall install medians acceptable to the City within the parking lot to separate drive isles from the parking spaces and improve vehicular circulation on site. 18. Violation of the conditions of approval or any applicable regulations may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings of this permit. 19. There shall be no on-street parking allowed. Upon determination by the City of Rosemead that students and/or faculty staff are parking off-site on adjacent roadways, a new parking lot plan shall immediately be prepared and submitted to the City of Rosemead for review and approval. Such parking plan shall be designed to provide additional off-street parking spaces and to eliminate overflow parking concerns in the neighborhood resulting from ELAC campus on the subject site. 20. Prior to beginning of every semester, ELAC shall submit semester enrolment report to the Planning Department indicating the number of students and staff to be accommodated on the subject site for that particular semester. 22. At no time shall ELAC increase the number of students and/or staff on this site above 260 people at one time unless adequate parking is provided and approved by the City of Rosemead. If ELAC desires to increase the number of students or staff on this site in the future, a new site plan, project description and other supporting material shall be submitted to the City of Rosemead Planning Department for review and approval before enrolment. (Added by Planning Commission on September 5, 2007) • MAYOR. JOHNTRAN MAYOR PRO TEM: JOHN NUNEZ COUNCILMEMBERS, MARGARET CLARK POLL' LOW GARY A TAYLOR -;2 or,, i~c~ ~ OSGS3E2C8~ 8838 E VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 • t vLi7 EXHIBIT B • May 28, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL (626) 307-1964 Virginia Petersen Superintendent Garvey School District 2730 North Del Mar Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 0 SUBJECT: Proposed Lease and Reuse of Williams Elementary School Site Dear Ms. Petersen: It has been a pleasure meeting with you and your staff to discuss the Garvey School District's proposed lease and reuse of the Williams Elementary School site by East Los Angeles College for a five-year period. It is also my understanding that the District is interested in establishing a Farmer's Market on the site on a weekly basis. The City of Rosemead appreciates the initial steps that the District has taken to work cooperatively with the City staff on this matter. Before the District takes any further steps on this project, 1 wanted to inform you that the City will be exercising its right to require the District to comply with the City's zoning regulations relating to the proposed reuse of the Williams Elementary School site (see Government Code section 53094.) The City believes that this action is important, because it has a duly adopted General Plan and has made provisions for the location of public schools within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. While it is my understanding that the final project description has not yet been finalized, our current understanding of the proposed project indicates that the District will need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City before any work can be done on the site and before East Los Angeles College or the Farmer's Market can commence long-term use of this site. To assist you in meeting the requests of the City, Brad Johnson Director of Planning delivered copies of the CUP application to your office last Thursday, May 24, 2007. Please also note that, in addition to any conditions that the City may impose on the reuse of the Williams Elementary School site pursuant to the Conditional Use Process, the City also has the independent right to require the District to comply with local ordinances ATTACHMENT C Virginia Petersen. Superintendent Garvey School District May 28, 2007 Paue 2 regulating drainage and road improvements and conditions, and local ordinances requiring the review and approval of grading plans relating to the design and construction of onsite facilities and improvements. While the City is fully committed to working with the District in a spirit of cooperation on this project, the City also has an obligation to ensure that the public health.. safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods are protected. In closing, thank you again for the efforts of the Garvey School District on this matter. We look forward to a final project that meets the needs of the Garvey School District and the East Los Angeles College, while ensuring that the interests of the local residents and the City of Rosemead are properly addressed. Very truly yours, Andrew C. Lazzaretto City Manager CC: Mayor John Tran and Members of the Rosemead City Council Brad Johnson, Director of Planning Kenneth D. Rozell, Special Legal Counsel BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP OFFICE MEMORANDUM THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. TO: Oliver Chi, City Manager Brian Saeki, Community Development Director FROM: Rachel H. Richman DATE: September 20, 2007 RE: Garvey School District/ELAC Satellite Campus Project INTRODUCTION This memo is in response to our initial discussion regarding the application of the City of Rosemead's zoning controls to the proposed project by the Garvey School District and East Los Angeles Community College "ELAC" for a satellite ELAC campus. As you know we have recently been brought in to assist with this item due to a conflict of interest issue involving your City Attorney. Accordingly, the discussion set forth below is based upon our limited knowledge of the proposed project. ISSUE Is the proposed project between Garvey School District and East Los Angeles Community College for a satellite ELAC campus subject to the City's zoning regulations? ANSWER The answer depends upon whether or not the District and ELAC elect to exempt themselves from the City's zoning regulations. Section 53094 of the Government Code permits a school district' to declare a city zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of district property, unless the proposed use is for "nonclassroom facilities." In the present case, the proposed project for a satellite campus would be considered a classroom facility. We are unaware of whether or not the District and ELAC have already passed such an ordinance-if they have they would not be subject to the City's Case law has interpreted "school district" to include community colleges. See case citation Footnote 2 below. LA #4841-6213-6321 v1 ATTACHMENT D Oliver Chi, City Manager Brian Saeki, Community Development Director September 20, 2007 Page 2 0 zoning control. If they have not yet passed such an ordinance, they would not be prohibited from doing so even after the City has conditioned the project. DISCUSSION Government Code Section 53094 provides in relevant part: "[T]he governing board of a school district, by vote of two-thirds of its members, may render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by such school district except when the proposed use of the property by such school district is for nonclassroom facilities, including, but not limited to, warehouses, administrative buildings, automotive storage and repair buildings." As we understand it, the proposed project is for a satellite campus for the community college. The proposed use falls with the meaning of a "classroom facility" related to instruction or educational activities. In addition to the language of Section 53094, the courts' have construed the scope of "nonclassroom" facilities. In People ex rel. Cooper v. Rancho Santiago College,2 the Court addressed whether Section 53094 of the Government Code3 permits a school district to render a city-zoning ordinance inapplicable to a commercial swap meet conducted on the district's parking lot. The Court in Rancho Santiago College relied heavily on the analysis of City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz School Bd. of Education,4 which examined the legislative history of Section 53094 and the scope of the "nonclassroom facilities" exception. The Court found: "The statute itself confirms and helps clarify this suggestions by enumerating instructive examples of "nonclassroom facilities." The statute lists "warehouses, administrative buildings, [and] automotive storage and repair buildings[.]" These facilities have nothing directly to do with classroom activities. Rather they are devoted completely to ancillary, 2 226 Cal. App. 3d 1281, 277 Cal. Rptr. 69 (1990). Section 53094 of the Gove t-nment Code will be referred to as "Section 53094." 4 210 Cal.App3d 1, 258 Cal.Rptr. 101 (1989). 5 The "suggestion" refers to the relationship between schools boards and their "nonclassroom facilities" being similar to state agencies and their property. ND: 4841-6213-6321, v. 1 • Oliver Chi, City Manager Brian Saeki, Community Development Director September 20, 2007 Page 3 0 noninstructional functions. Thus, we perceive in section 53094 an intention to distinguish between instructional and support facilities. Accordingly, we consider it reasonable and consistent with the legislative history and purpose of section 53094 to interpret "nonclassroom facilities" to mean those not directly used for or related to student instruction. (Cf. §53096) Moreover, this interpretation preserves the balance in section 53094 between the state's strong interest in public education and the value of local zoning control S.,,6 In City of Santa Cruz, the Court held that the replacement of lighting fixtures at a higher height on a high school's athletic field could be exempted from a city's zoning ordinance. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the field is used for or directly related to student instruction based on the numerous interscholastic athletics, spirit activities and band performances on the field and that the lights were needed on the field because many activities must be scheduled on weekday evenings. The Court agreed with the school board that these activities are an important part of the educational process.' Conversely, the Court in Rancho Santiago College held that a swap meet operated by a non-educational private third party is not exempt from the city zoning requirements as it is not related to the instructional or educational activities of the College. In the present case, the proposed use of a school campus would be considered a facility which is directly related to student instruction and classroom activities. Note that under Government Code section 53097, the District and ELAC would be subject to the City's regulations pertaining to grading, drainage and road improvements. CONCLUSION Based on the language of Section 53094 and case law discussed above, the proposed satellite campus would fall within the definition of a classroom activity and the District and ELAC would be permitted to adopt an ordinance to exempt the project from the City's zoning controls (such as the CUP requirement) either prior to of after the City has conditioned the project. Notwithstanding that exemption, the District and ELAC are subject to the City's regulations pertaining to grading, drainage and road improvements. Further, the District and ELAC are also subject to the requirements of CEQA, so they 6 210 Cal. App. 3d at 7-9. 210 Cal. App. 3d at 8-9. ND: 4841-6213-6321, v. 1 • Oliver Chi, City Manager Brian Saeki, Community Development Director September 20, 2007 Page 4 would be required to limit their activites to those included within the project description in the City's CEQA document and comply with any mitigation required by CEQA (unless additional CEQA review was undertaken at a later time by the City, the District or ELAC altering such project description or mitigation requirements). ND: 4841-6213-6321, v. 1