The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 2A - General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Tentative Tract Map 70044E M ~ 5 ~ O 9 1P ~~RPOHArED 19y9 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 70044 LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE. SUMMARY Mr. Patrick Yang has submitted entitlement applications requesting approval to develop a new four-story mixed use development consisting of 127 residential condominium units above 59,180 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space. The subject site is located north of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue on the City's west side. The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels totaling approximately 5.35 acres. The project will be developed in two phases; Phase 1 will consist of the Garvey Avenue frontage totaling approximately 3.68 acres, which will be developed with commercial and residentially mixed land uses along with 2 levels of subterranean parking and a significant outdoor courtyard/food court pedestrian amenity. The remaining 1.67 acres to the north, which consists of an existing mobile home park, could be developed as part of a subsequent phase. The existing General Plan designation for all affected parcels is Commercial. The existing zoning designations consist of C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking). However, at this time, only the parcels located within Phase 1 are proposed to be rezoned to (PD) Planned Development and have the General Plan land use designation changed from Commercial to Mixed Use Residential/Commercial. Any future development proposals for the 1.67 acre site will require the review and approval of separate entitlement applications together with a separate environmental analysis, a mobile home park relocation plan, and separate public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 860, thereby APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, and Tentative Tract Map 70044, subject to the attached conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as recommended by the Planning Commission on November 05, 2007. ANALYSIS A General Plan Amendment is required to change the existing General Plan designation from "Commercial" to "Mixed Use" and allow an increase in the project's density greater than 14 units per acre, which is consistent with the pending General Plan update. The General Plan Update APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 0 1011 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 0 9 1 0 • City Council Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 will allow a range of 30-45 units per acre for mixed use projects. Phase 1 will consist of 35 dwelling units per acre. The Zone Change request is to change the current zoning designation from C-3 and P zone (Medium Commercial and Automobile Parking) to a PD (Planned Development) zone to allow development of a mixed use project. In addition to the above entitlement applications, the General Plan requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for development of a mixed-use project. Whenever a developer provides affordable housing units and requests a density bonus, State law mandates that a City grant up to a 35% density bonus. State law also requires that the City grant up to three development concessions in order to minimize stringent requirements that can restrict projects with an affordable housing component. This project qualifies for a density bonus and development incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent, or (12) units for sale to persons and/or families of low income. California Government Code also allows the City to grant three concessions, including reduced parking ratios in order to make the affordable component more feasible for the developer. In response to this, the applicant is requesting to reduce the required number of parking spaces as an aid to develop a mixed use project with affordable housing. On November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and received numerous requests from the public to restrict the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Phase 1, which will require the future developer of the northern parcel to submit separate entitlements for review and approval. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant and the public, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council with minor modifications to the conditions of approval. Prepared by: Matt Everlin City Planner Sub i ed by: is Saeki As istant City Manager Attachment A: Ordinance 860 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 5, 2007 with modified Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2007 0 • Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 1 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. 860 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 07-225, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL AND ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 770044 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07- 1090 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 127 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 59,180 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 5286-020-001,002,003,004,017,018 and a portion of 023). WHEREAS, Patrick Yang filed applications with the City of Rosemead requesting a Zone Change from C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking) to PD (Planned Development) together with a General Plan Amendment request to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre in the General Plan Mixed Use designation, a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project, and a Tentative Tract Map to develop attached residential condominium units on a property located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue (APN: 5286-020- 001,002,003,004,017,018 & a portion of 023); and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 07-225 would designate the subject property- as PD (Planned Development) allowing mixed-use types of development on the subject property such as commercial and residential uses, and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of zone change applications and governs development of private properties; and EXHIBIT A 0 0 0 0 Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 2of7 WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, Section 65350 of the California Government Code authorizes the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment applications through public hearing and any other means the City deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 for the proposed mixed-use development and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed applications with incorporated mitigation measures will not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, public notices were posted in several public locations and mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public and the applicant, the Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-52, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090; and 0 0 • • Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have a potential significant environmental impact. This conclusion is based upon the Lead Agency's determination through the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration containing proposed mitigation measures that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment per the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared according to CEQA guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own discretionary and independent judgment in reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed mixed use project. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds that any presumption of adverse impacts has been adequately rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations. Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact on Fish and Game resources. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that placing the subject property in the PD (Planned Development) zone will provide an improved level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the existing neighborhood where the development is proposed. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that General Plan Amendment 07-02 and Zone Change 07-225 meet the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The proposed mixed use project consists of a Zone Change from C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Automobile Parking) to PD (Planned Development).Additional requests include a General Plan Amendment requesting approval to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre in a mixed-use designation, a Tentative Tract Map for 0 0 0 0 Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-22i Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 4 of 7 a condominium subdivision, a Planned Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 that encourages revitalization of major corridors through mixed use developments to promote the infill of strip commercial districts with higher density multi-family uses. Therefore, this zone change and General Plan Amendment will allow for commercial/residential development on the subject site that is compatible with surrounding land uses. B. Circulation: This development shall be located on Garvey Avenue. Primary access to the proposed mixed use project will be via Garvey Avenue. The proposed project is consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3.4, which encourages new developments with adequate parking to locate in revitalization areas. The circulation plan of the proposed mixed use project is pedestrian friendly and will not impede free flow of vehicular traffic on site or on adjacent roadways. C. Housing: In addition to increasing homeownership opportunities, the applicant will be providing at least 12 units for sale to persons and families of low income. Providing a variety of housing opportunities including affordable housing is in compliance with Housing Element policy that encourages a range of housing opportunities for existing and future City residents by ensuring that housing is available and affordable to all socio-economic segments of the community. D. Resource Management: The proposed mixed use development will provide high quality landscaping with a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and plants, thereby minimizing water consumption. The proposed mixed use project is designed with natural resources conservation in mind, and therefore will not affect any natural resources in the area. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding area beyond City's permitted noise levels. Additionally, the site will be improved with a new 8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall that should mitigate residual commercial noise impacts to adjacent mobile home park and residential uses. F. Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans for the mixed use project. The proposed project will not impede or interfere with the City's emergency or evacuation plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. G. CEQA Compliance: The City as a "Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project • • 0 0 Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 5of7 may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will minimize identified significant impacts to a level of less than significance. Hence, the City Council of the City of Rosemead hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this mixed use project. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Planned Development Review 07-01, Tentative Tract Map 70044, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 for development of a mixed-use project located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 860 and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 11th day of December, 2007. JOHN TRAN, Mayor ATTEST: GLORIA MOLLEDA, Acting City Clerk 0 0 Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 6 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) • I Gloria Molleda, Acting City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 860 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 07-225, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND P (AUTOMOBILE PARKING) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTAIL/COMMERCIAL AND ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 70044 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 127 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 59,180 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018 and portion of 023). Ordinance 860 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the I Ith day of December, 2007, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote. to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: • ~ Ordinance No. 860 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Planned Development Review 07-01 Tentative Tract Map 70044 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Page 7 of 7 • GLORIA MOLLEDA, Acting City Clerk 0 0 9 0 • • E M E S O '4 a TED 4g • ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:' PLANNING DIVISION DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 70044 ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419- 7459 GARVEY AVENUE. Summary Patrick Yang has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use development project consisting of 127 residential condominium units (144,122 square feet) above 59,180 square feet of retail and restaurant space on 160,434 square feet of land (3.68 acres) located on the north side of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The site has 350 feet of street frontage on Garvey Avenue, and up to 610 feet of lot depth. The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 5.35 acres. The property will be developed in two phases; phase 1 will include a front portion of the overall site fronting Garvey Avenue (3.68 acres) which will be developed with commercial and residential land uses along with 2 levels of subterranean parking structure and out-door court yard. The reminder (1.65 acres) will be developed later in future phase 2. The mixed-use building will accommodate up to 15 commercial tenant suites of retail and restaurant use. The plans show a building footprint with an L-shaped configuration. Such storefronts will be oriented towards the south and west, facing a central courtyard (plaza) and on-grade parking area. The development includes on-grade parking with 81 spaces accessible from two driveways via Garvey Avenue. There will be two ramps located in the central portion of the on-grade parking area, leading into the proposed subterranean parking structure. There will be two levels of subterranean parking with 586 parking spaces below grade. Secondary access to the commercial suites will be provided via the rear service driveway, which loops around the perimeter of the project. Commercial loading and trash enclosure access will occur from this rear service driveway. The residential condominiums will be located on the second, third, and fourth floors with six separate elevators and staircase access points from the basement levels to the top floor. Common open space areas have been provided on the upper floors for the exclusive use of the residents, and a plaza will be provided in front of the proposed retail/restaurant to provide an attractive out door dining and recreational area. The subject site is currently within the Commercial designation of the General Plan, and has a split-zoning district of C-3 (Medium Commercial) in the front, and P (Parking) district in the rear. A General Plan Amendment is being requested in order to change the land use designation EXHIBIT B 0 0 • i Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 31 from "Commercial" to "Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial", and to allow a density of 34.5 dwelling units per acre for the mixed use development which proposes 127 units. Additionally, a 1.65-acre portion of the site will be parceled off for "future" development of a 29- unit townhouse project. When taken as a total Planned Development, the 5.35 acres would have a resulting density of 29.15 units per acre (156 units/5.35 acres). These densities are consistent with the density proposed in the comprehensive update to the City's General Plan land use element that seeks to allow mixed-use developments of 30 to 45 dwelling units per acre along the City's major arterial streets. In addition to the base density, the project qualifies for a density bonus and "development incentives" pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code because 10% of the dwellings (12 units) will be sold to persons or households of moderate income. The applicant has requested two "development incentives" for reduced unit size for the one- bedroom units, and reduced parking stall dimensions. The Rosemead Municipal Code establishes a minimum 900-square foot unit size for one-bedroom units (§17.88.070), and requires residential parking stalls to be 10' X 20' (§17.88.110) for condominium developments. The commercial parking requirements require 9' X 20' stall dimensions and allow up to 25% compact parking (§17.84). The project proposes an overall compact parking ratio of approximately 29% for the combined commercial and residential parking areas. Section 65915(p) of the California Government Code establishes a parking ratio for affordable housing projects that is less than the City's minimum parking ratio for stand -alone condominium developments. Section 17.88.110 of the Rosemead Municipal Code contains specific parking ratios for condominium developments. The applicant is requesting to use the parking ratio of "two parking space per unit" for the condominiums, which is consistent with the Government Code's allowance for two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The Zone Change application submitted with this application would allow a change from C-3 (Medium Commercial) and P (Parking) zoning to PD (Planned Development) zoning. This change is consistent with the proposed General Plan designation, and the PD zone would allow the Commission and Council flexibility in setting specific development standards for the project. The PD zone allows mixed use projects that are at least one acre in size (RMC §17.76.080). Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 is an application to allow mixed-use development in the Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Overlay designation, as stipulated in the General Plan. Aside from the reduced parking, reduced parking stall dimensions, and unit size request, the project complies with all other applicable development standards and there are no variance issues with this application. A detailed discussion of the project's compliance with the City's adopted Mixed-Use Design Guidelines is contained in this staff report. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as the Lead Agency has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study, prepared in conjunction with a Focused Air Quality Analysis, Historic Resources Assessment, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Noise Evaluation, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report (for mobile home park), and Traffic Impact Study, found that there are potential significant environmental impacts that could occur with the development of the project. The environmental factors potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, with the incorporation of 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 31 mitigation measures, which the applicant has agreed to, the potential environmental effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 20-day public review and comment period on October 15, 2007. The Mitigated Negative Declaration along with Agency comments, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by the CEQA guidelines, is contained in the attachments. If the Commission is inclined to recommending this project to City Council for approval, the Commission must first make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend to City Council for adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. All identified mitigation measures have been included in the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" of this report. General Plan Amendment The subject site is located within the Commercial designation of the General Plan, which encourages downtown commercial uses and allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 (total floor area in relation to total land area). The proposed project has 59,180 square feet of commercial floor area, which equals an FAR of 0.37:1 in compliance with the General Plan (basement is exempt from FAR). However, the project exceeds the current allowable residential density of 14 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use developments, as stipulated in the current Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is recognized that contemporary mixed use developments in the San Gabriel Valley, and throughout the State, require high-density residential uses (typically 30 dwelling units per acre or higher) in order to be financially feasible, and to facilitate density bonus incentives encouraged by the State. As such, the City is in the process of updating the City's General Plan and will create a Mixed Use-High Density Residential/Commercial land use designation that will allow 31 to 45 units per acre. This designation will be introduced for most of the properties that front on Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard, and major corridors including the properties adjacent to the subject site. This update and corresponding environmental review will provide the mechanism to allow for orderly development of mixed use projects that are in compliance with current market trends, and will allow for targeted growth to occur along the major arterial streets of the City. Density Until such time as the General Plan update is finalized, applicants for mixed use projects must process individual amendment applications for developments whenever the density exceeds 14 dwelling units per acre in the Mixed Use Overlay designation. The proposed project will have a maximum density of 34.5 units per acre, which is in compliance with the intended densities along Garvey Avenue, under the "enhanced" General Plan Mixed Use Overlay designation. The subject site is not located within a City Redevelopment Project Area and as such is not subject to specific findings related to the removal of existing housing units. However, it is recognized that the future proposal to remove the 39 mobile home units will lessen the ability of existing Rosemead residents to find affordable housing. The City has an interest in preserving housing that is attainable to Rosemead's lower-income residents, as specified in the City's Housing Element. Accordingly, staffs review of the project finds that the public interest would be served by approving the applicant's development incentives and General Plan Amendment for increased density, in order to make the affordable housing component financially feasible, and to further the goals of the City's Housing Element. At the time of developing phase 2, a separate environmental analysis will be required in conjunction with a separate public hearing. • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 31 Based on the above information, a maximum density of 34.5 units per acre (127 dwelling units) will be allowed for the project, with a total of 12 units to be reserved for sale to persons or families of moderate-income households. Staff has conditioned this project accordingly. The 1.67-acre site, which will remain vacant for "future" development, will be limited to a maximum of 30 dwelling units, as stipulated in the applications submitted, subject to a new development application and environmental review at a future date. Municipal Code Requirements Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Additionally, a zone change must be found consistent with the General Plan. The proposed PD (Planned Development) zone is allowed for properties that are at least one acre in size. Staff finds that the proposed zone change to PD on the subject property is consistent with the goals of the General Plan in that the future "enhanced" General Plan mixed-use designation for the commercial corridor along Garvey Avenue will provide for high-density residential in combination with ground-floor commercial uses, as proposed by this application. The site will propose orderly development that relates to the surrounding properties, including a future residential component to the north of the site, which will become part of the overall improvements. The PD zone and intended development is consistent with the Mixed Use - Residential/Commercial land use designation of the General Plan, as requested with this application. Conditional Use Permit - The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a mixed use project. The premise of the mixed use district is that the basic underlying zoning designation controls land use. The mixed use overlay district expands the permitted uses of the underlying zoning with the issuance of a conditional use permit. Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria that must be met as follows: • That the Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of the Zoning Code; and • That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and • That the establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and • That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. Planned Developments - Section 17.76.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows appropriate combinations of commercial, residential, and industrial land uses to be permitted in P-D zone subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, subject to the following findings: • • Planning Commission Meetin• • November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 31 1. That the granting of such zone change will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; 2. That the project's architecture shall be consistent with and/or complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood's integrity and the character of the community; 3. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map - Section 66474 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds under which a City may approve or deny a Tentative Tract Map. In addition, Chapter 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides subdivision regulations, which adopts Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a Tentative Tract Map: • The proposed map and design of improvements are consistent with the General Plan, the City of Rosemead Official Zoning Map and any specific plan governing the site. • The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density. • The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. • The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause any serious public health problems. • The design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. • The design of the subdivision will provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC resolution# 07-52 and recommend to the City Council for APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Change of Zone 07-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 770044 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" and recommend to the City Council to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation monitoring Program. PROJECT ANALYSIS Environmental Setting/ Project Site Description: The subject site has historically been used for a combination of uses in including a mobile home park, a recreational vehicle "trailer park" use, commercial uses, and light industrial uses. Currently there is a mobile home park on the northerly 2.27 acres with 39 mobile homes. Access to the mobile home park is provided via a 46-foot wide access corridor (approximately 0.27 acres) along the western boundary of the site. The central 2.26 acres of the site are currently vacant. Of these 2.26 acres, the portion fronting on Garvey Avenue (approximately 0.95 acres) was the site of the Roseland Trailer Court, which was established in 1947 and was recently demolished. The rear portion of the 2.26 acres • • 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 31 (approximately 1.3 acres) has periodically been used for storage of vehicles. This large area was the site of a light industrial use, as evidenced by remnants of steel railroad tracks. The Historic Resources Assessment prepared for this project and attached hereto documents the existence of these steel tracks, which may have been used as part of a gantry, or crane system sometime in the 1920's. Due to the absence of historic records on this property and lack of evidence of historically significant events or persons tied to the property, the steel rails are found to not be a historically significant feature on the site, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The southeast corner of the site (approximately 0.57 acres) contains a one-story commercial building that is in active use. There is a non-conforming "billboard" structure on the west side of the commercial building. The easterly property line of the site abuts a parking lot that serves a McDonald's restaurant on the northwest corner of Garvey and Prospect Avenues. The on-site driveway encroaches onto the McDonald's property, and is shown as a "shared driveway" for the proposed development. Historically this driveway on the site has provided access to the rear of the small commercial building and the vacant portion of the site, which was used for outdoor vehicle storage. The site frontage has existing curb and gutter along Garvey Avenue and large overgrown Eucalyptus trees along the public right-of-way. The larger vicinity consists primarily of neighborhood commercial uses and some light industrial along Garvey Avenue and the side streets of New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. There are existing power poles along the westerly portion of the site, which serve the mobile home park. All existing structures, mature trees, and power poles may be relocated as part of the proposed project. The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site plan shows one building with storefront facades oriented towards the center of the property. There would be ample open space in the form of a central courtyard and covered walkways at all the storefronts. The upper floors will have 127 residential condominium units. Access to the proposed residences will be through a lobby area accessed from six separate elevator shafts, with the main residential lobby located at the southernmost storefront facing the Garvey Avenue frontage. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the southernmost commercial tenant to have a storefront entry on the Garvey Avenue frontage, and requiring all entries on Garvey Avenue to be recessed 24 inches, and be shaded with canvas awnings, as encouraged by the City's Mixed Use Design Guidelines. The first floor of the proposed buildings will have commercial tenant spaces ranging in size from 1,410 square feet to 13,820 square feet in size. The larger units are situated furthest away from the street frontage. As such, the commercial tenant spaces that are oriented towards the west will have an occupancy frontage that ranges from 20 feet to 40 feet in width. The south facing storefronts located furthest from the street will have occupancy frontages that range in width from 27 feet to 60 feet in width. There will be two driveways providing access into the central parking area and basement ramps, and a third driveway for access to the rear of the buildings on the east side of the property. Freestanding light fixtures in the on-grade parking area and wall-mounted light fixtures would provide adequate lighting for the project. The site plan shows a total of four on-grade trash enclosures, located adjacent to the rear service driveway, to serve the needs of the commercial and residential users. Two enclosures are shown at the northwest corner of the site, one enclosure is proposed at the northeast corner of the site, and the fourth is attached to the east rear side of the building. 0 0 Planning Commission Meetin• November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 31 The proposed trash enclosure plan does not provide adequate convenient access to the trash bins for the proposed residences. As such, staff is recommending that two "trash chutes", accessible at every floor level, be provided for the condominium residents, with trash bins to be located at the ground floor, or in the basement level parking structure. Additionally, staff is recommending that CC & R's be included to require regular trash pickup service at least once a week for the residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant space bins due to the large percentage of restaurant users proposed. All trash enclosures shall be designed to comply with City standards. All trash enclosures will be required to provide a solid roof for aesthetic reasons. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of seven contiguous parcels. The site is surrounded by the following General Plan designations, Zoning districts, and land uses: North: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Land Use: Multifamily residential South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Commercial/Office East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial)/ P (Parking) Land Use: Drive-Thru Restaurant/ Multifamily Residential West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Equipment Rental/Commercial The applicant proposes to combine six out of seven existing lots for the purpose of developing a mixed-use residential and commercial project, consisting of one four-story building with two levels of subterranean parking. The remainder parcel in the northern portion of the site currently occupied by a mobile home park will be re-configured and set aside for future development. The applicant has agreed to allocate ten percent (10%) or 12 units of the proposed condominium residential units for sale to moderate-income families. Moderate-income family incomes range from 80 to 120 percent of the County median household income. The County qualifies "moderate income" households based on the total household income and the total family size. Tentative Tract Map Review Tentative Tract Map 70044 has been distributed to various reviewing agencies such as Fire Department, Southern California Edison and Water Companies for their review. The Fire Department has noted their concern regarding the use of a "shared" driveway as called out on the plan, with the adjoining property to the east. Additionally, Edison has requested that adequate space be reserved on-site for electrical transformers to serve the future residents and commercial uses. No other special condition has been received from the reviewing agencies. The City Engineer has checked the tentative tract map for its accuracy, and appropriate 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 31 conditions of approval have been incorporated into Exhibit A. Fire department and Southern California Edison's conditions will be complied with and final construction plans will show such compliance. Development Standards The developer has incorporated the Planned Development standards for the proposed mixed- use project. The Planned Development designation allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant approval of a specific planned development with diversification in the development standards of conventional zones such as residential or commercial zones while insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Proposed Setbacks - The project will have an L-Shaped building with storefronts oriented towards the west and south. The southeastern portion of the building will have a front yard setback of five to six feet along the Garvey Avenue street line. The remaining 230 feet of building frontage that faces Garvey Avenue is set back approximately 282 feet and 294 feet. Thus, the massing of the building will be substantially mitigated by the deep setback from the street, for a majority of the building. The westerly 53 feet of the building will not be directly visible from Garvey Avenue due to the configuration of the lot. As such, the ground floor tenant in this westernmost space will be a restaurant use with a "window" into the outdoor courtyard plaza where outdoor seating will be available. All the storefronts will have a covered walkway that is eight feet minimum in width, to provide aesthetic relief and human scale. The upper floors will cantilever over this covered walkway. As such, the front setback mentioned herein for the south-facing storefronts is measured from the front property line, to the supporting columns of the covered walkway. The remaining sides and rear of the building will have a 28-foot and 29-foot building setback from interior property lines, in order to provide the minimum width driveway for fire apparatus access. The one exception to this side setback is along the eastern property line where a "shared" driveway will allow the building to be as close as 20 feet to the side property line, except that the driveway adjacent to the building encroaches onto the neighboring property, and appears to have been established as a reciprocal easement. There will be an actual 35 feet of separation from the west side of the building, to the McDonald's parking lot, in the area adjacent to the shared driveway. The PD zoning district does not impose any minimum setbacks for new projects. However, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposed Planned Development is compatible with existing and future development in surrounding areas, per Section 17.76.010 of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City's adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines encourage reduced setbacks along the street property lines, provided that a seven-foot wide unobstructed sidewalk passageway is provided in the public realm, in order to create a pedestrian friendly environment. Staff finds that the proposed setbacks are compatible with the surrounding properties in that Garvey Avenue predominantly has an established "street edge" where buildings are close to the front property line. There are some exceptions to this, including the McDonald's restaurant to the east of the site. However, it is the goal of the City's Mixed Use Development guidelines to encourage a minimal setback along the street property lines, as proposed by the project. 0 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 9 of 31 The majority of the proposed building will not have storefronts directly adjacent to the Garvey Avenue and a pedestrian-friendly interaction will be established along the Garvey Avenue frontage. Most of the street frontage will consist of the two driveway entrances and a landscaped berm with low walls screening the at-grade parking lot. The pedestrian focus of the proposed building is akin to a "lifestyle" center where a central plaza is situated away from the street, and storefronts have a direct relation to the plaza as opposed to the street. Staff finds that the proposed front setbacks are an acceptable alternative to the standards set forth in the General Plan and adopted Guidelines for mixed use development given the unique circumstances of the property. The proposed project will substantially comply with the seven- foot clear sidewalk passageway for the entire street frontage, as encouraged in the Mixed Use Development Design Guidelines. The L-Shaped building configuration and the central courtyard will create significant interest and street appeal, by drawing store fronts interest towards the pedestrian plaza and mitigating the massing of the building away from the street. Building Height - The proposed building will have a uniform height with four-story massing throughout all portions of the building. The upper floors are stepped back nine feet from the edge of the ground floor footprint along the southeast corner, adjacent to the "shared" driveway. The predominant height of the structure will be 51'-11" feet from finished grade to top of parapet, and a maximum height of 57'-8" to the top of the tower elements, as measured on the Garvey Avenue front building elevation. The rear portion of the building would be approximately six inches shorter than the front height dimension at Garvey Avenue due to the slight slope of the finished grade. The proposed building is not subject to the City's variable height requirement pursuant to Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, as the building will not be adjacent to an R-1 or R-2 zoned property. The building would be substantially set away from any nearby R-2 zoned property located 220 feet north of the mixed use project site. The overall color scheme of the building will complement the "terra cotta" S-tile concrete roof for the tower elements. The towers use a combination of hipped roof, gabled roof, and flat roof designs. The towers do not dramatically project above the parapet and simply create a stepped roofline for interest. The central portion of the south and west elevations incorporate an arched parapet wall with protruding towers, which balance the front facade and provide a sense of formality to the building. Staff finds that the proposed building heights are appropriate for the size and scale of the proposed mixed use project, and that said height will not create any adverse impacts upon adjoining properties. Proposed Floor Plans Commercial - The floor plans submitted with this application show 15 tenant suites totaling approximately 59,180 square feet that will be utilized for retail and restaurant uses. The project is designed with sufficient on-site parking to accommodate 11 restaurant users, as shown on the plan. The three retail spaces are shown in the rear portion of the building and would have the largest square footages, ranging in size from 3,980 square feet to 13,820 square feet. Residential - A total of 127 condominium units are proposed within this development. All units will be located on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. The unit floor plans submitted show a variety of unit types, from one-bedroom units to three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 855 square feet to 1,660 square feet of living area. 0 0 Planning Commission Meetin0 g November 5, 2007 Page 10 of 31 There is a large rectangular garden area on the second floor (20'-3" X 273'-0") that creates an atrium "light well" for the third and fourth floors. Additionally there are two rooftop gardens on the fourth floor, which that will serve as common open space for the residents. The stand-alone condominium regulations of the Zoning Ordinance require a minimum of 900 square feet for a 1-bedroom unit. The PD zone allows flexibility in setting the standards for individual projects, and the applicant has proposed smaller one-bedroom units in an attempt to keep the project within budget for the affordable housing component. Each unit will be provided with two (2) parking spaces located in the subterranean parking structure. A summary of the various floor plan types is discussed below. Unit Type "A" There are 30 of these units (10 per floor on the residential portion) which consist of one bedroom, one bathroom, living room, kitchen with dining area, and laundry area, totaling 855 square feet of living area. The living room and bedroom have access to a private balcony that is 58 square feet in size. These dwellings are designed as both interior units and end units, and are generally dispersed throughout each respective floor level. Unit Type "B There are 78 of these units (26 per floor on the residential portion) which consist of one bedroom, one master bedroom with master bath, a common bathroom, living room, kitchen with dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,205 square feet of living area. The bedroom and master bedroom have access to a private balcony that is approximately 47 square feet in size. These are all interior units and make up the largest percentage of all the dwellings (61 % of the total). They are generally dispersed throughout each respective floor level. Unit Type "C" There are eight of these units (three on the second and third floors, two on the fourth floor) and they have the same floor plan as Type "B" except these are larger in size (1,355 square feet of living area with 55 square foot balconies). They are interior units, and corner end units facing Garvey Avenue on the second and third floors. They are generally dispersed throughout each respective floor level, and are located across the hallway from an elevator shaft. Unit Type "D' There are five of these units (two on the second and third floors, one on the fourth floor) and they have one bedroom, one master bedroom with master bath, a common bathroom, living room, dining room, kitchen, and laundry area, totaling 1,525 square feet of living area. The bedroom has access to the common bathroom, and the living and dining rooms have a sliding glass door into a private balcony that is approximately 117 square feet in size. These are end units located adjacent to the westernmost elevator shaft. Unit Type "E": There are three of these units (one per floor on the residential portion) and they have one bedroom, two master bedrooms with master baths, a common bathroom, living room, kitchen and dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,660 square feet of living area. The bedroom has access to the common bathroom, and there is access to a private balcony (from the bedroom and one of the master bedrooms) that is approximately 47 square feet in size. These are interior units facing the pedestrian plaza and are located adjacent to the central elevator shaft. Unit Type "F": There are three of these units (one per floor on the residential portion) and they have two bedrooms, a master bedroom with master bath, a common bathroom, living room, kitchen and dining area, and laundry area, totaling 1,388 square feet of living area. The master bedroom has access to a private balcony that is approximately 36 square feet in size. These are end units located at the northeast corner of the building facing the east property line. 0 0 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 11 of 31 Proposed open space: The proposed project will provide a total of 6,680 square feet of private open space in the form of balcony area (all residential units have access to a private balcony). Additionally, there are 8,550 square feet of common open space available exclusively to future residents in the form of rooftop gardens, and common-area balconies. The largest rooftop garden is a 5,240 square foot rectangular garden on the second floor that is open to the sky, with meandering walks, trellis covers, gazebos, picnic tables, shade trees and shrubs. This garden will have a 20' X 20' opening to the ground floor breezeway that connects the central plaza to the rear of the property. The fourth floor will have two rectangular rooftop gardens with 1,417 square feet and 1,485 square feet, respectively. These gardens will have similar amenities to the second floor garden. The common area balconies consist of nine balconies with 45 square feet of floor area each, located adjacent to three of the elevator shafts at the second, third and fourth floors. This provides a grand total of 15,230 square feet of private and common open space for the exclusive use of the future residents. In addition to the private open space and rooftop gardens the project will provide a substantial public open space amenity in the form of a large central plaza with covered walkways, and a breezeway corridor on the ground floor areas around the front of the commercial storefronts. This large expanse of open area provides a total of approximately 25,828 square feet of public open space. This ground-floor area can serve as usable recreational open space and as potential outdoor seating for the commercial tenants. A water fountain, public art feature, trellis covers, decorative paving patterns, shade trees, raised planter beds, and landscaped berming to screen the parking areas are incorporated into the central courtyard. A summary of the total open space provided for the project is summarized in Figure 1. In total, the proposed project will provide 40,650 square feet of private and common open space. This represents approximately 320 square feet of open space per unit for the overall project. Stand-alone condominium projects in the City require a total open space of 400 square feet per unit, and the proposed project substantially complies with this standard. Staff finds that the proposed open space designs and amenity packages will adequately serve the needs of the future residents. FIGURE 7 (Total Open Space) Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Area (sf) Total(., 1740 C (Balconv) 8 55 440 •den #1 1 1417 1417 •den #2 1 1485 1485 r Breezeway 1 2390 2390 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 12 of 31 Comm on Balcony 9 45 405 Central Plaza/Covered Walkways 1 23,033 23033 TOTAL OPEN SPACE 40650 sf Proposed Landscaping: The site plan submitted with this application shows conceptual planting areas for the project. The on-grade parking areas will have a total of 6,147 square feet of landscaping within the ground floor parking area and west side of the building. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas, landscaped islands, and "finger" islands on the parking row ends. The looped driveway on the north and east sides of the building will not have landscaping. However, this rear driveway is largely a service drive and will not be highly visible to the street. As proposed, the site plan shows 8.84% overall landscaping of the parking lot and driveway areas. This exceeds the City's policy to provide at least 3% of planting areas for all commercial developments. Additionally, the central courtyard provides added landscaping in the form of raised planter beds, water feature, and shade trees. The central courtyard will significantly soften the appearance of the paved parking areas. All three driveway entrances on Garvey Avenue will have decorative paving at the entries for a depth of 25 feet. The rooftop garden on the second floor will be landscaped in a park-like setting with shade trees and planted sod areas, to facilitate the use of two picnic tables, one patio dinette, five park benches, two gazebo structures, one trellis cover, and a water fountain. There is a meandering walkway through the central portion of the garden, and an area "open to below" in the middle of the garden. The rooftop gardens on the fourth floor are located in the west and south extremes of the building. Both gardens are rectangular in shape and are open to the sky. The west garden is exposed on one side to the central courtyard, and the south garden is exposed on two sides, to the street side and to the west. The amenities for both of the gardens will include one trellis cover, one picnic table, two park benches, and a patio dinette. Both gardens on the fourth floor have a meandering walkway through the central part of the garden. A decorative metal railing with a "cross-hatch" pattern will be used on the south and west perimeters, where the garden abuts the edge of the building. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. For purposes of the Planned Development review, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the conceptual landscape plans as presented, with the conditions of approval which require that street trees be planted along Garvey Avenue. Proposed Fencing: The proposed subterranean parking structure will require substantial excavation and will require the installation of new perimeter walls on the east and west sides of the property. The north property line will not be fenced as it will abut a future residential development. However, staff is recommending that a new eight-foot high decorative masonry wall block wall be installed along all interior property lines, including the northern property boundary of the future "phase 2" development site in order to provide buffering and protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors from the impacts of the proposed mixed use development. No fencing will be required on the east side of the "shared driveway" easement area adjacent to the McDonald's Restaurant parking lot. 0 0 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 13 of 31 Parking and Circulation: The plans submitted with this application show access to on-grade parking located adjacent to the street, which will be accessed from two driveways along Garvey Avenue. From this central parking area there are two ramps leading into two levels of subterranean parking. The surface parking area has 81 spaces with 90-degree parking, including areas reserved for handicapped stalls along the front parking row adjacent to the street. The subterranean parking structure shows 291 for basement 1 and 295 parking spaces for basement 2 with 90-degree parking. All parking areas have a two-way driveway and aisles that allow for complete circulation around the parking areas. Chapter 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) requires one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of commercial floor area and one (1) space per 100 square feet of restaurant space. Section 17.84.020 of the Code establishes minimum parking for projects proposed in PD zones. Dwelling units are required to provide 2 fully enclosed parking spaces and 1 guest parking space for each 2 units. As such a minimum of 319 parking spaces are required by City Code for the residential part of the project, as shown on the following matrix (Figure 2). FIGURE 2 (Code-Required Parking) Land Use Size / No. of Units Parking Ratio Total Retail 32,750sf 1 space/250 sf 131 Restaurant 26,430 sf 1 space/100 sf 264.3 Residential .127 units .2 covered spaces per unit j 254 Guest Parking 127 units 1 spaces per 2 -unit 63.5 OTAL REQUIRED 712.8 ,TOTAL PROVIDED 667 City staff recognizes that the above Rosemead Municipal Code parking requirement is overly restrictive for residential projects including condominiums. In the future, the City will be developing specific parking requirements for mixed-use projects including condominiums. However, any development that proposes an affordable component can request a reduced parking ratio pursuant to Section 65915(p) of the Government Code, which states as follows. (p) (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: (A) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space. (B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. Based on the above, the developer has requested to apply the above parking ratios for the residential portion of the proposed development, in order to facilitate the housing affordability component. The applicant will be selling 10% of the condominiums to persons or families of moderate-income households thus, state law requires the city to provide incentives such as reduced parking ratio. 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 14 of 31 In light of the concerns expressed by the Commission on similar mixed-use projects with respect to adequate availability of off-street parking, staff has developed a standard condition requiring the subdivider to submit a comprehensive Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Division. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC & R's and shall be enforced by the property owners association and must include, but not be limited to, the following provisions. • Assigned parking for each residence. • Designated parking for customers and employees. • Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking. • Funding mechanism for staffing of a 24-hour parking monitor/security guard. . Funding mechanism for maintenance of a workstation with half-bath for the parking monitor/security guard. The parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Additionally, all employee parking shall be restricted to the subterranean parking structure. In addition to the above, the Traffic Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. for this project included a Parking Analysis dated September 10, 2007 that analyzed the specific parking demands of the proposed project, given the unit sizes and the retail and restaurant uses proposed. The Study analyzed the "shared parking" aspect of the mixed-use project and concludes that the proposed project will not result in the need for any overflow parking. Peak- month parking demand which is expected to occur in annually in December, would result in the need for 572 parking spaces during the week and 565 parking spaces on week-ends. As such, the proposed 667 parking spaces will adequately serve the parking needs of the residents and the retail/restaurant customers. Furthermore, the applicant has requested a development incentive to allow reduced parking stall dimensions on grade and in the basement parking areas, which are intended to serve both commercial and residential users (the minimum dimension is 10' X 20' for residential condominiums). Pursuant to Section 65915d(2)A of the California Government Code, cities may grant reductions in development standards and design requirements that restrict housing projects with an affordable component. This project qualifies for the incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent of the dwelling units for sale to persons and families of moderate income. The plans submitted shows 195 compact parking spaces of total parking for both commercial and residential), which exceeds the City's allowable ratio of 25% compact parking for commercial projects. Residential projects are not allowed to have compact parking by City Code. In staffs experience, the excessive use of compact parking will result in inefficient use of parking stalls, as larger vehicles (trucks and SUV's) tend to take up two parking stalls. However, given that the proposed parking layout provides good circulation throughout and there is no need for overflow parking, pursuant to the findings of the Parking Study, staff finds that there will not be an adverse impact created by increased compact parking. Furthermore, the City has an interest in allowing affordable housing units, and the use of compact spaces for the residential component will assist in this regard. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the applicant's request for reduced parking stall dimensions and allow the proposed 195 compact parking spaces. Traffic 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 15 of 31 A traffic impact study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. dated August 15, 2007, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon eight (8) nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: Garvey Avenue/Alhambra Avenue, Garvey Avenue/New Avenue, Garvey Avenue/Jackson Avenue, Garvey Avenue/Del Mar Avenue, New Avenue/Heilman Avenue, New Avenue/Emerson Avenue. New Avenue/Newmark Avenue, and New Avenue/Graves Avenue. Additionally, the Traffic Study analyzed the three project access drives proposed for the project at Garvey Avenue. The Level of Service (LOS) concept indicates a measure of average operating conditions at an intersection, based on the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) technique. The Levels of Service vary from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F (jammed condition). All intersection studies in the Traffic Study analyzed the project buildout Year 2009 anticipated traffic with and without the project, and the Year 2025 anticipated traffic with and without the project. The traffic generated includes two related mixed-use projects within one mile of the site, on Del Mar Avenue. The project is anticipated to generate a total of 3,590 vehicle trips ends per day, with 231 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the existing mobile home park generates an additional 220 vehicle trips per day. However, this additional impact will be modified and replaced with a future Phase 2 residential development that will likely reduce the vehicle trips to 176 vehicle trip ends per day for the 30-unit capacity that is shown on the preliminary plans. Un-signalized intersections (New Avenue/Graves Street), and the project entry drives, utilize the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis method for determining the level of service measurement. Table 10 of the Traffic Study shows the intersection study summary for the project. All the current intersections operate at a LOS "C" or better, except for the PM peak hour traffic at New Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection which currently operates at LOS "D". With the anticipated Year 2009 project buildout traffic, all intersections and entry drives will maintain a LOS "D" or better, except for the PM peak hour traffic at New Avenue/Graves Street which will be reduced from a LOS "D" to LOS "E". For the anticipated Year 2025 traffic the New Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection is further reduced at a LOS "F" during the PM peak hour, and the Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue intersection would operate at LOS "E". However, with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures (including "fair share" contributions toward a new traffic signal at New Avenue/Graves Avenue intersection), both of these adversely affected intersections will improve to an acceptable level of service during the peak hours. The Los Angeles County CMP (Congestion Management Program) criteria describe a significant impact at an intersection when the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) is increasing more than 2%, causing the facility to operate at a LOS "E" or "F". Table 10 of the Traffic Study indicates that neither of these thresholds is met for any of the intersections or driveway entrances when the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. As such, there will be no significant adverse traffic impacts created by the proposed development. Based on the traffic study, staff finds that the proposed development will not create any significant environmental effects upon the traffic circulation system of the area. Additionally, the Traffic Study analyzes the reduced parking request and finds that this will not create any hardship on the commercial tenants because residential uses and a variety of commercial uses within the proposed development have different hours of parking demand, and create a destination attraction whereby customers will visit more than one business upon arrival to the shopping center. 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 16 of 31 Proposed Architecture: The proposed building has a contemporary style of architecture, characterized by multi-story facades with tall parapet roof lines in a flat and gabled-roof application. Terra cotta S-tile is used on the sloped-roof parapets and on the tower elements. A centralized arched parapet roof line with large vertical massing provides balance and formality to the front elevations that would be visible to Garvey Avenue. A variety of flat and arched window lintels, round accent windows, and stepped cornice trims are used to break up the vertical massing of the building. The building elevations visible to the central courtyard provide substantial architectural relief, on all floor levels, in the form of covered walkways, numerous balconies, and rooftop gardens. The architectural elevation drawings show exterior finishes to include textured color-coat stucco (non-painted), smooth granite stone veneer, textured foam cornice, and decorative metal balcony railings. As conditioned, the front wall plane facing Garvey Avenue will incorporate recessed storefronts with a canvas awning. The roof line incorporates variation in height resulting from the tower elements, elevator shafts, and arched parapet walls. The exterior facades consist of "color coat" stucco finish in a "Doeskin" and "Creamed Butter" field tone with "terra cotta" and earth-toned accent colors on alternating wall planes- All the protruding supporting columns will be treated with "brown" granite stone veneer at the base, to extend six feet above the finished floor. The rear-facing elevations will continue the architectural treatment of the front facades, except for the ground floor which will have service doors and no windows. Neighborhood Character: The proposed development will be compatible with the existing commercial developments in the immediate vicinity of the site along both sides of Garvey Avenue, which has commercial buildings located near the street property line. The proposed project will introduce high-density residential uses to the traditionally commercial land uses, with sporadic mobile home/residential uses, along Garvey Avenue. This will bring human scale to the character of the neighborhood with the use of balconies, a pedestrian-friendly outdoor plaza with outdoor seating, landscaping, water feature, and a public art feature. In staff's opinion, there is a long-term viability for mixed use projects with high-density residential along the City's arterial streets as future residents will have pedestrian access to public transportation and neighborhood commercial uses, which altogether reduce dependency on the automobile. The subject site has access to public transportation via MTA bus lines, which will help reduce the dependency on the automobile for future residents. There are existing multiple-family residential uses 180 feet to the north of the site, and north of the McDonald's restaurant that will be impacted by the proposed four-story structure. However, the proposed 29-foot service driveway and the building setbacks will substantially mitigate the aesthetic imposition of the proposed structure. The proposed development is complementary to the surrounding uses and has a modern application of a traditional "new urbanism" concept. The central plaza is a major "place making" amenity that can result in a congregating area for the larger vicinity. Overall, staff finds that the addition of this development will increase property values and improve the general aesthetics of the neighborhood, while providing much needed multi-family housing, including twelve (12) affordable dwelling units, as well as commercial uses to serve the daily needs of the existing and future residents of Rosemead. 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 31 Site Plan Review The subject site is a 5.35-acre interior lot with 350 feet of frontage along Garvey Avenue and approximately 600 feet of lot depth. The proposed four story building will be larger and out of scale with the existing single story commercial buildings that currently adjoin the site. The proposed layout of the structure, set back substantially from the street will mitigate the massing of the structure that is when viewed from the adjoining properties. The largest horizontal massing of the building will occur on the east and north sides of the building. The existing McDonald's Restaurant and non-conforming residential uses on Prospect will be impacted by the new project. However, the proposed 29-foot setback will mitigate this impact. Additionally, it is expected that as the larger neighborhood redevelops, new conforming commercial uses will be introduced that will be more compatible with the type and intensity of the proposed project. The on-grade parking will be accessible from two, 2-way driveways along Garvey Avenue and the two ramps leading to subterranean parking will be accessible from this main parking lot. The circulation pattern for all parking areas is optimal as it allows for continuous traffic flow even if the parking stalls were to be parked at capacity. The site will have adequate drainage on site, and a sump pump will be used in order to adequately drain the subterranean parking structure. The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site plan shows a central courtyard as the main attraction to the project. All storefronts will directly front onto this courtyard. The main parking area that fronts on Garvey Avenue will be screened from view to the street with a low wall, 12 to 16 feet of landscaping and a sloped berm. Access to the residences is through six separate elevator shafts situated throughout the project site. The main lobby is proposed at the southernmost portion of the building, along the Garvey Avenue frontage. Staff will be recommending that a commercial storefront entry be created on the Garvey Avenue frontage, and that the entries be recessed a minimum of 24 inches. The basement plan shows storage rooms that can be used for individual compartments for use by residential occupants of the building. The site plan shows a total of four on-grade trash enclosures. However, as previously stated the plan does not provide convenient access to the trash bins for the proposed residences, and staff is recommending that two "trash chutes", accessible at every residential floor level, be provided for the condominium residents. The commercial tenants will have a 28-foot service driveway along the rear of every tenant space, which will have adequate space to provide the required loading areas for the businesses. Since the "future" Phase 2 development to the north will entail residential uses, staff is recommending that all loading and trash pickup be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily, to reduce noise impacts upon future residents to the north. Elevations The architecture consists of a contemporary vernacular with elements such as textured stucco, vertical columns with flat and arched cornice trims, round window and "square banding" accents, smooth granite stone veneer base trim, decorative metal balcony railings, and Terra Cotta S-tile roofing elements. The street-facing elevations provide both vertical and horizontal articulation by employing various parapet wall heights and cantilevered building elements to create interest. The focal point of the building is the arched parapet wall with vertical columns at the center of the storefront facades, which are oriented towards the center of the site. Staff is recommending that the storefronts facing Garvey Avenue be enhanced with recessed entries 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 18 of 31 and canvas awnings to enhance the pedestrian environment of the project along the public sidewalk. The building will be lined with vertical column "pop-outs" on all front, sides and rear of the building to provide variation. These columns create shadow lines and add interest to the elevations. Staff is recommending that all cornice trims along the top of the first story be constructed of pre-cast concrete. The cornice trim above the second, third, and fourth stories may be of stucco/foam construction. The colored renderings of the elevations are available with the Planning Division upon request and will be available for public view at the Planning Commission Meeting on November 5, 2007. Sign Program The applicant has not submitted details for wall signs, or freestanding signs for the proposed project. The elevation drawings show a rectangular horizontal frame above every storefront fagade that can be used for wall sign identification for each tenant space. This creates an attractive area for wall signs to be placed, above each of the storefront entries. Staff recommends that a comprehensive sign program be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. The sign program would restrict wall signs to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum lettering height of 12 inches, and maximum logo size of 18 inches. Mixed Use Design Guidelines On September 25, 2007 the Rosemead City Council adopted the Mixed Use Design Guidelines for the City, prepared by design firm Downtown Solutions. The Guidelines establish a new set of design criteria that architects and developers can use in the conceptual planning, and in the design detailing portion of the entitlement process. The adopted Guidelines, in conjunction with the anticipated General Plan updates and the City's Zoning Code regulations, will establish the City's new policies for mixed use development throughout the City. The proposed development was submitted, and had substantial progress through the City's review process, prior to the adoption of the Guidelines. However, the project has incorporated many of the concepts stipulated in the Guidelines in an attempt to conform to City policies. The following is a brief discussion of the project's compliance with the Guidelines. $2.1 Public Realm and the Pedestrian Environment The project will provide a seven-foot clear pedestrian path throughout the street frontage of the proposed development. However, most of the commercial storefronts will be set away from the public sidewalk and will be oriented towards an urban plaza that is the central focal point of the project. Most of the pedestrian environment in the public realm will consist of a landscaped berm screening the parking area. While this configuration is different that what is envisioned in the City's Guidelines, staff finds that this is an acceptable alternative design given the property's unique configuration and excessive lot depth. The covered walkways and substantial open space provided by the central courtyard will create a viable pedestrian environment. The front residential lobby and the side fagade of the southernmost commercial tenant space will be designed to create a pedestrian friendly design along the street frontage, as conditioned herein. Ornamental street trees with metal grates will be required in the public right-of-way. -f 2.2 Site Design The project's site layout will create a "street edge" along Garvey Avenue by placing a portion of the building adjacent to the street property line, consistent with the Guidelines- As conditioned, the project will provide a storefront along Garvey Avenue, and a residential lobby entrance, that 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 19 of 31 will both have a 24-inch recessed entry and will have a canvas awning to accentuate the human scale on the ground floor. §2.3A-B Bui/din_a Design The project provides active commercial use for the entire commercial building frontage, in the form of retail and restaurant uses, as encouraged by the Guidelines. Additionally, all residential uses are located on the upper floors. The fapade treatments are continuous on all elevations visible to the street and the arched parapet with vertical columns provides a strong focal point, as encouraged by the Guidelines. All entries to the storefronts will be from a central courtyard and will have a covered walkway in front of the buildings. ¢2.3C Buildin_a Elements While there is not a formal "modular bay" transition every 25 feet, the proposed building provides substantial architectural variation, wall plane relief through the use of vertical support columns, balconies, tower elements, and architectural projections. The upper floor windows correlate proportionally to the storefront windows. There is strong accentuation of a base, middle and top element to the facades with the use of stone veneers, sign bands, cornice trims, and decorative metal railing. All building entries are oriented towards the street, or the central courtyard and provide human scale for the streetscape, Additionally, the project proposes a variety of quality building materials including textured stucco, stone veneer, concrete tile roofing, and wood trellis structures in the courtyard and rooftop gardens. §2.4 Building Height The proposed buildings are four stories in height and the first story is over 14 feet in height, consistent with the Guidelines. Variations in building height and massing variation has been incorporated into all building elevations of the structures. §2.5 Storefront The proposed storefronts provide large windows, a bulkhead, and columns with stone veneer finish. The covered walkways in front of the businesses will provide enhanced architectural interest as viewed from the street. The commercial storefront side entry and the residential lobby facing Garvey Avenue will be recessed 24 inches in depth and will provide canvas awnings to provide shadow line modulation and human scale. §2.6 Lighting The plans submitted with this application do not specify any lighting fixtures or light standards in the parking areas. Staff has conditioned the project to require the applicant to submit a detailed lighting plan prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures stipulating that all high- pressure sodium (HIPS) outdoor light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. All future light poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. The developer shall be required to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual negative impacts to adjoining uses. §2.7 Common Areas/Open Space As previously indicated the project will provide a 23,033 square foot central courtyard that will provide an attractive open space amenity for the residents and the retail/restaurant users. The 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 20 of 31 courtyard area will serve as a congregation/lounging area for residents with outdoor seating, a water fountain, trellis covers and a public art feature. Additionally, there will be a 2,390 square foot "breezeway" that will create a pedestrian connection from the courtyard to the rear of the property, for the benefit of future residents of the "phase 2" portion of the project. -42.8 Compatibility with Adjoining Properties The project will be larger in scale and massing than the existing commercial buildings along this portion of Garvey Avenue. However, since a majority of the building will be set back away from the street, this will mitigate the project's massing as viewed from the street and will be more compatible with the existing low-profile buildings in the vicinity. §2.9 Parking and .42.10 Access The proposed parking and circulation plan will provide for adequate parking with safe maneuvering throughout all portions of the vehicular area. There is adequate access in the form of two driveways, two subterranean parking ramps, and a service driveway into the rear of the property. The placement of parking to the side and partial front of the building is not entirely in keeping with the Guidelines. However, this will be mitigated with the use of landscaped planters with berming and a low masonry wall. The project will continue the "street edge" along Garvey Avenue and places the architectural features on the street, with parking as a secondary feature, in order to maximize the street appeal. Conclusion: Staff believes that the proposed mixed use project will bring a substantial investment to the vicinity and will improve existing site conditions which have had an under-utilized site that is partially vacant and includes a non-conforming mobile home park use that is in need of reconstruction. The project will create jobs for long-term construction, and future retail sales and restaurant employees that will benefit Rosemead residents. Additionally, the project will revitalize this sector of Garvey Avenue and will bring affordable housing opportunities to Rosemead. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On October 19, 2007 written notices of this public hearing were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and eight (8) notices were posted in designated public places and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Prepared by: George Agaba Senior Planner Submitted by: Matt Everling City Planner Attachments: A. Conditions of Approval B. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans C. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program D. Assessor's Parcel Map E. Zoning Map F. General Plan Map 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 21 of 31 G. Applications H. PC Resolution 07-52 • • • 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 22 of 31 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044 Mixed Use Development 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue (APN's: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018, and 023) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 5, 2007 General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Conditional Use Permit 07- 1090, Planned Development Review 07-01 and Tentative Tract Map 070044 are approved for the construction of 59,180 square feet of commercial retail/ restaurant space, and 127 attached dwelling units totaling 144,122 square feet of floor area to be located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue. The project shall be developed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "B," dated October 25, 2007 along with the submitted colored elevations and color material dated October 31, 2007. The proposed Zone Change 07-225 and General Plan Amendment 07-02 shall include 1.67-acre remainder parcel currently used as a mobile home park site. Any revision to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all conditions of approval including mitigation measures as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 3. General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Conditional Use Permit 07- 1090, Planned Development Review 07-01 and Tentative Tract Map are approved to develop a mixed use project within two-years from the City Council's approval date. The Applicant shall request an extension within 30-calendar days prior to expiration of the initial two-year approval period. Otherwise General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 05-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01 and Tentative Tract Map 070044 shall become null and void. 4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved project including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 5. The City Staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress and after construction to monitor compliance. 6. The Planning Commission and/or City Council hereby authorize the Planning Division to make or approve necessary minor modification to the approved plans related to this project. 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, all school fees and other applicable fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of payment of such 0 0 0 i Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 23 of 31 fees. 8. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 9. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 10. Prior to issuance of any building permit related to this project, the developer/applicant shall prepare Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) or other similar recorded instrument indicating how and who will maintain proposed common areas. The CC&Rs shall be prepared by the developer/applicant and approved by the City Attorney and shall include the following statements: "This statement is intended to notify all prospective property owners of certain limitations on construction to residential dwellings contained in this planned development project. All buildings within this project were designed and approved under a precise plan, planned development (PD) concept. As a result, some of the project lots and yard areas are smaller than would ordinarily be allowed under the development standards contained in the Rosemead Zoning Code. Purchasers of project dwelling units are hereby notified that they will not gain City approval for any expansion such as room additions, patio enclosures, etc. Any necessary modifications or additions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and approved or denied by the Community Development Director or his/her designee at his/her discretion". The CC&Rs will cover all aspects of property maintenance of the common areas, including but no limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, open space and recreational areas. 11. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipments, debris or travel trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained within City approved trash enclosures. All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. The proposed trash enclosure structure shall be built with solid roof and provided with the same architectural elements as the main building including decorative cornices, decorative trims and contrasting fagade color. 12. All commercial loading activities and trash pickup for the mixed use project shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. 13. The applicant shall provide the pedestrian plaza with two shade structures consisting of all-weather compliant screening material. 14. The project site shall be maintained in a clean, weed/litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and debris. It shall be the responsibility of the subject property owner to remove any new litter and graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 15. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of inches, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division. 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 24 of 31 16. The parking space markers, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- striped including double-striping periodically to meet ADA and City standards as determined by the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 17. The applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 18. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC&Rs prior to issuance of any building permit. 19. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment attached to the sides of the buildings. 20. During construction of Phase 1, the applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Division to ensure that access to the existing mobile home park is not impeded in any way. Final construction plans submitted to the City for approval shall indicate access to the mobile home park during construction. 21. The proposed development shall consist of one phase. This proposal is approved as PHASE 1 for development of a mixed use project as shown on the approved plans. During construction of the proposed mixed use project, the developer shall not disrupt or relocate the existing mobile home park. Future development of the northern parcel will require separate entitlements and environmental analysis, including a mobile home park relocation plan to be prepared and approved by the City of Rosemead per CEQA guidelines. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer/applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 23. During site grading, the sites shall be watered at least twice a day to eliminate fugitive dust. 24. Construction vehicle speed shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour in construction zones. 25. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage. Wall signs shall be restricted to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum height of 12 inches, with logos up to 18 inches in height. All wall signs shall be placed flat against the wall, within the 18-inch horizontal band on the upper portion of the storefront. 0 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 25 of 31 26. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete cement as shown on Exhibit "B"; and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition. 27. All areas shown as decorative paving at the project entries shall include decorative inter- locking pavers to enhance pedestrian walkways and to add aesthetic value to the subject site. The applicant shall extend decorative inter-locking pavers along the primary entrances 25 feet from the street property line towards the north, as shown on the submitted plans. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit cut sheets/brochures to the Planning Division showing colors and materials for approval. The planning Division shall make a final decision on what colors and materials to be used before installation of said pavers. 28. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 29. The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. Ornamental 48"-Box Street trees shall be planted along Garvey Avenue with tree wells and decorative tree grates. The species of street trees shall be determined by the Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation Department. Landscaped planter areas in front of the storefront windows shall be minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area in order to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment along the storefronts. 30. Prior to the submittal of construction drawings, the applicant or successor in interest shall submit proof of a recorded easement for ingress and easement, or a prescriptive easement, with the adjoining neighbor to the east, over the southerly 265 feet of the eastern property line. Absence of a recorded easement, or other instrument satisfactory to the City Engineer for the shared driveway, will require an adjustment to building pads to comply with minimum on-site driveway width requirements of the Fire Department. 31. The applicant shall include provisions in the CC & R's to provide maintenance of the basement parking structure, all building improvements, on-grade parking and landscaping, maintenance of the rear service driveway, and maintenance of the shared driveway area along the eastern property line, in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Division, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City Attorney, will be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for low income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915. In addition, in an effort to respond to the needs of City residents before nonresidents and to provide affordable housing, the applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead residents priority in obtaining an affordable unit. 0 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 26 of 31 33. The southern-most commercial tenant space abutting Garvey Avenue shall be redesigned to incorporate a storefront entry along the Garvey Avenue frontage. The commercial entry and the residential lobby entry directly facing Garvey Avenue shall be recessed a minimum of 24 inches. All storefront windows facing Garvey Avenue shall be shaded using a canvas awning, in a color to match the proposed color schemes. 34. A minimum of two trash chutes shall be provided on the second, third, and fourth floors, in centralized locations accessible to the proposed residential condominium units. All trash chutes shall be designed to gather trash on the ground floor, or in the basement level of the subterranean parking structure. The subdivider shall include provisions in the CC & R's to require regular trash pickup service at least once a week for the residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant space trash bins. 35. All cornice trims along the top of the first story of the buildings shall be precast concrete, painted to match the window trims. 36. As part of the first phase of construction, a temporary 8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall shall be constructed along the northern boundary line/property line of Phase 1, except in the shared driveway easement areas, for the purposes of sound attenuation, privacy, and dust control. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a temporary wall detail to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. All construction activities shall avoid damage to the existing improvements within the adjoining mobile home park. The applicant shall cause the wall to be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. 37. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans showing a workstation and half-bathroom within the main residential lobby area for use by a parking monitor/security guard employee. 38. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a comprehensive Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Division or designee. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC & R's and shall be enforced by the property owners association. Said Parking Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: . Assigned parking for each residence. • Designated parking for customers and employees. . Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking. • Funding mechanism for staffing of a 24-hour parking monitor/security guard. • Funding mechanism for maintenance of a workstation with half-bath for the parking monitor/security guard. Every homeowner shall be allowed to keep up to two (2) vehicles on the premises. The parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Employee parking shall be restricted to the subterranean parking structure. 39. All off-street parking shall be designed as shown on the plans submitted with this application. A maximum of 29% compact parking may be used for the overall parking 0 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 27 of 31 areas. Protective curbing shall be used along the edges of the driveway ramps leading into the basement areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Division. 40. The conditional use permit is granted or approved with the City of Rosemead and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit-including the conditions of approval--based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on this conditional use permit. 41. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the planning commission and/or city council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. Mitigation Measure Conditions: 42. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Planning Division review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HPS) outdoor light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. 43. All proposed lighting for the exterior of the project shall be directed away from adjacent residential and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on addressing the northeast exterior of the property adjacent to residential uses. The developer shall be required to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual negative impacts to residents to the north. 44. Heavy truck hauls shall be limited to no more than 97 on any given day. 45. A log shall be kept at the site denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during soil hauling activities. The log shall be available for City of Rosemead inspection. 46. Regarding paints and coatings, all primers and top coats shall average to no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (102 gram/liter) of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). 47. The applicant shall abide by any other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead and/or the Southern California Air Quality Management District. 48. Monitoring during excavation shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If paleontological resources are uncovered during site excavation, the developer must notify the City of Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of Engineering immediately and work must stop within a 100-foot radius until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project 0 0 i i Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 28 of 31 sites. If the find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a unique paleontological resource, as defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find is determined not t be a unique paleontological resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue. 49. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City Building Official. That investigation, as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that, when implemented will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures. 50. Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for asbestos certification. If asbestos is found, contractor recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition. 51. Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is found, contractor recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition. 52. At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction. 53. South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28. These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. 54. All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g. electrical conduits, HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. 55. All residential units within 307 feet and ally commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. 56. In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. 57. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. • • 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 29 of 31 58. All construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped. 59. The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off of the power grid where feasible. (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible). 60. To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the property. 61. The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as on-site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents. 62_ Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning Division. 63. At the time of developing phase 2 mitigations shall include compliance with Section B of the Mecky Meyers and Associates, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project, dated June 2006. The applicant shall provide each mobile home household with $8,000 in relocation benefits, in addition to the purchase of each mobile home at Fair Market Value as determine by a State licensed appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced persons upon submission of required claim forms and documentation regarding the rental or purchase of decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing. 64. For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, the applicant shall participate in the fair-share funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This signal is warranted under existing traffic conditions. 65. For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the applicant shall participate in fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025 conditions. 66. For the project access driveways, the applicant shall provide funding for the re-striping of the existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways. 67. The applicant shall provide funds to install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access driveways. 68. During all construction operations the applicant shall ensure, to the City of Rosemead's satisfaction, that flagmen will be used to control traffic because large trucks have a wider turning radius and will require turns across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress from the site. 69. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for City 0 0 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 30 of 31 Planning Division review and acceptance, a construction debris reduction/recycling plan designed to minimize the volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal and incorporating measures for the separation and short-term on-site storage of construction waste materials in a manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion efforts. The plan shall include a fire component so that reclamation activities are conducted in a fire safe manner. 70. CITY ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS 71. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 72. A final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 73. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 74. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. 75. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be refunded upon receipt of the mylar copy of the filed map. 76. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Rosemead Municipal Code. 77. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 78. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. 79. Developer shall submit condominium plan to City for approval. 80. Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for approval. 81. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easement 0 0 0 w Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 31 of 31 82. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement 83. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement 84. Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance and SUSMP requirements. 85. CC&Rs shall provide for maintenance of the private driveways and parking areas. 86. Four (4) existing drive approaches on Garvey Avenue shall be closed with full curb, gutter and sidewalk. 87. Existing tree wells and trees removed due to construction of new driveways shall be relocated to match existing tree wells and landscaping on Garvey Avenue. New tree wells shall be evenly spaced, planted with 24-inch box trees, and furnished with an irrigation system that is consistent with the City's Landscape & Irrigation Plans for Garvey Avenue. 88. Sewer mainline and laterals shall be privately maintained. Sewers shall be sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. 89. Power, telephone and cable television service shall be underground where feasible. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 90. Prior to the filling of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City. Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating compliance with the fire Chief's fire flow requirements. 0 0 0 MAYOR: JOHN TRAN MAYOR PRO TEM: JOHN NUNEZ COUNCILMEMBERS: MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A, TAYLOR Ppsemc 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 AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD NOVEMBER 5, 2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Rosemead has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the City of Rosemead Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed Park Monterey mixed use project on November 5, 2007 at 7:00 PM, at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead: CASE NO.: GPA 07-02, CUP 07-1090 PDR 07-01 ZC 07-225 and Tentative Tract Map for Condominiums Purposes - The City of Rosemead (hereafter referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an Initial Study (IS) of the proposed Park Monterey Mixed Use Project to be located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue (north of Garvey Avenue, approximately 300 feet east of New Avenue) in the city of Rosemead, California. The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Rosemead requesting approval to develop a mixed use project consisting of 127attached condominium units and 59,230 square feet of retail/restaurant space along with subterranean parking. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the proposed 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 the proposed mitigation measures aimed at addressing the project's potential significant effects and has therefore, prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Division located at 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead, CA 91770, for public review. Any person wishing to comment on the adequacy of the IS/MND must submit such comments, in writing, to the City of Rosemead Planning Division, Attn: George Agaba, Senior Planner. Comments must be received within 20-calender days from October 15, 2007 to November 4, 2007. The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the IS/MND at its regular meeting on November 5, 2007 at 7:OOpm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. If the Planning Commission finds that with the incorporated mitigation measures, the proposed mixed use project will not have a significant effect on the environment; it may recommend the MND to be adopted and the proposed Mixed Use Project to be approved by the City Council. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the proposed Mixed Use Project to be located at 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing date. ORIGINAL FILED George Agaba Senior Planner OCT 15 2007 LO$ANUELE6, COUNTY CLERK EXHIBIT C f '~w • r,. it . ~ tick i rs~t. • E INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION for PARK MONTEREY Mixed Use Project Project location: 7419 - 7459 Garvey Avenue Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA Lead Agency: City of Rosemead Planning Division 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770. Phone (626) 569-2140 Contact: George Agaba, Senior Planner Project Applicant: Patrick Yang 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A San Gabriel, CA Architect: Michael Sun 529 E. Valley Blvd., 228-A San Gabriel, CA Case# PD-R 07-01 General Plan Amendment 07-02 Zone Change 07-225 Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 Prepared by: Comprehensive Planning Services P.O. Box 15592 Newport Beach, CA 92659 tel: 949-650-3206; fax: 944-548-6981; email: joann(ii.jalcps.com Contact: Joann Lombardo Date: October 11, 2007 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE Pursuant to Sections 15050 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the City of Rosemead is the Lead Agency in preparation of the Initial Study, and any additional environmental documentation required for this project. Therefore, the City of Rosemead has prepared this initial study/mitigated negative declaration as a lead agency for the purpose of identifying and evaluating potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of developing the proposed Park Monterey mixed use commercial and residential project. It is the intent of this environmental document to address, to the extent possible, potential significant environmental impacts that could be expected from this project and identification of mitigation measures where applicable. This initial study will serve to identify and evaluate environmental effects determine to be potentially significant and the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare and adopt applicable environmental document such as Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report in compliance with CEQA guidelines. The initial study will also provide the basis for input from members of the public and public agencies. The initial study includes an environmental checklist that gives an overview of possible potential impacts to the environment that may result from the project implementation as well as answers contained in the environmental checklist providing justification for the provided environmental issues addressed in the environmental checklist. 1.2 LOCATION The proposed project encompasses a 3.68-acre site located at 7419 - 7459 Garvey Avenue in the City of Rosemead. The site is bordered to the south by Garvey Avenue and is located between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The site is located approximately 2.0 miles west of the Rio Hondo River, within the Repetto Hills at approximately 350 feet above mean sea level. Refer to Figure L I Location Map. The site is located in a residential area with commercial structures located along the major roadways within the vicinity of the site. The site is currently occupied by vacant land, two of mobile homes, one mobile home pad, and a commercial structure. The vacant land is located on the southwestern portion and the central and northern areas of Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 1 of 91 1 City of Rosemead Planned Development 907-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description the site. Photographs of the existing setting of the site are presented in Figure 1.2 Site Photographs. E Glendon way W Saxon Ave Erri ~ a f A p t Z Whitmore St a g3 Monterey Park E Garvey Ave Garvey AW D a n E Edgely Dr D a E Newmark Ave n T A p V .o L ;C A LA ng Ave n < i a dye ry a ~ ro y E Graves Ave Graves Ave f E Mooney Dr Gar wey Re6e161001 1 Park St South mark Ave ve 4' ka r9 Q a F~ ~ Rush ~ Lake Knoll Dr Figure 1.1 Location Map Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 2 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description West end of site, viewed from south side of Garvey Avenue looking north. Site mobile homes (on right), adjacent Rent A Tool (on left). West and central portion of site, viewed from south side of Garvey Avenue looking north. Site mobile homes (on left), site vacant site area (on right). Central and east end of site, viewed from south side of Garvey Avenue looking north. Site vacant area (on left), Bravo Travel (on right). Figure 1.2 Site Photographs (I of 3) Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 3 of 91 0 . • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 11 I.si i y JIN 7! x East end of site viewed from south side of Garvey Avenue looking north at Bravo Travel. East end of site viewed from south side of Garvey Avenue looking north. Bravo Travel (on left), adjacent McDonald's (on right). View onsite, looking south toward Garvey Avenue. Bravo Travel (on left), vacant site area (on right). Figure 1.2 Site Photographs (2 of 3) Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 4 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change 007-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 A aLlkl r View onsite, looking southwest toward Garvey Avenue. Site mobile homes (on right). View onsite, looking north toward adjacent mobile homes. View onsite, looking northeast toward rear of McDonald's parking and adjacent residential area. Figure 1.2 Site Photographs (2 of 3) Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Pape 5 of 91 I Cityof Rosemead 0 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 The subject property is currently known as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 5286-020- 017 and 018 per Los Angeles County Assessor's current tax roll. The southern portion of the site is zoned "C3" for Medium Commercial usage, and the northern portions of the site are zoned "P" for short-term automobile parking. I 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION On March 26, 2007, Mr. Patrick Yang (Applicant) submitted Planned Development #07- 01, General Plan Amendment #07-02, Zone Change #07-225 and a Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 application requesting approval to develop a mixed use development in the City of Rosemead. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission may recommend for approval to the City Council the proposed Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications. The General Plan and Zone Changes will require approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the site from commercial to mixed use commercial/residential and a proposed zone change from C-3 (General Commercial) to zone change to Planned Development (PD). These changes would permit construction of the mixed use project, which is proposed as a mix of restaurant, retail, and residential condominium uses. Construction is anticipated in 2008. The proposed Park Monterey project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of Garvey Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of Rosemead. The planned development would be located on 160,434 square feet (3.68 acres). The proposed project consists of a four-story structure comprised of 59,230 square feet of the proposed mixed restaurant and retail space at ground level and 127 residential condominium units on three upper levels. Access to the proposed project will be provided via three driveways along Garvey Avenue. The project is intended as the first phase of a two phase development. Phase two is expected to consist of approximately 29 condominium units to be located on the 1.67 acre site, immediately north of the project site. The phase two site is currently occupied by a mobile home park, currently owned by the Applicant. During project construction, the Applicant plans to demolish and remove the adjoining mobile homes, after which, that site will be used for construction staging for the Park Monterey project, particularly during excavation of the parking structure. Clearing of the adjoining mobile home park is considered part of the Park Monterey project. However, plans for the phase two development on the 1.67 acre mobile home park site are preliminary only; no detailed plans describing site and building development and design have been submitted to the City. Therefore, the phase two component is not part of the Park Monterey project, and will be subject to a separate CEQA review. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 6 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Restaurant and Retail Use Of the 59,230 square feet of proposed mixed restaurant and retail space, 17,830 square feet is proposed restaurant space and 41,400 square feet is proposed as retail space. This commercial space is proposed at ground level. The ground-level site plan is shown as Figure 1.3. Except for a 29-foot wide access roadway, the restaurant and retail spaces would align the eastern and northern borders of the property. Thirteen rectangular retail spaces would range from 1,340 square feet up to 13,870 square feet of useable space. Two rectangular restaurant spaces would be 4,860 and 6,310 square feet. The restaurant spaces are larger (3,890 to 13,870 square feet) retail spaces would align the northern end of the property. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 7 of 91 [I t i t t t t t • City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description t~ t~ ~ P r; i t + . c P 711 1 . ~ F n ~ a ~ Figure 1.3 Ground-Level Site Plan Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 8 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 i ~ initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description Residential Use The residential portion of the project is planned as a 3-story structure, to be built above the ground level restaurant and retail spaces. Proposed are 127 residential condominiums, comprised of 30 one-bedroom, 94 two-bedroom, and 6 three-bedroom units are planned. The breakdown of number units by type, square footage, and number of units by floor is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONFIGURATION # Bedrooms 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Total lVI)e A B C D E F Square Feet 855 1,205 1,355 1,205 1,660 1,388 Second Floor 10 26 3 2 1 1 43 Third Floor 10 26 3 2 1 1 43 Fourth Floor 10 26 2 1 1 1 41 Total Units 30 78 11 5 3 3 127 Total Floor Area (square feet) 25,650 93,990 10,840 6,025 4,980 4,164 145,649 The second floor site plan is shown in Figure 1.4. Access and Parking Access to the site would be from three 29-foot wide driveways along Garvey Avenue. The east driveway would provide delivery access to the backs of the restaurant and retail spaces, and would meet the west driveway, providing access along all property borders. The middle and west driveways would provide access to the parking areas, including the ramps to two basement parking levels. The west driveway would restrict left-turns exiting the site, the center driveway would provide right-turn in/right-turn out access only. and the east driveway would provide full access. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 9 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 I I t?s7 ['fr ~ it ~ a i, `r lop K F a .r r - ` f yhI '.C' 0 LIP i I' r~ I Figure 1.4 Second Floor Residential Site Platt Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 10 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mittgated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 The project proposes to provide 662 parking spaces at ground level and within a two- level subterranean parking structure. Ground level parking would be in front of the restaurant and retail spaces. The proposed parking breakdown is shown in Table 2: Table 2 PROPOSED PARKING CONFIGURATION Surface Parkin 45 39 0 84 Basement 1 201 78 8 287 Basement 2 205 78 8 291 Total 451 195 16 662 Of the 662 parking spaces, 254 will be reserved exclusively for the residents, and the remainder will be used in common for the resident guests, retail and restaurant uses. A shared parking concept is proposed that assumes some portion of the residents will use the restaurant and retail shops within the site, and consequently, sufficient parking would be available for multiple uses. Adequacy of the proposed parking arrangement is discussed in Appendix D, Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering Group (August 15, 2007), and summarized in Section 15. f) of this Initial Study. The first level subterranean parking is shown in Figure 1.5. Ornamental landscaping of trees of shrubs will border the frontages to the street-level retail establishments and parking. Two plaza areas would be provided; one that would front Garvey Avenue, and the second that would front the retail establishments along the northeast corner of the property. Height The building height is proposed at 50 feet, with the height of the tallest decorative tower roof line proposed at 61 feet. See Figures 1.6 and 1.7 Elevations. Architecture The Architecture will be a contemporary blend of individual-appearing 4-story buildings separated by vertical flat columns, enhanced by treatments including arched and inverted "V" roofline accents, arched windows, and various size balconies. The roof will be Aztec gold terra-cotta tile, and the stucco paint colors will be warm earth tones of doeskin, creamed butter, western red, Sonora shade, garnet, cashew not, with carnelian granite accenting the first floor restaurant retail doors and windows. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 11 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Construction The Applicant owns the adjoining unit mobile home park immediately north of the project site. During project site clearing and demolition, the Applicant plans to demolish and remove the adjoining mobile homes, after which, that site will be used for construction staging for the Park Monterey project construction, in particular, during excavation of the subterranean parking structure. Clearing of the adjoining mobile home park is considered part of the Park Monterey project. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 12 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Introduction/ Project Description I r 1 I . I - 1 r IFIFIITI~ H' a . i I I; JAL 7-777- F~ i P Figure 1.5 Subterranean Parking Plan Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 13 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 ~ I I I I I ~ an ~ i l Ii - j P i I I I I I ~ j l l ~ - _ - I j l I I I I i ,i I I ~ 1 v I •I P I I F J a r al;a: ~tavr t ~ F I k ,I _ r F1 I IB _ j - I I aj81 - ,t99L_ o I I ~I I Ih j 7 f ~ ` I i I V A4~ I ± if M. Fieure 1.6 West and South Site Elevations Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 14 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Figure 1.7 North and East Site Elevations Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 15 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment 007-02 Introduction/ Project Description Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 1.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead and all other responsible, trustee or regulatory agencies to evaluate the project's potential environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce any possible impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Public Resources Code and California Code of Regulations) Section § 21000 - 21177. Additionally, in order to implement this project, City of Rosemead Planning Commission may recommend for approval to the City Council the Planned Development 9 07-01, General Plan Amendment #07-02, Zone Change #07-225, and Conditional Use Permit 07-1090 applications. The decision shall be based partly on the findings of this initial study, which will provide a basis for the City Council to make the environmental determination and reach a final decision. Park Monterey N City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Existing Setting 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project site and surrounding property General Plan and Zoning designations, and existing land uses are as follows: General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use Site Commercial C3 Vacant on SW, central and northern areas; commercial building on SE North Medium Density Residential C3 Mobile homes South Commercial C3 Commercial uses East Commercial C3 Commercial uses West Commercial C3 Commercial uses The project site lies on the southwest side of the City of Rosemead, almost bordering the City of Monterey Park. Currently, the site is occupied by vacant land located on the southwestern portion and most central area of the site. Two mobile homes and a mobile home pad are located on the southwestern portion of the site. A small commercial structure is located in the southeastern corner of the site. An existing mobile home park is located immediately north of the project site. The immediate neighborhood is residential developed with single family and some multi-family homes. Commercial uses front Garvey Avenue, as well as the areas other major streets including New Avenue to the west and Prospect Avenue to the east. The City of Rosemead is a suburb town within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east of down town Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by Temple City, on the west by the City of San Gabriel and City of Monterey Park, County of Los Angeles, on the south by the City of Montebello and on the east by the City of El Monte. The City of Rosemead is approximately 5.5 sIuare miles in size with a residential population of approximately 57,425 as of 2007. Residential development represents 64 percent of the total City land area, public facilities occupy 14 percent, commercial development ' Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: httpJidofca.2ov/11'1'MUDE:b90GRAP Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 17 of 91 lnitiaP Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead 0 11 Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Existing Setting Zone Change #07-125 Conditional Use Permit #1090 occupies 9 percent, mixed commercial/residential uses occupy 7 percent, and light industrial/office occupies 6 percent. The adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines are directed exclusively at Mixed Use land use districts.2 At a later date, the City will be updating the zoning ordinance to regulate mixed use projects, including required parking ratios, minimum unit sizes, open space, maximum density requirements and various other development standards required for more specificity of development standards. z hM:,/,,vww citvofrosemead.or@1Portals%0/rosemead mixed-use DG-sml.Nt' Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 18 of 91 • 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Existing Setting Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed mixed use project would not result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ 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/Serv ices Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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. George Agaba, Senior Planner Signed Date Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 19 of 91 • City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Parts Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required- 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats, however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 21 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change 907-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 1. Aesthetics t W ld h o t e projec : u a) Ilave a substantial adverse eftect on a scenic ❑ ❑ 0 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ® ❑ ❑ views in the area? 1. AESTHETICS a) No impact. The site is located within a highly developed urban setting characterized by commercial low-rise (up to four stories) structures along major streets, and single and multi- family residential uses along the minor streets. The predominant scenic vista near the proposed project location is located north of the project site and environs which contains foothills and high mountains of the San Gabriel Range (Transverse Ranges), encompassed by the Angeles National Forest, north of City of Pasadena. However, the site is approximately 8.5 miles south of the National Forest boundary, and the mountains are primarily visible in the distance from exterior locations, such as north-south oriented streets, large parks, or north-facing upper stories of buildings. The opportunity for viewing the mountains from inside the single-story buildings west and south of the project site is already limited by existing roof lines, trees over 10 feet high, existing buildings and other built environment even before construction of the proposed structure. Therefore, the proposed building will not alter or further limit views from surrounding properties to the mountains. Public views would be largely unaffected, because mountain views would still be available from streets such as New Avenue and Del Mar Avenue facing north. Consequently, the proposed project will not affect scenic vistas. b) No impact. The proposed project will not affect any scenic resources, as there are no known scenic recourses on site or within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located on or near a state-designated or eligible scenic highway'. Furthermore, the site 7 see http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/L.andArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, last accessed August 23, 2007. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 22 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 contains no listed or otherwise designated historic or scenic resources. Consequently, the proposed project will not affect scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. e) No Impact. The proposed project site is currently primarily vacant, with two mobile homes and a commercial structure. The site will be a contemporary blend of individual-appearing 4- story buildings separated by vertical flat columns, enhanced by treatments including arched and inverted "V" roofline accents, arched windows, and various size balconies. The roof will be Aztec gold terra-cotta tile, and the stucco paint colors will be warm earth tones of doeskin, creamed butter, western red, Sonora shade, garnet, cashew not, with carnelian granite accenting the first floor restaurant retail doors and windows. The structure will be set back from the street with a plaza area along Garvey and some parking in front of the ground-level establishments. Most parking will be via two subterranean levels, and thus not visible. Ornamental landscaping will enhance the appearance of the structure. The proposed project will utilize materials and design that will blend in with the existing commercial uses along Garvey Avenue. The project will provide a beneficial improvement of the existing degraded character of the project site. As such, the project will not degrade the visual character of the site or the surroundings properties. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project may create a new source of light because along with night lighting for the restaurant and retail establishments along the ground level, there will be lighting associated with the second through fourth floors of residential units. Exterior lighting is proposed for the building fagades and the exterior parking lot. Although, the proposed development will introduce new lighting at the exterior of the buildings and in the parking lot, the lighting is minimal and less than significant not to create a new source of light and glare to the surrounding properties or affect day and nighttime views, since most of the lighting will face Garvey Avenue. The existing mobile homes to the north will be demolished as part of the site preparation for the proposed project. Existing residential uses to the northeast will be subject to an increase in lighting from the four-story structure, resulting in a potentially significant impact. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 are recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to visual resources to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measures: AES-1: Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Planning Division review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HPS) out door light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 23 of 91 1 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 direct light in such a manner that no light spills over to adjacent properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. AES-2: All proposed lighting for the exterior of the project shall be directed away from adjacent residential and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on addressing the northeast exterior of the property adjacent to residential uses. The developer shall be required to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual negative impacts to residents to the north. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential adverse impacts from the proposed project relative to the above-listed aesthetic issues are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Agricultural 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 0 ❑ L E Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a - c) No impact. There are no known agricultural resources present at this subject site area or adjacent to the project site. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses and the City does not participate in the Williamson Act, the entire City is almost built out. Therefore, this project would not affect any agricultural resources. The city is highly urbanized and all properties zoned for agriculture are not currently utilized for farmland purposes. Such Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 24 of 91 11 properties consist of open spaces, vacant lots, parkland, nurseries and school grounds. The proposed project will not create potential impacts to agricultural resources on the subject property or within the vicinity. 3. AIR QUALITY An air quality technical report (Air Quality Report) was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix A. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Focused Air Quality Analysis, by Synectecology Consulting (.September 2007l-' No Impact. The City of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). City of Rosemead 0 Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3. Air Quality {there mailable, the sigttiftcance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to snake the following determinations . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ® ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? - e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Init• tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean a Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Air Quality Analysis. September 2007. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 25 of 91 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Parts Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve the standards. The SCAQMD prepares the basin's air quality management plans with technical and policy inputs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), updating the plans every three years. The most recently plan is the 2007 Draft AQMP. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed project represents the construction and occupancy of a mixed use development in the City of Rosemead. The project would not involve growth-inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, with the included mitigation discussed below, the project would not create either short- or long-term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. b) Less than Significant Impact. CEQA inquires as to whether a project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. A violation could occur over the short-term during project construction, or over the long-term during its subsequent operation. Each is addressed below. Short-Term Localized Impacts Project construction raises localized ambient pollutant concentrations. Construction air quality impacts are considered significant if they exceed any of the following thresholds that have been established by SCAQMD to measure construction emissions. Each of the thresholds represents a daily maximum of acceptable pollutant emissions during the construction periods: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day for PM,o • 55 pounds per day for PM,,5 • 55 pounds per day of PM, .5 • 150 pounds per day of SOx s ROG (reactive organic gases); NOx (oxides of nitrogen); CO (carbon monoxide); PM-10 (respirable 10-micron diameter particulate matter); PM-25 (respirable 2.5-micron diameter particulate matter. SOx (oxides of sulfur). Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 26 of 91 City of Rosemead 40 Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation The potential for this construction air quality impacts are measured through dispersion modeling performed in accordance with the SCAQMD criteria. The modeling measures peak daily emissions for CO, NOx, PMuo, and PM2.5 to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the project vicinity. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Methodology).' In accordance with the Methodology, dispersion modeling is only to include exhaust and dust emissions associated with those pieces of equipment that actually operate on-site and omits vehicle trips that are distributed over a large area. In the Methodology, the SCAQMD notes receptor locations as "off-site locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas; and any other areas where persons can be situated for an hour or longer at a time." Because the project area is urbanized with numerous nearby receptors, the recommended SCAQMD worst-case default distance of 25 meters was used for this analysis. Table 3 presents the State Ambient Air Quality Standards for daily on-site construction emissions, and a determination of the project's expected compliance with these standards. Note that all emissions concentrations are well within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Table 3 LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CONCENTRATIONS' Distance CO (I-Hr Conc.)' C0(8-11r conc.), N02(1-Hr Conc. PM,o (24-Hr Conc. PM2., (2a-Hr Conc. State Ambient Air 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm 10.4 µghn 3 10.4 µg/m Quality Standard Exceeds Standard? No No No No No CO and NO, are in parts per million (ppm), PM,o and PM2,5 are in milligrams per meter cubed (µg/m". 2 Includes a background concentration of 5 ppm. Includes a background concentration of 3.6 ppm. 4 Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm. Long-Term Localized Impacts Long-term effects of the project could also be significant if they exceed the State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Long-term or operational project emissions are caused by project building heating and electrical systems and vehicular traffic traveling to and from the project site. These air quality impacts are considered significant if they exceed any of the following 6 South Coast Air Qualitv Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold kblelhodolgg , June 2003. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 27 of 91 • 0 City of Rosemead Initial StudyAWitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 thresholds that have been established by SCAQMD to measure long-term or operational emissions. Each of the thresholds represents a daily maximum of acceptable pollutant emissions: a 55 pounds per day of ROG • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PM1o • 55 pounds per day of PM-, 5 • 150 pounds per day of Sox Unlike construction equipment that generates exhaust and dust in a set area, the primary source of emissions from project operations is due to the addition of vehicles on the roadway system. These emissions are then spread over a vast area and do not result in localized concentrations in proximity to the project site. As such, localized modeling for the project operations is not prepared for residential or limited commercial development. Because CO is the criteria pollutant that is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, long-term adherence to Ambient Air Quality Standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. These pockets of CO have the potential to exceed the State ambient air quality 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Typically for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) D or worse. Table 4 presents those intersections in the project area that meet or exceed LOS D and would receive project-related traffic. To demonstrate the potential for hot spots, CALINE4 modeling was performed using the procedures outlined in the Caltrans' Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Intersection movements are based on data included in the Traffic Study (Appendix D) and include ambient growth, the project, and the related projects. Modeling was performed using year 2009 traffic volumes and emission factors. As a reasonable worst-case, the analysis assumes the retention of the existing intersection alignments and does not consider those measures outlined in the traffic analysis to improve traffic flow through the project area. Note that all predicted values are below the State's I and 8-hour standards and any potential impact is less than Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 28 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 significant. Therefore, the project would not have a long-term significant impact on local air quality or result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unhealthful concentrations of CO. Modeling methodology and output are included in the Air Quality Report. Table 4 New a7 Hellman (a.m.) D 2,566 5.6 4.0 New Garvey (a.m.) D 4,013 5.8 4.2 Del Mar r Garvey (.m. E 4,777 5.9 4.2 CAAQS 20 9.0 Exceeds Standard? No No i As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value. CO values include background concentrations of 5.0 and 3.6 ppm for I- and 8-hour concentrations. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence factor of 0.7 of the 1-hour concentration. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. CEQA inquires as to whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).' This increase could occur during project construction, or its subsequent operation. Each is addressed below. Site Construction Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities required to implement the proposed land uses. Major sources of emissions during construction include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition, excavation, and grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. ' At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily COZ) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible. the Air Quality Study includes an analysis which quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 29 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 The project site includes approximately 3.68 acres of land. Demolition activities would encompass approximately 10,000 square feet of existing structures. Additionally, 30 mobile homes located on the parcel to the immediate north could be removed during this phase to make room for equipment staging. Based on the URBEMIS20078 default construction schedule, the URBEMIS model estimates demolition at approximately 15 working days. In consideration of demolition, the URBEMIS model is predicated on a structure being removed and calculates truck haul trips accordingly. Based on an area of 10,000 square feet, and a height of 10 feet, approximately 926 cubic yards of material would be removed from the project site. Assuming that each truck has a capacity of 20 cubic yards, 46 truck trips would be produced over the 15-day period, or about 3.1 trips per day on average. The mobile homes to the north would in all probability also be demolished on-site and their remains removed. Once disassembled (or crushed), they, and any associated foundation work, would take little space. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that demolition, including the on-site structures and off-site mobile homes, could be accommodated with four truck trips per day. Demolition equipment is as projected by the URBEMIS2007 model and includes an industrial saw, a dozer, and two loaders. Grading and in this case, excavation typically occurs after demolition. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of the site is graded on any given day. Based on the number of residential units and proposed square footage for the commercial structures, the model estimates the site at 4.7 acres and assumes that 25 percent of this area (i.e., 1.18 acres) is disturbed on a daily basis during grading activities. This analysis recognizes that the site encompasses just 3.68 acres and that accordingly 0.92 acre would be disturbed daily, but defers to the more conservative model default of 1.18 acres daily. By default, the model then assigns a grader, a dozer, a loader, and a water truck to carry out the grading. Excavated soil would be hauled from the site. Assuming that the two-story-deep parking structure has an area of about 2.7 acres and a depth of 20 feet (i.e., 10 feet per level), approximately 87,120 cubic yards of material would be hauled from the site requiring approximately 4,356 truck trips or about 145 trips per day over a period of about 30 days. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs fugitive dust emissions from construction projects. This rule sets forth a list of control measures that must be undertaken for all construction projects to ensure that no dust emissions from the project are visible beyond the property boundaries. Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as such, does not denote mitigation under CEQA. s Projected air emissions are calculated using the Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007) distributed by the SCAQMD. The URBEMIS model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated at one year while site operations are expected to begin in 2008. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 30 of 91 1 ~ • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 The included analysis assumes the use of the minimal measures specified in Rule 403 that overlap between the Rule and the URBEMIS model. These include: • Soil stabilizers shall be applied to all disturbed, inactive areas, • Ground cover shall be quickly applied in all disturbed areas, • The active construction site shall be watered twice daily, • Stockpiles shall be covered with tarps, and • Unpaved haul roads shall be watered twice daily. In actuality, Rule 403 specifies several measures that the URBEMIS model does not consider so the modeled PMio and PM,.5 emissions associated with fugitive dust are considered as conservative. Subsequent to excavation and grading, the parking areas would be installed and paved with asphalt. By default, the model estimates that asphalt paving would occur over an area of 1.18 acres (i.e., 25 percent of the site based on the model's default assumption of 4.7 acres). However, this analysis assumes that 7 acres would be paved (including both surface and subterranean parking and URBEMIS assigns a paver, a piece of paving equipment, a roller, a loader, and four mixers to the task estimated by the model at 10 days. The construction of the structures follows the paving and is estimated by the model at 170 working days. URBEMIS projects its emissions based on a crane, two forklifts, a loader, a generator, and three welders being used on an average day. Finally, paint is added in the last stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The model estimates the painting phase at 20 days. Table 5 summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. Note that NOx emissions, primarily from the hauling of excavated materials, and ROG emissions, primarily from the use of paints and coatings, both have the potential to exceed their respective threshold values, at least during a potion of the construction effort, representing a potentially significant impact. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 31 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change 907-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Table 5 PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Demolition. 15 Davs Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.0 3.61 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 700.30 Demo On Road Diesel 0.35 4.42 1.82 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.22 0.01 0.18 0.15 394.41 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.24 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.45 Demolition Totals 1.70 13.18 7.97 0.00 3.64 0.88 4.52 0.76 0.80 1.52 1,219.16 Fine Grading, 30 Da ys Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.49 0.00 3.49 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 8.47 107.42 44.19 0.12 0.41 4.85 5.26 0.13 4.47 4.60 12,308.3 2 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.24 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.45 Fine Grading Totals 11.82 135.50' 58.99 0.12 2.58 6.26 40.17 30.58 35.77 36.35 14,710.09 Asohalt Pavine. 10 Davs Paving Off-Gas 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.99 17.76 9.40 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.41 1.41 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 1.10 13.89 5.71 0.01 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.02 0.58 0.6 1,591.53 Paving Worker Trips 0.08 0.15 2.49 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.89 Asphalt Totals 6.00 31.80 17.60 0.01 0.06 2.18 2.24 0.02 2.00 2.02 3,112.46 Buildinc Construction. 170 Davs Building Off Road Diesel 4.07 18.22 11.80 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 1.22 1.22 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.57 6.55 5.08 0.01 0.04 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.27 0.28 1,023.89 Building Worker Trip s 0.54 0.99 16.10 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.06 1,609.69 Building Totals 5.18 25.7 32.98 0.03 0.12 1.67 1.78 0.04 1.53 1.5 4,254.78 Coatine. 20 Davs Architectural Coating 103.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 2.98 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 318.68 Coating Totals 103.20 0.18 2.98 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 318.69 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 4 150 4 55 NT' Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No Nol 41 No l 41 4 No No ' Bold values indicate a potentially significant impact. z NT - No Threshold. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures AQI through AQ-4 are recommended for inclusion to the project. These mitigation measures are expected to reduce project impacts relative to air quality to less than significant levels: Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 32 of 91 0 • City of Rosemead initial StudyANitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Mitigation Measures: Construction is anticipated to create significant NOx and ROG emissions, primarily associated with the hauling of soil and application of paints and coatings, and mitigation is warranted to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Applicable mitigation is included below: AQ-1: NOx Emissions. Heavy truck hauls shall be limited to no more than 97 on any given day. AQ-2. NOx Emissions. A log shall be kept at the site denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during soil hauling activities. The log shall be available for City of Rosemead inspection. AQ-3. Paints and Coatings. All primers and top coats shall average no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (102 gram/liter) VOC. AQ-4. Miscellaneous. The Applicant shall abide by any other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead and/or SCAQMD. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential adverse impacts from the proposed project relative to the above-listed construction emission issues are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels. Residua! Impacts: NOx Emissions The tJRBEMIS model estimates that the removal of soil from the excavation of the subterranean parking area would require 145 trucks per day over a period of 30 days. These trucks would produce 107.42 pounds of NOx per day. The requirement that no more than 97 truckloads of material be hauled would reduce these NOx emissions to 71.86 pounds per day (i.e., 97 / 145 x 107.42 pounds). When added to the 28.00 pounds per day for the construction equipment and the 0.08 pound per day from the worker vehicles, the total is calculated at 99.94 pounds per day and would not exceed the 100 pounds per day threshold value. The impact is then reduced to less than significant. In accordance with the model, this measure would extend the modeled grading schedule by 15 days. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 33 of 91 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Paints and Coatings Several of currently available primers have VOC (ROG) contents of less than 0.85 pound per gallon (e.g., dulux professional exterior primer 100% acrylic) and top coats can be far less. The 103.10 pound-per-day value presented in Table 7 is based on the model default value with non-residential coatings having a VOC content of 250 grams per liter as dictated by SCAQMD Rule 1113. The application of non-residential coatings creates 63.44 pounds of ROG per day with the residential component adding an additional 39.66 pounds per day. The requirement for 102 gram/liter VOC paints and coatings will reduce the non-residential coating ROG emissions by 59.2 percent with a residual value of 25.88 pounds per day. When combined with the 39.66 pounds per day for the residential component and the 0.10 pound from worker trips, the combined emissions are calculated at 65.64 pounds per day. The resultant value is less than the threshold value of 75 pounds per day reducing the impact to less than significant. Site Operations The major source of long-term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips. Stationary sources also add to these values. Mobile Source Emissions The Traffic Study estimates that based on the occupation of the 127 dwelling units and 59,230 square feet of commercial land use, the project would generate approximately 3,590 average daily trips (ADT). Emissions generated by project-related trips are based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model and assume a year 2009 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 8. Note that all emissions are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs from the Air Quality Report are available at the Planning Division offices. Stationary Source Emissions In addition to vehicle trips, the land uses would produce emissions from on-site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Any landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time that releases ROG emissions. Finally, the use of consumer aerosol products is associated with the residential component of the project would release ROG emissions. The resultant emissions Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 34 of 91 1 ~ f • ative Declaration itial S:'t (Miti ated Ne I City o Rosemead g g n Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 6. Note that all emissions are within their daily threshold values, resulting in a less than significant impact. Table 6 L EMISSIONS 1.82 11.19 Lanuscapc Maintenance 0.39 0.06 4.81 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.24 Structural Maintenance 0.56 Consumer Products 6.52 Total Operational 40.13 52.27 371.66 0.35 57.39 11.20 34,788.86 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 NT Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No Averaged from the summer and winter emissions. 2 NT - No Threshold d) Less than Significant Impact. Criteria Pollutants As discussed above, CO is the criteria pollutant produced in the greatest quantities and local emissions are within the air quality standards. As such, no significant impacts related to sensitive receptors are anticipated to occur and no further mitigation measures are necessary. Other Toxics While residential and most commercial development is not associated with the release of toxic air contaminants, various types of commercial operations have been identified with the use of toxic substances and release of toxic emissions (e.g., dry cleaning). Vehicle emissions, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen. However, as noted in the URBEMIS model, use of these trucks (medium-heavy duty and heavy-heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g.. refiise collection) is limited to about 1.4 percent of the vehicle population and these emissions arc distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions. Under SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air Contaminants), the District enforces emission limits when a new facility applies for permits for new construction, modifications, or relocation of equipment that emits any of the TACs listed therein. Permits are granted if the increase in cancer risk from the new, modified or relocated source does not Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 35 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 exceed one in a million or 10 in a million cancer cases, if the proposed controls are the best available and the equipment is supplied with Toxic-Best Available Control Technology (T- BACT). SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits emissions of air pollutants that "cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." Mandatory adhere to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air contaminants associated with the operation of the project remains less than significant. e) Less Man Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors may be adverse, but not a significant air quality impact. Additionally, some odor would be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Again, any exposure of the general public to these common odors would be of short duration and while potentially adverse, are less than significant. nvironmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 4. Biological Resources Would the projecl: - a) have a substantial adverse ettcet. either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 36 of 91 City of Rosemead is initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 n s t c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? . . . . . ❑ ❑ ❑ d) . Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (a-f) No Impact. The project site is fully developed in an urban setting. The project site has a long history of development and redevelopment, and thus is highly disturbed. The site is currently vacant with asphalt covering in the area of the existing commercial structure and area of the existing mobile homes and mobile home pad, and dirt in the vacant area with evidence that pavement has been removed. Planted mature trees are located in the central and northeast portions of the site. No "natural" conditions exist on the site, and consequently no biological resources are known to exist. The site does not support any candidate, sensitive or special status species-, contain riparian habitat, contain water features, support migratory birds-, nor is contained in any tree ordinance. In addition, the site is not contained within any habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved plans. The City has an Oak Tree Ordinance, however, the onsite trees are not oaks. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any adopted conservation plans nor have significant impact to biological resources. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 37 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development 907-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Miligate[TNegative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With ' Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 5. Cultural Resources . Wo uld the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES (a-b, d) No Impact. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, define "historic resources" as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources,9 determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California register of historic resources10. The project site is not listed in the register I and the City of Rosemead does not maintain a list of cultural or historic resources. The historic uses of the site do not include cemetery uses. Therefore, this site has no value of historical significance 1`, nor will it disturb any human remains out side cemeteries or impact any cultural resources on site or in the surrounding neighborhoods. In order to ascertain whether the site contains historic resources, a Historic Resources Assessment was performed and is included in Appendix A Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey). Los Angeles County, California, by Daly and Associates. Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey 9 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1 and § 4850 et seq of Title 14, California Code of Regulations. 10 California Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), § 5024.1(g). 11 California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California Office of Historic Preservation: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21427, last accessed September 10. 2007. 1' Pub. Res_ Code § 5024.1; 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064.5(ax3) (a resource "shall" be considered historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the Calif. Register of Historical Resources in the state's historic preservation law); however, the local agency has the discretion to determine whether the resource meets the criteria or not. Pub. Res. Code § 21084.1; 14 Cal_ Code Regs. § 15064.5(x)(4). 11 11 11 11 11 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 38 of 91 9 ative Declaration /Miti Initial S d ated Ne City of Rosemead g y g Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County. California (.September 2007)." The records search conducted as part of this assessment indicated that the subject parcels were not listed on the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, or the California Points of Historical Interest. During the field survey, numerous features were found on the two parcels. The parcel with the address 7443 Garvey Avenue was the location of Roseland Trailer Court, established in 1947 by Donald and Mary Bean (Building permit on-file in Building and Planning Division, City of Rosemead). The lot is accessible directly from Garvey Avenue. The permit for the trailer court allowed spaces for 20 trailers. In 1952, a garage to house automobiles was approved to be erected on the property. The lot at 7443 Garvey Ave. has now been cleared of all structures, but still has some remnants of concrete foundations and light posts, and metal pipes for water utilities. The parcel of 7423 Garvey Avenue is located directly to the north of 7443 Garvey Avenue. The address is assigned to a large parcel that appears to be split in half, with the north half serving as a mobile home park, and the southern half is a large vacant lot. Aerial photographs show that in recent years the vacant lot has been accessed by a gate at the southeast corner of the lot and used as a car park. A pair of steel rails 3-inches wide, laid parallel 3 feet apart and embedded in a concrete pad appear to date from the 1920s. The rails and concrete pad run approximately 100 feet on an east-west axis in the middle of the lot, from near the western boundary of the property to about three quarters across the lot. The rails and pad may have been constructed to be used for the base of a gantry or crane system. Running along the north edge of the rail pad is an 18-foot wide path paved with rough asphalt. The rails are embedded in a pad of rough aggregate concrete and there is a 4-inch wide and 2- inch deep channel in the concrete, on the inside of each rail. The channel of the rail pad would have held the wheels of the gantry as it was pushed back and forth, used to lift bricks or other heavy payloads from the ground to wagons or trucks that were parked on the asphalt pavement. The gantry or crane system was based on the balance of weights and pulleys. Research was performed to attempt to ascertain the type of business or industry that was located at the site noted on the 1924 Alhambra topographic map. This research was performed with the archival records at the Rosemead Library and the permit records at the Rosemead Department of Planning. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this region of Los Angeles County was unincorporated until 1959, early records of property use are difficult to find. Sanborn Insurance maps did not cover the Wilinar-Garvey area and the City Directory 13 Daly and Associates. Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead. (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County. California. September 2007. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 39 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/MiUgafed Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 for Wilmar-Garvey did not cross reference street addresses with the names of businesses or residents. The proposed development of the property will cause the demolition of the features dating from 1947 that are associated with the historic trailer court at 7443 Garvey Avenue, and with the rail pad of the gantry system at 7423 Garvey Avenue that appears to date from the 1920s. Both parcels have not been found to be associated with any persons or events important in the history of the United States or California. The integrity of both parcels has been destroyed over the years, and this lack of integrity would prevent the resources from being deemed as architecturally significant under the criteria for the National Register and California Register. No impacts would occur from site construction. (c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The site is paved and shows no surface evidence of containing paleontological resources. Given the history of the region, and the proximity to the Whittier Narrows areas, and because construction entails excavation for a two-level subterranean parking garage, there may be a potential to encounter paleontological resources. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to paleontological resources to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure: CUL-1: Monitoring during excavation shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If paleontological resources are uncovered during site excavation, the developer must notify the City of Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of Engineering immediately and work must stop within a 100-foot radius until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project sites. If the find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a unique paleontological resource, as defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find is determined not to be a unique paleontological resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue. J L 11 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 40 of 91 11 City of Rosemead • Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial aty/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Environmental Issues 6. Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ ❑ El ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a)(i and ii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. According to the State of California special studies zones map effective November 01, 1991 indicate that portions of the proposed project site lies within a seismically active region normally referred to as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.14 The 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake occurred near the City of Rosemead. Two major fault zones are located near the City of Rosemead, including the Raymond Hill fault located approximately two miles north, and the Whittier- 11 11 14 htip:/hvww.consrv.ca.govicgs/rghm/apfMap_index/city.htm#P-R Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 41 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Elsinore fault located approximately five miles to the southeast. Two inactive fault traces traverse the City from the northwest to the southeast and generally correspond to the Alhambra Wash and Rubio Wash. Virtually all structures in southern California are subject to strong seismic shaking because there are many known and unknown earthquake faults present in the California region. Construction the subterranean parking structure will entail site excavation and possible shoring of some of the sides of the excavation for stabilization. The City of Rosemead's Building Code, (which incorporates the California Uniform Building Code) addresses specific seismic construction methods that reduce seismic damage risk. Some or all of these methods will be required of the proposed project as part of the building permit process. Overall, the project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to substantial risk involving rupture of earthquake fault. Although already required under existing City procedures, in recognition of the nature of the proposed construction involving subterranean excavation, the general overall earthquake potential of the greater project area, Mitigation Measure GEO-I has been identified to ensure that any resulting development fully considers the potential geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils conditions affecting the project site. Mitigation Measure: GEO-l : Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City Building Official. That investigation, as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that, when implemented, will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures. a)(iii) No Impact. The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site's area as not subject to liquefaction.15 Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Liquefaction is typically 15 State of Californl.L Seismic Hazard Zones. El Monte Quadrangle. March 25. 1999. available at http://gmw.consrv.ca.yov/ shmp/MapProcessor asp`'MapNavAction=&Action=lMagl oration=SoCal&FClass=Quad&F1l3=Los%20Anp-eles&.Li(i=fa Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 42 of 91 City of Rosemead 0 Ini pistdylUffigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 associated with shallow groundwater. In the project area, no liquefaction potential exists and there are no known liquefaction zones. 16 The depth to groundwater in the immediate area is approximately 125 feet below ground surface, with the anticipated flow to be southward." Prior to construction, as part of the City's standard development review procedures, the City Engineer will require plan review to assure that the project complies with current building codes and required methods of construction. Therefore, the proposed structure is not subject to liquefaction, hence no related impact is anticipated. a)(iv) No Impact. The project site and surrounding area is flat and not near any slopes, cliffs, or hillsides or prone to landslides; consequently, no impact from landslide danger is anticipated. (b-e) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area is largely urbanized and no longer dependent on agriculture, therefore, retention of topsoil is not an issue for the project site. The existing soil will be exported offsite to allow for excavation of the subterranean parking structure. New soil will be brought in for ornamental plantings, which will comprise a very small portion of the finished site. Finally, sediment runoff from the project site will be controlled by construction site methods, such as sandbags or straw rolls as required by the project's storm water pollution prevention plan (see Section 8, Hydrodology and Water Quality, below). No substantial impact from soil erosion or loss of topsoil is expected. The project site is not prone to slope instability hazards such as landslides because the area flat, hence no significant impact is anticipated. Although most of the California soil is believed to be expansive, as part of the City's standard development review procedures, the City Building official will require that the project meet specific design guidelines of the Building Code to minimize any potential for impacts, consequently, no significant impact is anticipated. The project does not propose using septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, conventional sewer systems are in place and available to serve the project. No impact to soils resulting from such alternative disposal systems would be associated with the project. Ise& Land=talse&Bore=false&Road=true&Citr-false&x I =381650.9088855923&v I =3777023.268147673&x2=399169.492 39040765&y2=3762424.448560327. last accessed August 23, 2007. 16 California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles Region. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024. 1998. 17 Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, California. July 13. 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 43 of 91 ative Declaration d Initial Study/Miti ated Ne Cit of R g g y osemea Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment 007-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4,0111(1 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 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ❑ likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located within one-quarter mile ofa facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ M ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste? e) Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal site-, or 2) that could release a hazardous substance as identified by ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code? f) Be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to ❑ ❑ ❑ be suitable for development and use as a school? g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑ use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? i) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 44 of 91 City of Rosemead 0 Initialstudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment 1107-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? _ - - k) Be located within 1500 feet of. (i) an above- ground water or fuel storage tank, or (ii) an easement of an above ground or underground ❑ ❑ ❑ pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the proposed school? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) No Impact. The proposed project involves development of retail, restaurant and residential uses. The Applicant and application supporting materials indicate that the proposed project does not propose or anticipate to routinely store, use, generate, or transport substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and therefore, the project would have no associated significant impacts. b) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to use hazardous materials and the operation of the retail, restaurant and residential uses would not involve use of a substantial amount of hazardous materials; thus, release of hazardous materials as a result of construction of this facility is not anticipated- Although the construction of the proposed structures will utilize some chemicals and materials such as paint and non-consumable liquids such as fagade finish coats, and diesel fuels for construction equipment, for the most part, construction of the proposed project is not expected to release hazardous materials. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. e) Less than Significant Impact. Six schools are located within one-quarter mile of the proposed project site. Bitely Elementary School (K-6) and Bitely Head Start School are located at 7501 East Fern Avenue, and Garvey (Richard) Intermediate School (7-8) is located at 2720 North Jackson Avenue, south of the project site. To the north of the site, are the New Avenue Emerson Elementary School (K-6) at 7544 Emerson Place, the New Avenue Educational Center at New Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and the Esther's Nest Children's School at New Avenue and Whitmore Street. However, since the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, no impact to schools is anticipated. d) Less than Significant Impact. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report of the property was conducted by Smith-Emery GeoServices and is available at the City Planning Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 45 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigaied Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Division offices.18 The report found two adjacent commercial automobile service properties located along the south side of Garvey Avenue listed as small quantity hazardous waste generators. No violations were found for either property. The report concludes that the two sites are considered a de minimus condition (under ASTM Standard E1527) as they "generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies" with regards to the proposed project site. The proposed project site is not located with one-quarter mile of an industrial-zoned use or facility that may emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. Therefore, the project will not be significantly subjected to industrial-hazardous related impacts. e) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report of the property was conducted by Smith-Emery GeoServices. The vacant portion of the site is composed of a section of railroad spur, and sewage pipes belonging to former mobile homes. Mobile homes located on the adjacent parcel to the north of the project site and those on the project site appear to be connected to a septic system. No evidence was found to suggest that the vacant portion of the site is impacted by hazardous wastes contaminated soils. The Smith-Emery GeoServices report includes the results of a database search performed for project site. The southern portion of the site is listed on the regulatory database as a handler of hazardous materials. Automotive repair businesses were reported on the southeastern and southwestern portions of the site in the 1980s. However, no evidence of any hazardous materials usage was found on file at the regulatory agencies. 19 The commercial structure at the southeast corner of the site is currently occupied by a travel agency which uses the structure for office purposes and for changing tires for their tour buses. The Smith-Emery report found two hydraulic lifts in the building, and a reported former oil- changing pit which had been covered by plywood. Minor amounts of solvents, chemicals, and car batteries were observed. The historical data found that light manufacturing operations were reported in this portion of the site in 1944, and, that automotive repair operations were conducted since 1987. Some areas of stained pavement were also observed. The report found a lack of evidence of significantly cracked/stained concrete floor surfaces, 18 Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead. California. July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1_ SEG Report No. G-07-9977. 19 The Smith-Emery Report database search of government record sources found the subject site listed on RCRA-GNTR (RCRA registered small or large generators of hazardous waste). ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System), US ENG/US INST CONTROLS (Federal Engineering and Institutional Controls), STATFITRIBAL RSTs (State and/or Tribal registered storage tanks), and STATE/TRIBAL END/INST CONTROLS (State and/or Tribal Engineering and Institutional Controls) database sites. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 46 of 91 1 City of Rosemead 0 initial -Oy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment 907-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 or any evidence of floor drains, clarifiers and/or underground storage tanks (USTs), and concludes that the former site uses are not expected to have significantly impacted the site. The Phase I report found that the onsite structures were built prior to the 1978 federal regulations banning the usage of asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). Hence, there is potential for the presence of ACBMs in the onsite structure, and a potentially significant impact could occur. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to ACBMs to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure: 14AZ-1: Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for asbestos certification. If asbestos is found, contractor recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition. The Phase I report found that the onsite structures were built prior to the 1978 federal regulations banning the use of lead based paints. Hence, there is potential that disturbance of lead based paint during demolition could result in a release lead dust. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to lead based paint to less than significant levels: t I I I I, Mitigation Measure: HAZ-2: Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is found, contractor recommendations for safe removal shall be followed during demolition. f) No Impact. The proposed project is a mixed use project that does not include a school site. As per g) above, the proposed project site is not listed as a DTSC hazardous materials site. As such, it could be permitted for a school. Therefore, the proposed project will be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to be suitable for development and use as a school, hence no impact. g) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor within two miles of an adopted Airport plan, nor is it within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airport is the El Monte Airport, located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue, north of the San Bernardino Freeway and east of Rosemead Blvd. Therefore, the proposed project would Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 47 of 91 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on or near the project site, in relation to the airport proximity and would have no related impacts. h) No Impact. The project site is more than two (2) miles from the closest private airstrip located at the El Monte Airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would have no associated impacts. i) No Impact. The proposed mixed use project comprises development of restaurant, retail and residential uses on the property. The project fronts Garvey Avenue, which is also the nearest evacuation route to the project. Delmar Avenue to the east of the project is also a City of Rosemead Evacuation Route.20 The project is not anticipated to interfere with these evacuation routes or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans because neither construction nor project operation would block evacuation routes. Three additional driveways to the site are proposed. However, restricted access as indicated in the Traffic Study conducted for the project21 would not result in an impedance of easy access in case of emergency. Therefore, the project presents no impact to Rosemead's emergency response or evacuation plans. j) No Impact. The project site is currently vacant with some structures in the southeast corner. The center of the property contains some ornamental trees, however, given the surrounding developed properties, the wildland fire risk is minimal. The trees will be removed through grading. The completed project will contain a small amount of ornamental landscaping, however, again, given the developed nature of the surrounding urban landscape, the project would not contribute to wildland fire risk. Also, the site is not adjacent to any undeveloped natural environment that may be a potential wildland fire risk, and the project site is not within a specific fire hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, hence the project would have no associated impacts. k) No Impact. As discussed in (f) above, the proposed project does not involve the development of a school on the site. No impacts to a school are anticipated. 20 City of Rosemead General Plan, Public Safety Element Fig. PS-2. 21 RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. August 15. 2007. Pg. 1-I. The study states that the west driveway will restrict left-tums existing the site, the center driveway will provide right-tum in/right-turn out access only, and the east driveway will provide full access. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 48 of 91 City of Rosemead 9 Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Inistudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Environmental Issues 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production ❑ ❑ ® ❑ rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 49 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes a mixed use, 4-story structure comprised of retail, commercial and residential uses on a 3.68-acre site. The proposed development would not be a point-source generator of water pollutants. However, during construction the proposed project may temporarily expose loose soils, which are prone to erosion during storm events. If a storm event occurs while loose soils are exposed, the project could increase the sediment load onsite and downstream runoff. Thus, the construction of the proposed project could contribute to non point-source water pollution. Another concern for water quality during construction is accidental spillage of vehicle equipment fluids. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 26 Section 1342) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This act requires all construction activity resulting in land disturbance of one (1) or more acres to obtain a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (NPDES General Permit). In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers NPDES General Permits. General Permits require projects to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As described in the SWRCB's "Fact Sheet for Water Quality Order (99-08- DWQ)", the SWPPP must list the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the Applicant will employ to "prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water", and BMPs must be developed "with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters channels." The SWPPP must also include a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants. NPDES also requires local governments to obtain an NPDES Permit for stormwater induced water pollutants in their jurisdiction. In California, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) of the SWRCB administers NPDES Permits. Los Angeles County and most of the incorporated cities therein, including the City of Rosemead, obtained a MS4 permit (Permit # 01-182) from the LARWQCB in 2001. The permit establishes a county- wide Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) to control pollutants that can collect in the countywide storm drain system, including trash, sediment, metals, and vehicle byproducts/fluids. Pollutant control measures in the SUSMP include both structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as sediment traps, and non-structural BMPs, such as operation and maintenance practices. As a co-permittee, the City of Rosemead has adopted an ordinance" to implement the countywide permit and corresponding SUSMP. The countywide permit and the City's corresponding ordinance require certain types of Z`' City of Rosemead Municipal Code, § 13.16 et seq., Stonnwater Management. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 50 of 91 r'il- _f D_- -4 • Initia6dvlMitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 development projects to develop and implement project-specific SUSMP compliance plans. Since the project involves more than l acre, a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan is required for the project. In summary, the proposed project is required to obtain a NPDES General Construction Permit, develop and implement a SWPPP, and implement a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan. Under the supervision of the City staff, the applicant must comply with these requirements to ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Because this is a City requirement prior to construction, any impacts would be considered less than significant. In addition, City Municipal Ordinance 13.16.030, Control of Urban Runoff, requires that a water quality management plan for significant redevelopment projects shall be prepared in accordance with the existing established city standards; and that any conditions and requirements established by the City Engineer, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site shall be adhered to. Therefore, the project's wastewater impacts are expected to be less than significant b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located approximately 2 miles west of the Rio Hondo River, within the Repetto Hills at approximately 350 feet above means sea level. Los Angeles Department of Public Works records show two municipal water wells located at distances of 1.0 mile to the northeast and east of the site, and one municipal water well located 2.9 miles to the southwest. The depth to groundwater in the immediate area is approximately 125 feet below ground surface, with the anticipated flow to be southward. Groundwater recharge is primarily from the surrounding mountains, and San Fernando Valley via the Los Angeles Narrows.'' The proposed structure and associated access and driveways would be impermeable surfaces on the project site. These impermeable surfaces could decrease the groundwater recharge potential of the project site. However, the project site does not substantially add to the local or regional groundwater recharge system. The site is in an urban area that drains into the City's storm drainage system. Thus, as existing, only minimal rainwater runoff from the site reaches groundwater. In addition, the proposed impermeable areas on site are negligible in comparison to the size of the underlying aquifer's watershed. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering 23 Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, California. July 13. 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 51 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 of the local groundwater table level, and the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to groundwater recharge. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is virtually flat, with only a 3-inch elevation change over its width from west to east, and does not include discernable drainage courses. During construction, excavation of the site is required for the subterranean parking structure. Excavated soil will be removed offsite. As per a) above, during construction BMPs are required to keep erosion from moving off site into receiving waters channels. Post construction, the proposed project would involve only minor changes as compared to the existing site's runoff patterns. The existing vacant portions of the site will become impervious surfaces. However, since the project size is negligible and incorporates landscaping and groundcover, the proposed structures and impermeable surfaces, will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, the proposed development will negligibly change surface water volume and velocity on the project site. Overall, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on or off-site or in a manner, that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, and the proposed project would not have any associated erosion significant impacts. d) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would involve only minor changes in the site's drainage patterns and does not involve altering a discernable drainage course. The proposed minor chances to the site's drainage patterns are not expected to cause flooding. Regardless, the project's possibility, if it occurs, to cause flooding would be eliminated through required compliance with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stonmwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates not to exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. Since the project does not involve alteration of a discernable watercourse and post- development runoff discharge rates are required to not exceed pre-development rates, the proposed project does not have the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase runoff that would result in significant flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause flooding and would have no associated significant impacts. e) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Sections 8. a), b), c), and d) above, the proposed project is anticipated to have a negligible effects to the site's surface water drainage. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the proposed project, and the proposed project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). These plans would further Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 52 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial9yXitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 ensure that the proposed project would not increase runoff and water pollution. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and would have no associated significant impacts. f) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed earlier, the proposed project involves development of a site that has previously been developed. The project will involve excavation and soil remove offsite for the subterranean parking structure. During construction, runoff from the project will be governed by a SWPPP as discussed in a) above. This plan eliminates the project's potential to increase the flow rate of stormwater, violate water quality discharge requirements, or result in substantial erosion on or off-site during construction. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any significant temporary stormwater impacts during construction. g) No Impact. The City of Rosemead has been declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C", flood insurance is not mandatory and there is no community panel flood map near the site that indicate areas susceptible to flooding or to be a floodplain. Furthermore, the proposed project area is not mapped on any other flood hazard map, nor is it in a known 100-year flood hazard area. Since this project does not propose housings units, the project will not place housing in a known flood hazard area, and no impacts from flooding are anticipated. h) No Impact. As discussed in g) above, the project site is not located in a designated or otherwise located in a known flood hazard area. Consequently, the project's proposed structures would not impede nor cause flooding, so no corresponding impact to surrounding structures is anticipated. i) No Impact. The proposed project site is not in the vicinity of a man-made flood control facility, such as a levee or dam. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No corresponding impacts are anticipated. j) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is approximately 29 miles from the Pacific Ocean and the site is at 350 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, the proposed project site is not in the vicinity of any surface waters or potential mudflow sources. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to impacts from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 53 of 91 • City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community`' ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ n coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact. The proposed project will not divide an established community. Examples of "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The proposed project will be located on a partially vacant that contains mobile homes and a commercial structure on a commercial-zoned parcel. The proposed land use change to mixed use with retail, restaurant and residential uses is consistent with the adjacent and surrounding area uses. The proposed project will not divide any community by creating a physical or visual barrier, and existing public rights-of-way will remain unimpeded by the project. Consequently, no impact is anticipated. b) No Impact. The project site is designated commercial by the City of Rosemead General Plan and is zoned C-3, "General Commercial" by the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) in order to accommodate the proposed mixed use project uses that will change the site land use designation to mixed use commercial/high density residential and site zoning to Planned Development (PD). The proposed changes are consistent with adjacent uses, and upon City approval of the GPA and ZC, no conflicts will occur and the no impact is anticipated. c) No Impact. The project site is not located within a habitat or natural communities conservation plan, and has been developed with structures for many years. Consequently, no impact to any conservation plans will result from the proposed project. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 54 of 91 City of Rosemead 0 Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 lnitial3TLdy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 10. Mineral Resources a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? El E 1:1 z 10. MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The proposed project will involve construction of a mixed use project. No known mineral resources are within the City of Rosemead, per the City General Plan, and the site does not contain any known mineral resources. The proposed project is not likely to encounter any mineral deposits that may exist in subsurface. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the City or the State. b) No Impact. The City of Rosemead General Plan does not identify any known mineral resource sites within the City limits; and the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to affect any locally important mineral resources as identified in local plans. Less Than Potentially Significant' Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 11. Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ existing without the project? Park Monterey Mixed Use Project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Page 55 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ® ❑ ❑ above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑ use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excessive noise levels? 11. NOISE A noise technical study was prepared for the project and is included in Appendix B, Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Focused Noise Analysis, by Synectecology Consulting (September 2007). Model runs for the Noise Study are available at the City Planning Division offces.24 a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The existing City of Rosemead Municipal Code sets a conditional land use compatibility level of 60 dBA Leq during the day and 45 dBA Leq at night for stationary noise source intrusion on sensitive, multi-family land uses from noise sources subject to City control. The City Noise Element allows for an overall exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA CNEL, so long as interior levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Under the Municipal Code, less sensitive land uses, such as the proposed retail commercial aspect of the project, are conditionally acceptable to stationary source noise levels of 65 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night. The City Noise Element does not set an exterior CNEL level for these commercial uses, but does specify that interior levels should not exceed 55 dBA CNEL. Assuming standard Title 22 construction provides a minimum of 20 dBA of attenuation with windows closed, this would infer an acceptable exterior CNEL of 75 dBA for commercial uses so long as these facilities are equipped with forced air ventilation. A reasonable worst-case would consider the project as a sensitive, residential land use and for the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered as significant if the exterior noise were to exceed 60 dBA during the day or 45 dBA at night at any proposed residential units from local stationary sources, or 65 dBA CNEL from mobile sources. This latter value applies to exterior habitable areas and assumes the use of forced air ventilation sized and installed in Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 56 of 91 1 City of Rosemead 0 Initial Pudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 compliance with California Title 22 requirements thereby allowing the residents to leave their windows closed. In actuality, the City Municipal Code defines the residential component of the project as a commercial land use and would apply the commercial noise standard. Section 8.36.020 of the Municipal Code notes, "Commercial property" means a parcel of real property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for commercial purposes." As such, use of residential criteria provides a conservative evaluation for the proposed residential units. To determine on-site and local noise in the project area, on-site noise measurements were conducted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007. The field study included two sets of readings; one obtained onsite 50-feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue (NR-1), and the second obtained onsite 50-feet from the northern project boundary (NR-2).25 Reading NR-1 showed Leq values of 63.6 dBA Leq. The noise measurement was obtained during the 11:00 a.m. hour and the CNEL would be greater than this reading that was obtained when traffic is relatively light. Data provided in the Traffic Study indicate that the existing volume along Garvey Avenue at the project site is currently at 21,600 ADT. But the project represents a long-term commitment and as such, this analysis looks at the potential for impact in the year 2025. Based on City recommendation, an annual growth rate of 1 percent per year was been applied to the existing traffic in the area. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth throughout the city. Based on 18 years of growth, the roadway ADT volumes are increased by 19.6 percent. Including the project, year 2025 traffic along Garvey Avenue along the project frontage is then estimated at 27.800 ADT. Sound32 noise modeling for year 2025 with project traffic volumes show a noise level of 71.8 dBA CNEL as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Based on soft site modeling, the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours fall at distances of 143 and 307 feet, respectively, from the Garvey Avenue centerline. The southern-most residential units that are to be placed on the second and third floors fall within this distance and will have a direct view of Garvey Avenue. These units will be on the order of 60 feet from the centerline of the road with noise projected at about 70.6 dBA CNEL. Conventional construction with windows open provides approximately 12 to 15 dBA of attenuation (over 20 dBA with windows closed) from exterior noise sources reducing interior levels no more than about 56 - 58 dBA CNEL (with windows open) or about 50 dBA with windows closed. These levels could then continue to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior 11 24 Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed use Project. Focused Noise Analysis. September 2007. 25 Details on the reading location and results are included in the Noise Study, available at the City Planning Division offices. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 57 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 standard and mitigation is required to protect the interior habitat. Mitigation Measures N-I through N-4 are recommended for inclusion to the project to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. These mitigation measures are expected to reduce project impacts relative to noise to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measures: N-1: At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction. N-2: South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28. These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. N-3: All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g., electrical conduits, HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. N-4: All residential units within 307 feet and all commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. The requirement for forced air ventilation would allow the occupants to leave windows closed reducing interior levels by in excess of 20 dBA. However, the southern exposure of the southern-most rooms could still be exposed to exterior levels of about 70.6 dBA CNEL. Assuming that typical construction with the inclusion of forced air ventilation and windows closed provides 20 dBA of attenuation, interior levels could be on the order of 50 dBA CNEL. The Noise Guidebook (HUD, 1985) presents Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for various types of construction materials and techniques. The Sound Transmission Class rating is the official rating endorsed by the American Society of Testing and Measurement and can be used as a guide in determining what type of construction is needed to reduce noise. Conversely, these same principles can be used to determine interior noise for a given type of construction. An STC is a measure of a material's ability to reduce sound and is equal to the number of decibels a sound is reduced as it passes through the material. Thus, a high STC rating Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 58 of 91 City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 indicates a good insulating material. For example, if the external noise is 75 dBA and the desired interior level is 45 dBA, a partition of 30 STC is required. Because of minor differences in ratings, as well as construction flaws, gaps, seams, openings, ducting, etc., field studies indicate that laboratory-derived STC ratings may be overstated by as much as 5 dBA. (HUD puts this discrepancy at about 2-3 dBA.) As such, the mitigation would need to achieve a composite laboratory STC rating of approximately 35 to ensure that interior levels were adequately mitigated to less than 45 dBA. According to HUD, a common stud wall has an STC of approximately 35 dBA. While a typical 1/4-inch thick pane of glass may have an STC rating of about 20 dBA, a 3/16-inch piece increases this rating to about 25 dBA, and a 1/2-inch thick piece would have an STC of about 35 dBA. There comes a point of diminishing returns, and beyond 1/2 inch additional thickness produces minimal gains. (A 3/4-inch piece of glass has an STC of about 37 dBA.) The STC for a typical wood, double hung closed window is listed at 22. Noise within the interior of the structure comes through the walls, windows, doors, and ductwork. HUD provides a nomograph that can be used to determine the composite STC for walls that include windows and doors. Assuming the wall has an STC of 35, the windows/doors have an STC of 22, and the windows/doors encompasses 30 percent of the wall, the composite STC is 27. Allowing for a 5 dBA "cushion," this value falls approximately 4 dBA short of the necessary 31 dBA of attenuation to ensure interior noise leve k remain under 45 dBA CNEL. Using the required minimum STC 28 window and door assemblies, but retaining the window area at 30 percent, results in a composite STC value of 32. Assuming an exterior level of 71 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels would be reduced to approximately 39 dBA CNEL. Assuming that this STC is overestimated by 5 dBA, interior noise would be reduced to no more than 44 dBA CNEL and the impact is reduced to less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the construction and occupancy of commercial and residential structures. Caltrans notes that ground borne vibration is typically associated with blasting operations, the use of pile drivers, and large- scale demolition activities, none of which are anticipated for the construction or operation of the project. As such, no excessive ground borne vibrations would be created by the proposed project and any potential impacts are less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. Any addition from die project to the ambient noise would be due to the addition of vehicles to the local roadways. The Traffic Shudy indicates that the project would add 3,590 ADT to the local roadways. The vehicle mix, day/evening/night Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 59 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 split, and average speeds are as indicated in the analysis of the existing noise levels. Results of the modeling effort are included in Table 7. Note that modeling indicates that the noise increase along all access roads would not exceed 0.4 dBA CNEL and is neither audible nor significant. Table 7 EXISTING VF.RSIJS WITH PRO.IECT NOISE LEVELS ALONG SITE ACCESS ROADS Speed Existing CNEL Existing With With Project Difference Location (mph) Existing ADT (dBA @ 50 Feet) Project ADT CNEL dBA (a) 50 Feet) (dBA CNEL Hellman Avenue Alhambra - New 30 8,200 66.2 8,200 66.2 0.0 New - Jackson 30 7,600 65.9 7,700 66.0 0.1 Emerson Avenue Alhambra - New 30 7,200 65.7 7,200 65.7 0.0 New Jackson 30 5,100 64.2 5,200 64.3 0.1 (.nrvov Av, niif- W/O Alhambra 30 19,600 70.0 20,500 70.2 0.2 Alhambra - New 35 20,200 70.4 21,100 70.6 0.2 New - Jackson 35 21,600 70.7 23,600 71.1 0.4 Jackson - Del Mar 35 24,100 71.2 24,900 71.4 0.1 E/O Del Mar 35 23,900 71.2 24,500 71.3 0.1 Newmark Avenue New - Jackson 30 3,200 62.1 3,200 62.1 0.0 Graves Avenue Alhambra - New 30 8,100 66.2 8,400 66.3 0.2 New - Jackson 1 30 1 11.700 1 67.8 1 12,000 1 67.9 1 0.1 Emerson - Garvey 1 35 7,200 _ 66.0 7,200 66.0 0.0 Garvey -Newmark 35 5,700 65.0 5,800 65.0 0.1 New Aveniw N/0 Hellman 35 25,000 71.4 26,000 71.5 0.2 l lellman - Emerson 35 22,000 70.8 23,200 71.0 0.2 Emerson - Garvey 35 19,500 70.3 20,800 70.6 0.3 Garvey - Newmark 35 11,300 67.9 11,900 68.1 0.2 Newmark - Graves 35 8,700 66.8 T9.300 67.1 0.3 d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 60 of 91 Emerson - Garvey 40 23,500 72.1 23,600 72.1 1 0.0 Garvey - Graves 35 18,900 70.2 18,900 70.2 1 0.0 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the increase in noise would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over a 24-hour period, and would therefore have a less than significant impact on noise receptors along the trick routes. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on-site construction operations and local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of this equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 8 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessment at a distance of 50 feet. Table S Noise ranges have been found to be similar during all phases of construction, although the actual construction of the structures is typically reduced from the grading efforts. The grading and site preparation phase tends to create the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is found in the earthmoving equipment category. This category includes excavating machinery (backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, etc.) and Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 61 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 earthmoving and compacting equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment range from 73 to 96 dBA while Leq noise levels range up to about 88 dBA for residential development. The later construction of structure is somewhat reduced from this value and the physical presence of the structure may break up line-of-sight noise propagation. The most proximate residential structures include the existing single-family homes to the northeast of the site and mobile homes located to the immediate north, and northwest of the project site. The mobile homes will in all probability be removed during the initial phases of construction leaving the single-family residential units as the nearest sensitive receptors. The nearest of these homes are situated approximately 25 feet from the site. The homes are protected, at least to some extent, by a wooden fence. Using an assumed construction value of 88 dBA Leq as measured at a distance of 50 feet, proximate construction could be on the order of 94 dBA at the nearest home. The existing wall would serve as an effective noise barrier for construction of the basement and first floor, but would offer little protection from second and third story construction noise. Other homes are also located to the north, the most proximate of which are on the order of 100 to 200 feet with noise levels projected at 88 - 82 dBA, Leq, respectively. Construction noise levels could exceed 65 dBA at these residents resulting in a significant impact. In all cases, interior levels at off-site residents could be reduced by over 20 dBA (with windows closed) from these values. During the vast majority of the construction period, however, both exterior and interior noise levels would be 20 to 30 dBA lower, due to lower power settings and sound attenuation provided by longer distances and partial blocking both from the structure under construction and off-site structures. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would increase during construction phase, but would drop considerably after construction of the proposed facilities is completed. Still, based on the projected noise levels, the short-term impact is considered as significant. The City recognizes that control of construction noise is limited and therefore places special provisions on this noise. As noted, Section 8.36.030, 3 exempts noise sources associated with or created by construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the noise standard of sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 62 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial V/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 measured on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety. While all construction would be subject to this ordinance, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-5 through N-I l would reduce the nuisance value of construction at existing proximate receptor location, as feasible, and ensure that the impact remains less than significant: Mitigation Measures: N-5: In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site, N-6: All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions, N-7: All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped, N-8: The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off of the power grid where feasible (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible), N-9: To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the parcel, N-10: The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents, and N-1 1: Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning Division. e) No Impact. The El Monte Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast of the project site. The airport's runway is aligned in roughly a north/south orientation and the project site is not in the prevailing flight path. The airport averages about 434 operations (i.e., take-offs and landings) per day. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 63 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 ' Conditional Use Permit #1090 The project site is well beyond the airport's 65-dBA CNEL noise contour and on-site noise ' monitoring indicates that while aircraft operations (both light planes and commercial airliners to the south) are readily audible, the resultant aircraft noise levels are well below any regulatory standards. No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the ' proposed project. t i i Th i i l d hi h i di i i f i f N I ) mpact. e project s te s not w t n t e mme ate v ty o vate o oca e c n any pr airstrip. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 12. Population and Housing if"ould the project: ' a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through ' extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ' housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ® ❑ ❑ , housing elsewhere? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less than Significant Impact. Per the 2000 United States Census, the average household size of renter-occupied units varies from approximately 3.5 to 4.0 individuals. In contrast, the United States Census Bureau reports (1997) that the mean household size in "suburban garden apartments" is 2.0 individuals.26 Assuming that not more than two individuals occupy each of the one-bedroom apartments not more than four people occupy each of the two- bedroom apartments, and not more than six people occupy each of the three-bedroom units, a total of 702 individuals could reside within the project site. Assuming that all those individuals constitute new City residents, based on a 2007 population of 57,42 527, the project could result in a Citywide population increase of about 1.2 percent. The actual increase could less since some number of project residents would already reside t 1 1 2e/ Goodman, Jack, 'The Changing Demography of Multifamily Rental Housing. Housing Policy Debate. Volume 10. Issue I, Fannie Mae Foundation, 1999. pp. 37 and 42. ' Z' Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: http://dof ca_gov/HTML/DF,MOGRAP. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 64 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 within the City. The resulting population increase of 1.2 percent or less would not significantly alter growth forecasts considered by the City and by other regional planning agencies. The proposed project will, therefore, not result in any substantial population growth. b-c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. During site clearing and demolition, the adjacent lot to the north, presently containing a 39-unit mobile home park will also be demolished to allow space for construction staging for the proposed project. A relocation plan and conversion impact report has been prepared for the mobile homes park, known as the Park Monterey Trailer Park and is available at the City Planning Division offices."' The Applicant plans to acquire the mobile homes, relocate current residents, and demolish the existing mobile homes as part of the proposed Park Monterey project.29 A relocation plan has been prepared compliant to Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code, that requires that prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use, the entity proposing the change shall file a report on the impact of the conversion of use upon the displaced residents of the mobile home to be converted. The results of the Relocation Plan found that the mobile homes are in too poor of condition to be relocated, as such the Plan evaluated a fair market value for purchase of each mobile home plus relocation benefits. The Plan also found a sufficient number of mobile home vacancies (both rental and resale units) available within the identified 50-mile study area radios to accommodate the current residents. Thus, neither the number of displaced persons, nor the number of displaced housing units would require new construction of replacement mobile home housing. However, without adherence to the Relocation Plan, significant impacts would occur to the currently occupied mobile home residents. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure HOUS-1 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to housing resources to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure: HOUS-1: Mitigation includes compliance with Section B of the Mecky Meyers and Associates, Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project. dated June 2006. The Applicant shall provide each mobile home household with $8,000 in relocation benefits, in addition to the purchase of each mobile home at Fair Market Value as determined by a State licensed appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced 28 Mecky Meyers and Associates. Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project. June 2006. 2" Following construction of the proposed Park Monterey project, the Applicant intends to develop the mobile home park, however. an application has not yet been filled with the City of Rosemead. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 65 of 91 0 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation persons upon submission of required claim forms and documentation regarding the rental or purchase of decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 13. Public Services 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 service ratios, response times or other performance of jectives fir any of the public s ervices: a) Fire Protection.' ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less than Significant Impact. Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Fire Department for fire protection services. The nearest fire station is the Los Angeles County Fire Station 4 located at 2644 North San Gabriel Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. The proposed building is required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code, the California Fire Code, and the Los Angeles County Code, as such, the proposed project does not significantly affect the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the City of Rosemead. b) Less than Significant Impact. Rosemead contracts with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Temple Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive, in Temple City currently serves Rosemead. The Temple Station patrol area encompasses 66 square miles and serves a population of approximately 200,000 people. The project will replace existing commercial and residential land uses with new businesses and residences. The proposed development may necessitate random patrol by the law enforcement to prevent burglary and property damage. However, as a small infill project, the project would neither result in the need for additional new nor altered police protection services, and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. While some level of law enforcement services is expected to be required to once the proposed development is operational, this requirement is not expected to be substantial. The proposed project would not generate a significant need for additional police, and would not Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 66 of 91 • ative Declaration l 5t-ud /Miti ated Ne iti I City of Rosemead g y a g n Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 significantly impact the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department in the City of Rosemead. c) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of this mixed use project will result in a direct increase in the local population by attracting some new residents with school going children. The project is expected to impact the City's existing schools. However, per California Government Code (CGC), the City may not issue a building permit to an affected development project until the affected school district (the Garvey School District) has certified that the project has complied with the school board's resolution regarding payment of school impact fees (Section 53080, CGC). As authorized under Section 17620(a) of the California Education Code (CEC) and Section 65995(b) of the CGC, local school districts are authorized to impose and collect school "impact fees" for all residential and non-residential development activities that occur within their jurisdiction to off-set the additional costs associated with the new students that result directly from the construction of new homes and indirectly from the creation of new employment opportunities (and the potential for new workers to in-migrate into district boundaries to fill those new jobs and for younger workers to establish new households). Payment of school impacts fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts associated with new residential and non-residential development. As such, the project would not significantly impact the level of service provided by the Garvey School District. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project could add as many as 702 new residents to the City of Rosemead. Assuming that all those individuals constitute new City residents, based on a 2007 population of 57,425 individuals, the project will result in a Citywide population increase of about 1.2 percent. The actual increase could be less since some number of project residents could already reside within the City. The resulting population increase of no more than 1.2 percent would be reasonably consistent with local and regional growth forecasts, including calculated localized and regional demands upon parks and other recreation facilities. Consequently, impacts on park and recreational facilities will be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. As a result of the construction of new housing within the City, the Citywide population is projected to increase by about 1.2 percent. Based on the relatively small scale of this increase, project-specific demands upon other public facilities would be less than significant. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 67 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Environmental Issues F WLGI IUOIIr Significant Impact JIy11111VPl ll With Mitigation -GAO I npl Significant Impact f No i Impact 14. Recreation j a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. RECREATION a) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Response No. 4.3.13(d) above, the project would result in an increase of no more than 1.2 percent. This increase would be reasonably consistent with local and regional growth forecasts, including calculated localized and regional demands upon parks and other recreation facilities. Consequently, project impacts relative to the physical conditions of parks or other recreational facilities will be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project does include private recreational facilities, and would not require expansion of existing public recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Per the City's General Plan, the National Recreation and Parks Association recommends a minimum of 2.5 acres of park space per 1,000 people. While the City is deficient in park acreage, it is adjacent to the Whittier Narrows Dam Recreation area, located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the City. City Municipal Ordinance 12.44.020, Park and Recreation Impact Fee, requires the developer of each new dwelling unit to pay $800 to the Department of Parks and Recreation to finance the acquisition, expansion, remodel, renovation, rehabilitation and improvement of park, recreational and open space facilities identified in the resource management element of the General Plan and to finance such other public park, recreational and open space facilities as may be designated in a capital improvement plan adopted by resolution of the City Council. Thus, the proposed project does not result in a significant impact to recreational facilities that might impact the environment. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 68 of 91 • 1 City of Rosemead initial StudyAWitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Genera! Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 ' Conditional Use Permit #1090 ' MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 ' Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Deve! ment Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ' DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: UTILITIES 1 UT1L-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Prior to Building and ' Applicant shall prepare and submit for City Planning issuance of Safety Division review and acceptance, a construction debris grading Department. reduction/recycling plan designed to minimize the permit. ' volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal and incorporating measures for the separation and short- term on-site storage of construction waste materials in a manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion ' efforts. The plan shall include a fire component so that reclamation activities are conducted in a fire safe manner. ' 1 1 1 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 91 of 91 ' 0 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 ' General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 lnitialW (Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-01 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Deve! meet Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: forms and documentation regarding the rental or purchase of decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing. TRANSPORTATION TR-1: For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Prior to Planning Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the fair-share construction Division. funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable or when fair- levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009) share funding conditions. This signal is warranted under existing is determined. traffic conditions. TR-2: For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Prior to Planning Garvey Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the construction Division. fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive or when fair- left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound approach share funding to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025 is determined. conditions. TR-3: For the project access driveways, the Applicant Prior to Planning shall provide funding for the re-striping of the existing construction. Division. center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways. TR-4: The Applicant shall provide funds to install stop Prior to Planning signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access construction. Division. driveways. TR-5: During all construction operations, the Applicant Ongoing Planning shall ensure to the City of Rosemead's satisfaction that during Division. flagmen will be used to control traffic because large construction. trucks have a wider turning radius and will require turns across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress from the site. I Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 90 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Development Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: construction. N-7: All equipment shall be fitted with properly Ongoing Planning operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine during Division. shrouds no less effective than originally equipped. construction. N-8: The contractor shall specify the use of electric Ongoing Planning stationary equipment that can operate off of the power during Division. grid where feasible (e.g., compressors). Where construction. unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible. N-9: To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first Ongoing Planning perform building construction on those proposed during Division. structures located toward north side of the parcel. These construction. units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the parcel. N-10: The construction contractor shall provide details Ongoing Planning of the construction schedule, as well as an on-site name during Division. and telephone number of a contact person for local residents. construction. N-1 1: Construction shall be subject to any and all Ongoing Planning provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning during Division. Division. construction. HOUSING HOUS-1: Mitigation includes compliance with Section Monitor Planning B of the Mecky Meyers and Associates, Relocation Plan during Division. and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties relocation Mixed Use Project, dated June 2006. The Applicant shall provide each mobile home household with $8,000 Process. in relocation benefits, in addition to the purchase of each mobile home at Fair Market Value as determined by a State licensed appraiser. Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced persons upon submission of required clairn Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 89 of 91 City of Rosemead 0 Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial y/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: NOISE N-1: At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the On-going Planning southern-most residential units shall be constructed with Division batten insulation or of masonry construction. N-2: South-facing rooms in the southern-most units Prior to Planning shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 issuance of Division percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC any rating of 28. These windows are to be well fitting with demolition, vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. grading or Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. building permit; On- going N-3: All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most Ongoing Planning residential units (e.g., electrical conduits, HVAC ducts) during Division. are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are construction. rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is j exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. [N-4- All residential units within 307 feet and all Ongoing Planning commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue during Division. centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed construction. and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. N-5: In accordance with the Municipal Code, Ongoing Planning construction shall be restricted to between the hours of during Division. 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction. construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. "These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. N-6: All construction equipment shall be properly Ongoing Planning maintained and tuned to minimi/e noise emissions. during Divisirnl. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 88 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • Initial Study/Mitiga~ed Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Development Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading Prior to the Building and permits, the Applicant shall submit and, when issuance of Safety acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and any building Department. design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in or grading accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of permits. Geotechnical Reports" (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City Building Official. That investigation, as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that, when implemented, will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures. HAZARDOUS WASTES HAZ-I : Prior to demolition, a complete asbestos survey Prior to the Building and shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for asbestos issuance of Safety certification. If asbestos is found, contractor any building Department. recommendations for safe removal shall be followed or grading demolition. permits. HAZ-2: Prior to demolition, a complete lead-based paint Prior to the Building and survey shall be conducted by a contractor licensed for issuance of Safety lead-based paint certification. If lead-based paint is any building Department. found, contractor recommendations for safe removal or grading shall be followed during demolition. permits. ~I ~I r Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 87 of 91 11 11 City of Rosemead • Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project I 1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Deve/o me nt Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SICNATURE: DATE: north. AIR QUALITY AQ-1: NOx Emissions. Heavy truck hauls shall be During Planning limited to no more than 97 on any given day. construction. Division AQ-2. NOx Emissions. A log shall be kept at the site During Planning denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during construction. Division soil hauling activities. The log shall be available for City of Rosemead inspection. AQ-3. Paints and Coatings. All primers and top coats During Planning shall average no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (102 construction. Division gram/liter) VOC. AQ4. Miscellaneous. The Applicant shall abide by any During Planning other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead construction. Division and/or SCAQMD. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL -1: Monitoring during excavation shall be During site Building and conducted by a qualified paleontologist. If excavation. Safety paleontological resources are uncovered during site Department. excavation, the developer must notify the City of Rosemead Building and Safety and Bureau of Engineering immediately and work must stop within a 100-foot radius until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project sites. If the find is determined by the qualified paleontologist to be a unique paleontological resource, as defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find is determined not to be a unique paleontological resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 86 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 • SECTION 5 Initial Study/Mitiog Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN The following environmental mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project development as conditions of approval. The project applicant shall secure a signed verification for the mitigation measures that indicates that the mitigation measures have been complied with and implemented, and fulfill the City environmental and other requirements (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.) Final clearance shall require all applicable verifications as included in the following table. The City of Rosemead Planning Division has primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are identified by impact category and numbered for ease of reference. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PARK MONTEREY MIXED USE PROJECT General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #07-1090 Planned Develo ment Review #07-01 MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT: SIGNATURE: DATE: AESTHETICS AES-1: Prior to approval of building permits, the Prior to City Planning applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for approval of Division Planning Division review and approval. All high- building pressure sodium (HPS) out door light fixtures/luminaries permits; shall be fully shielded to minimize glare. Proposed light subject to poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light final building spills over to adjacent properties or directs light into the inspection. public right-of-way. AES-2: All proposed lighting for the exterior of the Subject to Planning project shall be directed away from adjacent residential final building Division and commercial properties, with particular emphasis on inspection; addressing the south exterior of the property adjacent to On-going. residential uses. The developer shall be required to provide downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting to effectively minimize residual negative impacts to residents to the Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 85 of 91 I I 4 City of Rosemead • Initial PudyAWitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Smith-Emery GeoServices. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 7419 & 7459 Garvey Avenue. Rosemead, California. July 13, 2007. SEG File No. 36953-1. SEG Report No. G-07-9977. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology,, June 2003. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, El Monte Quadrangle, March 25, 1999, available at s%20Anyeles&Liq=false&Land=false&Bore--false&Road=tnie&Ciiy=false&x 1=381650.908885592 3&y1=3777023.268147673&x2=399169.49239040765&y2=3762424.448560327 , last accessed August 23, 2007. Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Air Quality Analysis. September 2007. Synectecology Consulting. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project. Focused Noise Analysis. September 2007. Yost. Peter and Lund, Eric, Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide, National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, 1996. 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 84 of 91 City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 ' Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 SECTION 4 ■ REFERENCES California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the El Monte 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles Region. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 024. 1998. California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California Office of Historic Preservation: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=21427, last accessed September 10, 2007 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Job Site Source Separation, revised October 1998. California Public Resources Code. Census Bureau State and County Quickfacts website: http://dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP. City of Rosemead General Plan, November 24, 1987. City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Daly and Associates. Historic Resources Assessment. 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. (Historic address 404441 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey).Los Angeles County, California. September 2007. Franklin Associates, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998. Goodman, Jack, The Changing Demography of Multifamily Rental Housing. Housing Policy Debate, Volume 10, Issue I, Fannie Mae Foundation, 1999. htto://www.aswater.com/Organizatioti/Conipany Links/Regions/Region 3/region 3.html http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Map_index/city.htm#P-R. littp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LatidArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, last accessed August 23, 2007 Mecky Meyers and Associates. Relocation Plan and Conversion Impact Report for the Hawaii Properties Mixed Use Project. June 2006. RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. Rosemead. California. August 15, 2007. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 83 of 91 City of Rosemead Initia/~tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. The proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to project impacts to biological or cultural resources. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. Potential impacts associated with the project are site specific, and include potential aesthetic, air quality, cultural resources, hazards, noise, geology, housing, traffic and utilities. Each of these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation measures recommended for inclusion to the project. Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earthshaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The earth and geology conditions of the site would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Code and recommended mitigation measures; thus, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on human beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans either directly or indirectly. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 81 of 91 • i 1 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Developmdnt #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation 1 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Like most communities, the City has yet 1 to obtain its year 2000 diversion requirements. In recognition thereof, Mitigation Measure UTL-I is recommended for inclusion to the project: ' Mitigation Measure: li d b i f i h h ll ' prepare an su m t or t, t e App cant s a UTIL-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading perm City Planning Division review and acceptance, a construction debris reduction/recycling plan designed to minimize the volume of construction debris requiring landfill disposal and ' incorporating measures for the separation and short-term on-site storage of construction waste materials in a manner conducive to collection and recycling/diversion efforts. The plan shall ' include a fire component so that reclamation activities are conducted in a fire safe manner. 1 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of,a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact. The proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 80 of 91 0 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 landfills with sufficient pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. g) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City operates a three-bin residential curbside refuse, recyclable collection, and residential greenwaste collection program, whereby all property owners or occupants generating garbage, waste, refuse, trash or recyclable materials are required to pay to the city's designated contractor, Consolidated Disposal Services, a fee for the collection of garbage, waste, refuse, trash and recyclable materials. This program will be applied to the operations portion of the proposed project. Project implementation has the potential to generate substantial quantities of construction and demolition (C&D) wastes as a result of the construction of the proposed land uses. The USEPA estimates that generation rates for C&D debris range from 2.41 to 11.3 pounds per square foot of floor space." Studies conducted by the Solid Waste Department of Portland, Oregon estimated that approximately four pounds of C&D wastes are generated for every square foot of new construction.38 The National Association of Homebuilders' (NAHB) "Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide" also estimates that C&D wastes average 4 pounds per square foot of floor area. 39 Additionally, although no grading plans have been submitted for City review, based on the proposed presence of subterranean parking, it can be assumed that grading activities will necessitate the off-site transport of earth (inert) material. Recycling of C&D wastes at construction sites is typically undertaken either directly by each builder or under contract to other parties. If no effort is made to either promote the recycling of construction wastes, such as through job site segregation of C&D wastes into distinct categories, a greater tonnage and volume of wastes will require off-site disposal. Although sufficient landfill capacity exists to accommodate project demands, which are limited to the disposal of C&D waste, landfill capacity is diminishing throughout the State. The California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the State to reduce or recycle 25 percent of the solid wastes disposed in landfills by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. For those jurisdictions unable to meet AB 939 diversion objectives and established deadlines, monetary penalties can be imposed against those agencies. As required under AB 939, the City is required to prepare a 3'/ Franklin Associates, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 1998, p. 2-2. 38/ Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board, Job Site Source Separation, revised October 1998. 19/ Yost, Peter and Lund, Eric, Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide. National Association of Homebuilders Research Center, 19%. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 79 of 91 0 0 City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 causing significant environmental effects. The proposed project would to be accommodated within the existing wastewater treatment facility. b) No Impact. The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. The proposed project site is relatively small approximately 3.68 acres, with structures covering more than half of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of the existing facilities, and would have no associated significant impacts to storm water drains. c) No Impact. As a small infill development, the project would have sufficient water supplies available from existing entitlements and resources; no new or expanded entitlements will be required. The Golden State Water Company provides water to the subject site and proof of water availability and willing to supply water to the project will be required to be provided to the City of Rosemead prior to issuance of any building permit. The City of Rosemead is supplied with water from various sources, including the Colorado River Aqueduct, Local Ground Water and the State Water Project. The existing water supplies are anticipated to be adequate to serve required amount of water to the project. e) No Impact. As a small infill development, the project's wastewater demands are expected to be adequately met by existing Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts facilities. No significant wastewater impacts are anticipated from this project. t) No Impact. There are no landfills in the City of Rosemead. The project would be served by either of the following Landfills: Arvin Sanitary Landfill in Kern County, Bradley Landfill West and West Extension in Los Angeles County, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Los Angeles County, City of Whittier - Salvage Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County, Puente Hills Landfill #6 in Los Angeles County, Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Los Angeles County, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in Orange County or Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in Orange County. The proposed project involves the excavation of 88,046 cubic yards of soil to allow for development of a subterranean parking garage. The soil could be sold/recycled to developers for infill for other projects, or taken to a landfill. The exported material, as well as other solid waste materials associated with construction would not affect the handling of solid waste on the local or regional scale and would not generate solid waste in excess of the landfill capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by existing 11 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 78 of 91 City of Rosemead • Initial PdyAWidgated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 wastewater per day. The proposed commercial uses would also contribute to wastewater generation. Average daily usages vary according to the specific uses prescribed. The design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment plants are based on population forecasts contained in Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) "Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide" (RCPG). The RCPG is part of the "Air Quality Management Plan" (AQMP). The AQMP and RCPG are jointly prepared by the SCAQMD and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to conform to the AQMP, all expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that ensures consistency with the Growth Management Element (GME) of the RCPG. The GME contains a regional forecast for the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial, as prepared by SCAG. Specific policies in the RCPG that deal with the management of growth are incorporated into the AQMP's strategies to improve air quality in the SCAB. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities is assumed to be limited to those levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG. Projects that are consistent with local general plans are, therefore, adequately accommodated by the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities. Conversely, projects that are not consistent with existing general plan and which would generate wastewater quantities in excess of those levels that could otherwise be generated based on allowable land uses may not be adequately accommodated by Districts' facilities. A final determination of plan consistency rests with the City's decision-making body. If deemed consistent, the Districts' facilities would be deemed adequate to accommodate project-related demands. If deemed inconsistent, the project could not be approved by the City absent an amendment to the City's General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan is proposed for the proposed project. Given the small size of the project and the fact that the project is an infill project, the District's facilities are expected to be adequate to serve the project site. The Districts' is authorized to charge a fee for new connections to the Districts' sewerage system or for an increase to the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel. The connection fee provides a revenue source for the construction and incremental expansion of the Districts' sewerage system to accommodate the proposed development. Payment of the County-imposed connection fee, which is required prior to issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer system, serves to mitigate the impact of proposed project on the existing sewerage system. The project will not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 77 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development 007-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 In addition, City Municipal Ordinance 13.16.030, Control of Urban Runoff, requires that a water quality management plan for significant redevelopment projects shall be prepared in accordance with the existing established city standards; and that any conditions and requirements established by the City Engineer, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the project site shall be adhered to. Therefore, the project's wastewater impacts are expected to be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Golden State Water Company (GSWC) services the project area. GSWC Region III operations are focused in more than 30 cities and communities serving more than 93,000 customer connections. Region III is divided into three districts and 10 customer service areas operating 21 separate water systems consisting of more than 1,180 miles of transmission pipelines, meters and hydrants- Water delivered to customers' homes is surface water or pumped from local groundwater basins. On average, approximately 64 percent of the Region 111 water supply is pumped from 132 company- owned and operated wells. The remaining water supply is surface water purchased from the MWD, Imperial Irrigation District, Municipal Water District of Orange County and Three Valleys Municipal Water District.35 Water service to the project site is available from an existing water main within Garvey Avenue. Given the small size of the project, the project would be accommodated within the existing capacity of the GSWC operations. The project will not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus causing significant environmental effects. Property owners are required to inform GSWC of any change in the character, size, or use of property or buildings other than for which the service connection was originally intended. The Applicant is further responsible for the payment of applicable fees and other charges, as may be set by GSWC. Operation and maintenance of the regional trunk sewer lines is the responsibility of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works of The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts).36 The Districts' has formulated average sewer generation rates for a wide range of residential and non-residential land uses. In accordance therein, "condominium" units generate an average of 156 gallons of wastewater per day. Based on those generation rates, the projects' residential component would generate a total of approximately 26,832 gallons of 35 hgp://www.aswater.com/Orpanization/Comt)any Links/Regions/Region 3/re gion 3.html. 36 The Sanitation Districts service area covers approximately 800 square miles and encompasses 78 cities and unincorporated territory within the County. The Sanitation Districts' operate ten water reclamation plants (WRPs) and one ocean discharge facility (Joint Water Pollution Control Plant), which treats approximately 510 million gallons per day, 200 mgd of which are available for reuse. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 76 of 91 • City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ the vroiect's nroiected demand in addition to the f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ® ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Less than Significant Impact Wastewater from small to medium sized development projects typically meet wastewater treatment requirements because wastewater treatment facilities are already designed to treat such domestic wastewater, sludge, industrial and commercial sewage, as well as construction waste, however, may contain toxic materials that a wastewater treatment facility is not designed to handle, and therefore, could exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Rosemead has two drainage systems - the sewers and the storm drains. The storm drain system was designed to prevent flooding by carrying excess rainwater away from the City streets out to the ocean. Rain, industrial and household water mixed with urban pollutants creates storm water pollution. The pollutants include oil and other automotive fluids, paint and construction debris, yard and pet wastes, pesticides and litter. Urban runoff flows to the ocean through the storm drain. Urban runoff pollution contaminates the ocean, closes beaches, harms aquatic life and increases the risk of inland flooding by clogging gutters and catch basins. Operation and maintenance of local main sewer lines are the responsibility of the Sewer Maintenance Districts of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSMD) collects wastewater from the City of Rosemead. LACCSMD has adopted policies and programs that have been approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The LARWQCB requires adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure a cleaner water sources and a cleaner environment. Due the proposed small scale of the project, it is not anticipated to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB. Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with such wastewater standard requirements and BMPs will be incorporated to the project throughout the permit application process. 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 75 of 91 • • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 the Fire Department's emergency access standards during permit review period. Final project plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Fire Marshall to ensure that the site's access complies with all emergency access standards. With the required compliance with all City's Traffic Engineer and Fire Marshall's standards, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. Q No Impact. Based upon the City of Rosemead's Parking Code requirements for individual uses, a total of 662 parking spaces are required for the project. The required number of spaces has been provided according to the site plan. Due to the mix of land uses, the shared parking concept is viable for the project. Utilizing the shared parking concept 33 and rates from the City of Rosemead Parking Code, peak demand is estimated to be 572 parking spaces for weekdays and 565 parking spaces for weekends. 31 Sufficient parking will be available onsite to accommodate the project. Accordingly, the project will not result in inadequate parking capacity hence-, no significant parking impacts are expected. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the projecl: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 33 The project uses are compatible with one another and lend themselves to the use of shared parking because the uses are complimentary (i.e., residential, restaurant, and retail), and people could often visit the site for more than one purpose in only one trip. 34 The traffic study found that the peal: demand is the month of December for the proposed project. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 74 of 91 n t 1 1 Ii City of Rosemead • Initial dyAWidgated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 result of the turning movements required along Garvey Avenue. Mitigation Measure TR-3 in Response No. 4.3.15(a) above), for restriping the existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways as presented in shall be implemented prior to construction in order to accommodate heavy trucks. In addition, to reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure TR-5 is recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to traffic design hazards to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measure: TR-S: During all construction operations, the Applicant shall ensure to the City of Rosemead's satisfaction that flagmen will be used to control traffic because large trucks have a wider turning radius and will require turns across multiple lanes as they ingress and egress from the site. e) Less than Significant Impact. The project fronts Garvey Avenue, which is also the nearest emergency and evacuation route to the project. Delmar Avenue to the east of the project is also a City of Rosemead Evacuation Route. 1 The project is not anticipated to interfere with these emergency and evacuation routes or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans because neither construction nor project operation would block evacuation routes. Restricted access32 as indicated in the Traffic Study conducted for the project would not result in an impedance of easy access in case of emergency. In addition, the mitigation of providing re-striping of the center lane of Garvey Avenue and incorporation of a flagman to control truck turning movements during construction, would alleviate hazards associated with construction traffic, and reduce the potential for blockages of access points. Therefore, the project presents no impact to Rosemead's emergency response, emergency access or evacuation plans. 1 I The proposed project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the City and County Fire Department's standards, which require that new developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The access ways meet the requirements of the City Municipal Code for wide, and thus, by providing wide access-ways are expected to achieve 31 City of Rosemead General Plan, Public Safety Element Fig. PS-2. 32 RK Engineering Group. Park Monterey Project Impact Study. August 15. 2007. Pg. 1-1. The study states that the west driveway will restrict left-tums existing the site, the center driveway will provide right-turn in/right-turn out access only, and the east driveway will provide full access. Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 73 of 91 City of Rosemead Initial Study/MitigBTed Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project General Plan Amendment #07-02 Environmental Evaluation Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 TR-1: For the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the fair-share funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This signal is warranted under existing traffic conditions. , TR-2: For the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the Applicant shall participate in the fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025 conditions. TR-3: For the project access driveways, the Applicant shall provide funding for the re- striping of the existing center turn lane along Garvey Avenue to provide exclusive left-turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways. TR4: The Applicant shall provide funds to install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access driveways. b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project traffic analysis considers cumulative projects in the immediate area and growth factors. In consideration of cumulative impacts, the project contributes incrementally to the intersection impacts discussion in Response No. 4.3.15(a) above. The mitigation measures presented in Response No. 4.3.15(a) also apply. e) No Impact. Development of the project proposes to maintain adequate pedestrian-friendly access along access Streets. As part of the City standard development process, the project would be conditioned to comply with applicable City adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation routes such as buses routes, bicycle lanes etc. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or impact policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and the project would have no related significant impacts. d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Given their proximity to each other and the hazards associated with making left turns across Garvey Avenue from the site, the project driveways pose potentially significant safety concerns. Other than the hazards associated with turning movements of the three access driveways on Garvey Avenue which will be mitigated (see Response No. 4.3.15(aa) above) no new roadway components will be introduced as a result of or as part of the project. During construction, heavy trucks will be entering and exiting the site to remove earth during excavation for the subterranean parking, and then to bring building materials to the site. During construction, there is a potential for the heavy trucks to pose a danger to traffic as a Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 72 of 91 11 11 City of Rosemead • Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial 5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation All study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions with the exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue. For the Build-Out Condition with Project (Year 2009), all study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours, with the exceptions of New Avenue at Graves Avenue, New Avenue at Del Mar Avenue, and the three project access driveways on Garvey Avenue are expected to result in an unacceptable level of service during peak hours. Table I 1 summaries the intersection analysis. Level of Service "D", shown in bold represents the significantly impacted intersections. Without mitigation, a significant traffic impact would result. Table 11 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersection Existing Plus Project 2009 Buildout Plus Condition Project Condition ICU Level of Service' ICU Level of Services North-South East-West Street AM PM AM PM Street Alhambra Avenue E. Garvc% Avenue A A A A New Avenue Hellman Avenue C B C B Emerson Avenue A A A A Garvey Avenue B B B A Newmark Avenue B A B A Graves Avenue` C D C D Jackson Avenue Garvey Avenue A A A A Del Mar Avenue Garvey Avenue A C A D Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Levels of Service (LOS) A through C represent "free flow" traffic through "stable flow" conditions. LOS C marks the beginning of the range of flow in which operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. LOS D through F represent the range of "stable flow with speed and freedom to maneuver severely restricted" to "forced or breakdown flow where the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point". Significance is reached at LOS D. 2Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology used at this Cross Street Stop intersection that uses "delay time" methodology herein. All intersections arc controlled by traffic signals. Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Extracted from Tables 4 and 6. Traffic Engineering Report. To reduce this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures TR-1 through TR-4 are recommended for inclusion to the project. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce project impacts relative to congestion at intersections and project access driveways to less than significant levels: Mitigation Measures: 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 71 of 91 City of Rosemead Planned Development #07-01 General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Conditional Use Permit #1090 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Environmental Evaluation Table 9 TRIP GENERATION RATES' Peak Hour Land Use Quantity] Morning (Ah4) Evening (PM) Daily it ` U n s Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Residential DU 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.17 5.86 Specialty Retail 1000 SF 0.80 0.53 1.19 1.52 44.32 High Turnover Sit- 1000 SF 5.99 5.53 6.66 4.26 127.15 Down Restaurant Shopping Center 1000 SF 1.81 1.61 5.19 5.62 119.07 Notes: 1. The traffic generation rates are from the "Trip Generation, 7th Edition" (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003) and SANDAG Traffic Generation Rates. 2. DU =dwelling units Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Table 2 from'Fraffic Engineering Report. Those rates were then applied to the proposed uses to obtain trip generation estimates. Those estimates are presented in Table 10. As indicated therein, the project would result in an estimated 3,590 daily trip ends, with 231 net vehicles per hour during AM peak hour and 313 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The retail uses on the project site and other retail uses located in proximity to the site would further reduce the number of vehicular trips generated by the project. A reduction of 5 percent was applied to account for internal trips within the project between the residential and commercial uses. In addition, to account for the pass-by trips to the commercial portion of the project, a reduction in trips of 15 percent and 25 percent were applied to the restaurant and retail components of the site, respectively. Table 10 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Morning (AA/1) Evening (PM) Daily Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Itesidc ntial 1271)[1 ) t? -14 66 744 High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant 17,830 Square Feet 108 99 206 119 76 195 2,267 Shopping Center 41,400 Square Feet 26 17 43 75 81 156 1,778 Less 5% Internal Capture -7 -8 -15 -12 -9 -21 -239 Gross Total 135 155 290 226 170 396 4,550 Less 15% Pass-By Restaurant -25 -24 -49 -28 -18 -46 -538 Less 25% Pass-By Retail -6 -4 -10 -18 -19 -37 -422 Net Total 104 127 231 180 133 313 3,590 Source: RK Engineering, Inc. Table 3 from Traffic Engineering Report. Ii 11 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 70 of 91 • City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planned Development #07-01 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project ' General Plan Amendment #07-02 Zone Change #07-225 Environmental Evaluation Conditional Use Permit #1090 f] t t Ll t Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 15. Transportation/Traffic Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ® ❑ ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The following information is excerpt from a project-specific traffic study, (Traffic Study), included in Appendix D, Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering Group (August 15, 2007). Model runs from the ' Trc1&.Study are available at the City Planning Division offices. 30 1 t In order to examine the project's potential traffic impacts, it is first necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development. Studies have been conducted by governmental agencies and consultants to determine trip generation characteristics of various land uses. Trip generation rates applicable to the proposed land uses were obtained from this body of data and are presented in Table 9. Since specific information for the retail commercial uses is not available, the "specialty retail" category was determined to be representative of most potential uses. 30 RK Engineering Group, Inc. Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study. Rosemead, California. August 2007. 1 Park Monterey Mixed Use Project Page 69 of 91 0 0 0 0 17A Appendix A. Focused Air Quality Analysis • Park Monterey Mixed-Use Project Focused Air Quality Analysis City of Rosemead, CA Prepared by: Synectecology 10232 Overbill Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-669-9799 Prepared for: Comprehensive Planning Services P.O. Box 15592 Newport Beach, CA 92695 949-650-3206 • August 27, 2007 i • AIR QUALITY 1.0 Methodology This air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the Park Monterey mixed-use project to be located in the City of Rosemead. The impact analysis contained in this document was prepared in accordance with the methodologies provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as included in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) and on its Internet web site. Regional impacts for both construction and operation are assessed using the URBEMIS2007 urban emissions model distributed by the SCAQMD. Localized impacts from construction were determined using methodology provided by the SCAQMD in its document Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Long-term localized impacts are typically associated with traffic congestion at intersection locations and are assessed under the provisions of the Caltrans Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol and CALINE4 computer model. The Park Monterey mixed-use project involves the construction and operation of 127 multi-family dwelling units (condominiums) and approximately 59,230 square feet of retail use on approximately 3.68 acres of land. Projected air emissions are calculated using the Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007) distributed by the SCAQMD. The URBEMIS model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated to begin in 2008 with completion in 2009 (one year). The subsequent occupation of the site is also based on the URBEMIS model using traffic-projections provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc. as included in Park Monterey Project Trafic Impact Study, August 15, 2007 (Traffic Study). In accordance with the Trafc.Study, the project would add 3,590 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. The analysis finds that ROG emissions associated with the use of paints and coatings during construction, have the potential to exceed their respective daily threshold values and mitigation (the requirement for low emissions paints) is provided to ensure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant. No other significant impacts have been identified and no further mitigation is warranted under CEQA. 2.0 Eriuing Conditions 2.1 Climate/Meteorology The Park Monterey mixed-use project area lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin) that includes all of Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds- The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station located nearest to the site in San Gabriel reports a yearly average of 64°F. The average low is reported at 40°F in January while the average high is 89°F in July and August. All areas in the Basin have recorded temperatures above 100°F in recent years and temperatures as high as 11 1 °F have been recorded at the San Gabriel station. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the Basin, with record minimum temperatures in the 20s_ In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 19.17 inches per year in the project area as measured at the Pasadena monitoring station to the north. Although the Basin has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by off-shore winds, the i • ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as "high fog" are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the Basin. Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Annually, typical winds in the project area average about 6 miles per hour during the day and 4 miles per hour during the night. Between the periods of dominant air flow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high pressure systems over the Basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally have a duration of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the "mixing height." This mixing height can change under conditions when the top of the inversion does not change. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area. 2.2 Ambient Air Quality The following characterization of the baseline atmospheric environment includes an evaluation of the ambient air quality and applicable rules, regulations, and standards for the area. Because the project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air, it falls under the ambient air quality standards promulgated on the local, state, and federal levels. 2.1.1 Affected Environment The project is located in the SCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). However, the SCAQMD reports to the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and all emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Topographical features that affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the project area include the mountain ranges to the northeast that prevent the transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions. The quality of the ambient air is affected by pollutants emitted into the air from stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and area sources. Point sources consist of one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processing plants. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions, such as residential water heaters. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources are a combination of emissions from automobiles, trucks, and indirect sources. Indirect sources are sources that by themselves may not emit air contaminants; however, they indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicle trips or consuming energy. Examples of indirect sources include an office complex or commercial center that generates commuter trips and consumes energy resources through the use of natural gas for space and water heating. Indirect sources also include actions proposed by local governments, such as redevelopment districts and private projects involving the development of either large buildings or tracts. In addition, indirect sources include those emissions created by the distance vehicles travel. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self- propelled construction equipment. 0 0 2.2.2 Criteria Air Pollutants The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and state law. These regulated air pollutants are known as "criteria air pollutants" and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and most fine particulate matter (PMIO, PM2.5) including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust; are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, S02, PM,o, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone (03) and nitrogen dioxide (N02) are the principal secondary pollutants. Presented below is a description of each of these primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects. Other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, a natural by-product of animal respiration that is also produced in the combustion process, have been linked to such phenomena as global warming. These emissions are only starting to be regulated and there are no thresholds for their release. Furthermore, these pollutants do not jeopardize the attainment status of the Basin. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is the interference of normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form secondary pollutants. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO,). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. N02 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOx acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of N02 produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts to form N02. creating the mixture of NO and NO, commonly called NOx. N02 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, N02 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between N02 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 part per million (ppm). NO, absorbs blue light, the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO, also contributes to the formation of PMio (particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or 0.0004 inch or less in diameter). Sulfur Dioxide (S02) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. Fuel combustion is the primary source of S02. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO, may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, S02 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate are now recognized. Course particles, or PMio, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., ten one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially to the local particulate loading. Both PMIO and PM2 5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. The SCAQMD recently promulgated both regional and localized emissions thresholds for PM2,5. These are based on the proposed EPA standard of 10 tons per year as included in the Federal Register, September 8, 2005. Fugitive Dust poses primarily two public health and safety concerns. The first concern is that of respiratory problems attributable to the suspended particulates in the air. The second concern is that of motor vehicle accidents caused by 0 0 reduced visibility during severe wind conditions. Fugitive dust may also cause significant property damage during strong windstorms by acting as an abrasive material agent (much like sandblasting activities). Finally, fugitive dust can result in a nuisance factor due to the soiling of proximate structures and vehicles. Ozone (03) is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when reactive organic compounds (ROC) and NOx (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. 03 is present in relatively high concentrations in the SCAB, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the concentrations of 03. 03 may pose a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as healthy people. Additionally, 03 has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and pre-mature death. 03 can also act as a corrosive resulting in property damage such as the embitterment of rubber products. 2.2.3 Toxic Air Contaminants The public's exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is an environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Act (42 USC Sec. 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness. or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an "airborne toxics control measure" for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) to minimize emissions. Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics "Hot Spot" Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. To date the CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Additionally, the CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. In 2000, the SCAQMD conducted a study on ambient concentrations of TACs and estimated the potential health risks from air toxics. The results showed that the overall risk for excess cancer from a lifetime exposure to ambient levels of air toxics was about 1,400 in a million. The largest contributor to this risk was diesel exhaust, accounting for 71 percent of the air toxics risk. 2.2.4 Other Effects of Air Pollution Just as humans are affected by air pollution, so too are plants and animals. Animals must breathe the same air and are subject to the same types of negative health effects. Certain plants and trees may absorb air pollutants that can stunt their development or cause premature death, as well as interfere with their ability to convert CO-, to oxygen. There are also numerous impacts to our economy including lost workdays due to illness, a desire on the part of business to locate in areas with a healthy environment, and increased expenses from medical costs. Pollutants may also lower visibility and cause damage to property. Certain air pollutants are responsible for discoloring painted surfaces, eating away at stones used in buildings, dissolving the mortar that holds bricks together, and cracking tires and other items made from rubber. 0 • 2.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions It is commonly understood today that certain gases can accumulate in the atmosphere and decrease the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, potentially contributing to the warming of the earth's climate much like the interior of a greenhouse. These gases are often referred to as "greenhouse gases" or "GHG." The primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. Over time, increases in the earth's temperature could result in significant climate change effects such as raising sea levels, altering precipitation patterns, and changing water supplies and crop yields. Global warming could also affect human health, wildlife, and ecosystems. The general scientific consensus is that increased concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere can contribute to global warming, although there is disagreement and uncertainty concerning either the likely magnitude of the GHG contribution or the degree of potential warming that would be due to GHG, rather than natural forces. Higher atmospheric temperatures could also result in more emissions of certain pollutants, and increased smog levels and the associated health impacts. While the possible outcomes and feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood, and much more research remains to be done, many members of the scientific community believe there is a potential for significant environmental, social, and economic consequences from world-wide, cumulative GHG emissions contributing to global warming over the long term. California has undertaken a role in addressing global warming and GHG emissions. In June 2005, the Governor signed Executive Order #S-3-05 which established the following greenhouse gas reduction targets: By 2010, reduce greenhouse emissions state-wide to 2000 emission levels By 2020, reduce greenhouse emissions state-wide to 1990 emission levels By 2050, reduce greenhouse gases state-wide to 80% below 1990 levels The target for 2020 was recently codified into the State law through the adoption of AB 32.E The emission levels in California were estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990, 473 million metric tons C02 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons C02 equivalent for 2010, and 600 million metric tons C02 equivalent for 2020. According to the 2007 AQMP, AB 32's goals for emission reductions were estimated to be approximately 59 and 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2010 and 2020, respectively. Achieving AB 32's targets would require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, such strategies would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. Establishing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07 on January 18, 2007, which mandates that by 2020, fuel providers (including refiners, blenders, producers, and importers) must reduce their average carbon intensity by 10 percent. This reduction is expected to result in replacement of 20 percent of on-road gasoline consumption with lower-carbon fuels and lead to the addition of seven million alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles on California roads. 2.3 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AA QS) The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 established national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those "sensitive receptors" most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Both the State of California and the federal government have established health based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six air pollutants. As shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, t The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Health & Safety Code § 38,500 et seq. suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.S), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to primary and secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, the State of California has established a set of episode , criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants, which actually threaten public health. ' Table I , Ambient Air Quality Standards-for Criteria Pollutants Averaging California Federal Pollutant Time Standard Primary Major Pollutant Sources Standard Ozone (0 ) 1 hour 0.09 m * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and 3 8 hours 0.070 0.08 m solvents. id C b M I hour 20 m 35 m Internal combustion engines, onox e ar on (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. Nitrogen Dioxide Annual * 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining NO Average operations, industrial sources, ( * I hour 0.25 m aircraft, ships, and railroads. Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average * 0.03 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, (SOZ) - I hour 0.25 m * sulfur recovery plants, and metal i 24 hours 0.04 m 0.14 m ng. process Annual Dust and fume-producing Suspended Arithmetic 20 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 construction, industrial, and P ti l t M tt Mean agricultural operations, combustion, ar cu a e a er (PM10) 3 atmospheric photochemical 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m reactions, and natural activities (e.g. wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual Dust and fume-producing Suspended Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 construction, industrial, and P ti l M t tt Mean agricultural operations, combustion, ar cu a e a er (PM s) atmospheric photochemical _ 24 hours * 65 µg/m3 reactions, and natural activities (e.g. wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Monthly 1.5 t m3 * Present source: lead smelters, Lead (Pb) battery manufacturing & recycling Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3 facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded asoline. Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µIg/M3 * Industrial processes. Ppm: parts per million, µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * = standard is not used for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 2.4 2.4.1 .Air Qualit}, Management Planning Local Planning Requirements The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) are the agencies responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The 1997 AQMP, updated in 1999 and replaced in 2003, was based on the 1994 AQMP and ultimately the 1991 AQMP and was designed to comply with State and federal requirements, reduce the high level of pollutant emissions in the SCAB, and ensure clean air for the region through various control measures. To accomplish its task, the 1991 AQMP relied on a multilevel partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, State, regional, and local level. These agencies (i.e., the USEPA, CARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP programs. The most recent comprehensive plan is the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan adopted on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP employs up-to-date science and analytical tools and incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources, and area sources. The 2007 Plan proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM2,5 standards through a more focused control of SOx, directly emitted PM, 5, and NOx supplemented with VOC by 2014. The 8-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM2 5 strategy, augmented with additional VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2020. An extended attainment date (i.e., additional 3 years) is allowed under the Clean Air Act if a "bump-up" request is made by the state showing the need for such extension- The 2007 AQMP proposes policies and measures currently contemplated by responsible agencies to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the Basin and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (formerly named the Southeast Desert Air Basin) that are under District jurisdiction (Coachella Valley). The 2007 Plan also addresses several federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 Plan builds upon the approaches taken in the 2003 AQMP for the SCAB for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this new Plan highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources. to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under federal Clean Air Act. The 2007 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM,,,); replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) has met since 1992. Areas that meet the ambient air quality standards are classified as "attainment" areas while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as "non-attainment" areas. The severity of the classifications for ozone non-attainment include and range in magnitude from: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme. The attainment status for the SCAB is included in Table 2. Table 2 Attainment Status for the .W11 R Pollutant State Status Federal Status Ozone (1-hour) Extreme Non-attainment Extreme Non-attainment (under the prior standard) Ozone (8-hour Extreme Non-Attainment Severe-17 (ma petition for Extreme) PM 1, Serious Non-attainment Serious Non-attainment PM2 s Non-attainment Non-attainment CO Attainment Attainment/Nlaintenance NO, Attainment Attainment/Maintenance The Basin is also designated as attainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for SO2, lead, and sulfates. Areas that are designated as Severe 17 for the ozone standard must meet attainment of the 8-hour standard by 2021 (2024 if reclassified to Extreme). Areas considered as serious non-attainment of the PM,o standards must have reached attainment by the end of 2006, or as expeditiously as possible. The PM2 5 attainment date is to be met in the year 2015. • • 2.4.2 Federal Clean Air Act Requirements The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires plans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures including the adoption of reasonably available control technology for reducing emissions from existing sources. Emission control innovations in the form of market-based approaches are explicitly encouraged by the CAA. The SCAQMD is the first local agency in the country to adopt a market-based approach for controlling stationary source emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. Other federal requirements addressed include mechanisms to track plan implementation and milestone compliance for 03 and CO. The USEPA has recently phased out the federal 1-hour ozone standard and replaced it with a new 8-hour standard to protect against longer exposure periods. However, the Basin still experiences ozone levels over the prior federal 1-hour standard on more than 20 days per year. The 2007 AQMP shows that by 2010, the Basin will still exceed the federal 1-hour ozone standard by 20 percent despite the implementation of existing air quality programs. The District and a number of environmental organizations have litigated against USEPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard with the case still pending. The new 8-hour ozone standard is set at a concentration of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) and represents a tightening of the existing 1-hour ozone standard that was set at 0.12 ppm. Under the form of the standard adopted by the USEPA, areas are allowed to disregard their three worst measurements every year and average their fourth highest measurements over 3 years to determine if they meet the standard. For particulate matter, the USEPA established new annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 to complement the existing PM10 standards. The new annual PM,5 standard is set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and the new 24-hour PM,_5 standard is set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter. The annual component of the standard was set to provide protection against typical day-to-day exposures as well as longer-term exposures, while the daily component protects against more extreme short-term events. For the new 24-hour PM2; standard, the form of the standard is based on the 98'h percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations measured in a year (averaged over 3 years) at the monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area. This form of the standard will reduce the impact of a single high exposure event that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions and thus provide a more stable basis for effective control programs. While USEPA has retained the current annual PM10 standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter, it has modified the form of the 24-hour PM10 standard set at 150 micrograms per cubic meter. More specifically, USEPA revised the one-expected exceedance form of the current standard with a 99`h percentile form, averaged over 3 years. The State Implementation Plans (SIP) that will incorporate attainment demonstrations with the new 8-hour and PM2.5 standards are expected to be required within 3 years of the air quality designations or by 2007. Therefore, the current regulatory control strategies will continue to focus on attaining the 1-hour ozone standard with the recognition that these controls will have benefits toward attaining the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The USEPA is considering several options in transitioning from the 1-hour to the 8-hour standard. while ensuring that no backsliding will occur. Based on the recent consent decree guidance, it is most likely that the Basin will have to meet the federal PM2.5 standards by 2015 and the 8-hour ozone standard by 2021 or 2024 if the area is redesignated as "Extreme." 2.5 Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD. The project is located in the northernmost portion of Source Receptor Area (SRA) 1 I (South San Gabriel Valley). Unfortunately, this station does not monitor PM10 particulate matter and these data are as monitored at the East San Gabriel Valley monitoring station (SRA 9) located immediately northeast of the project area. Data from these stations are summarized in 'Table 3. The data show recurring violations of both the State and Federal ozone standards and no clear trend is apparent, though the recent years show reductions from historic levels. The data also indicate that the area regularly exceeds the PM10 standards. Additionally, PM2.5 has exceeded the Federal standard twice in the last 5 years that it has been monitored. Neither the CO nor NO2 standard have been violated in the last 5 years at this station. Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summa , San Gabriel Valle Monitoring Stations` Number of Days Threshold Were E.reeeded and Marimum Pollutant/Standard Levels During Such Violations 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (hnnv State I -Hour > 0.09 ppm 3 18 7 0 9' State 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm ND' ND 7 03 53 Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 l 0 03 13 Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 2 0 03 33 Max. I-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.111 0.128 0.104 0.0773 0.133 Max. 8-Hour Conc. ( m) 0.079 0.097 0.084 0.0653 0.0953 ('arbors Monoxide State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8-Hour? 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 03 03 Max I-Hour Conc. (ppm) 5 5 5 33 33 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 4.0 4.0 3.6 2.4' Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0' 03 Max. l-Hour Conc. (nnm) 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.093 0.103 State 24-Hour > 50 pg/m' 40.4 35.0 14.5 21.8 12.1 Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (uPJm3) 91 119 83 76 81 > 65 us;/m' 1 0.0 1 0.9 1 0.0 1 0.0' 1 0.9 ' Ozone, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM25 are as monitored at the South San Gabriel Valley Monitoring Station. PMio is as monitored at the East San Gabriel Valley Monitoring Station. Z ND - No data. 3 Less than 12 full months of data. May not be representative. 4 Percent of samples exceeding standard. ppm: parts per million, pg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2.6 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes All projects constructed in the Basin are subject to Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Those conditions specific to air quality are included below: • Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities. • Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. • Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. • Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113. which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. • Adherence to Title 24 energy-efficient design requirements as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 9 0 0 During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the South Coast Air Basin. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PMIO concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM lo high-volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PMio sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies two sets of specific measures, one for projects less than 50 acres, and another set of conditions for projects that exceed 50 acres. Those requirements applicable to the project are included in Table 4. Note that these measures are regulatory requirements and as such, do not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Table 4 SCAQMD Required Best Available Control Aleasures Backfilling Clearing and grubbing Clearing forms Crushing Cut and Demolition - Stabilize backfill material when not actively handling; and Stabilize backfill material during handling; and Stabilize soil at completion of activity maintain stanutty of sou tnrougn pre- watering of site prior to clearing and grubbing, and Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and Stabilize soil immediately after clearing Use water spray to clear forms; or Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or Stabilize surtace soils prior to of of support equipment; and Stabilize material after crushing. Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities; and Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. dust; and Stabilize surface soil where to Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; and Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to backtilling equipment; and Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust plumes are generated; and Minimize drop height from loader bucket. Maintain live perennial vegetation where possible; and Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause exceedance of Rule requirements. Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment; and Pre-water material prior to loading into crusher; and Monitor crusher emissions opacity; and Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes. For large sites, pre-water with sprinklers or water trucks and allow time for penetration, and Use water trucks/pulls to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent cuts. Apply water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible 10 i it and vehicles will operate; and loose soil and demolition debris; and Earth-moving activities Importing/exporting of bulk materials Landscaping Road shoulder maintenance construction site. and Stabilize disturbed soil between structures Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; and Re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete. Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114. Stabilize soils, materials, slopes Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing; and Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. Pre-water material prior to screening; ar Limit fiigitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards; and Stabilize material immediately after screening. instaitation of curbing anaior paving of road shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs; and Use of chemical dust suppressants can inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to screening operation; and Drop material through the screen slowly and minimize drop height; and Install wind barrier with a porosity of no more than 50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop point. H Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on soils where possible; and If interior block walls are planned, install as early as possible; and Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the timed to coincide with construction phase;and Upwind fencing can prevent material movement on site; and Apply water or a stabilizing agent in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on haul trucks; and Check belly-dump truck seals regularly and remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage; and Comply with track-out prevention/mitigation requirements; and Provide water while loading and unloading to reduce visible dust Apply water to materials to stabilize; and Maintain materials in a crusted condition; and Maintain effective cover over materials; and Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes; and Hydroseed prior to rain season. 0 • 1 Staging areas Stabilize staging areas during use; and Limit size of staging area; and t Stabilize staging area soils at project Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per completion. hour; and Limit number and size of staging area entrances/exits. Stockpiles/bulk material handling Stabilize stockpiled materials, and Add or remove material from the Stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site downwind portion of the storage pile; occupied buildings must not be greater and ' than eight feet in height; or must have a Maintain storage piles to avoid steep road bladed to the top to allow water sides or faces. truck access or must have an operational ' water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. Traffic areas for construction Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking Apply gravel/paving to all haul activities areas; and ' routes as soon as possible to all Stabilize all haul routes; and future roadway areas; and Direct construction traffic over Barriers can be used to ensure established haul routes. vehicles are only used on established ' parking areas/haul routes. Trenching Stabilize surface soils where trencher or Pre-watering of soils prior to excavator and support equipment will trenching is an effective preventive operate; and ' measure. For deep trenching Stabilize soils at the completion of activities, pre-trench to 18 inches trenching activities. soak soils via the pre-trench and resuming trenching; and ' Washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent , crusting and drying of soil on equipment. Truck loading Pre-water material prior to loading; and Empty loader bucket such that no Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches visible dust plumes are created; and (CVC 23114) Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the truck to minimize drop height while loading. Turf overseeding Apply sufficient water immediately prior , Haul waste material immediately off- to conducting turf vacuuming activities to site. meet opacity and plume length standards; and ' Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. Unpaved roads/parking lots Stabilize soils to meet the applicable Restricting vehicular access to performance standards; and established unpaved travel paths and Limit vehicular travel to established parking lots can reduce stabilization unpaved roads (haul routes) and unpaved requirements. parking lots. ' Vacant land In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking and/or access by installing ' barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other effective control measures. ' IZ t 0 0 2.7 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with card io-respiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered as sensitive as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public. 3.0 Thresholds of Significance The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air qualitystandard or contribute substantiallt, to an e-risting or projected air quality violation • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. • Create objectionable odors of ecting a substantial number of people. As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" is defined to mean "that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project is significant. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant. While, the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of the air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These threshold factors are included below. Construction Phase - Thresholds of Significance The following signifcance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx 13 1 0 0 • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day for PM~o • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 • 150 pounds per day of SOx During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant. Operational Phase - Thresitolds of Significance (Primary Effects) Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern. Based upon this categorization, the following emissions significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for project operations: • 55 pounds per day of ROG • 55 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PM1o • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 • 150 pounds per day of SOx Projects with daily operation-related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. Localized Emission Standards In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards as included in Table 1. • Californ ia State I -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm • California State 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm • California State I -hour NO2 standard of 0.25 ppm • SCAQMD 24-hour construction PMio standard of 10.4 pg/m' • SCAQMD 24-hour construction PM7,5 standard of 10.4 pg/m' • SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM 10 standard of 2.5 pg/m3 • SCAQMD 24-hour operational PM2.5 standard of 2.5 µg/m' The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State standards. In the case of CO and N02, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels 14 • • already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to both PM,o and PM,,5; both of which are nonattainment pollutants. In these cases, localized emissions are considered as significant if they exceed 10.4 µg/m' during construction or 2.5 µg/m' during the subsequent operation of the site, both as measured at the proximate sensitive receptor locations. Additional Indicators The SCAQMD recommends that "additional indicators" should be used as screening criteria with respect to air quality. Additional factors relevant to the project at hand identified in the Handbook include the following significance criteria: Interference with the attainment of the federal or State ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. I • Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The project involves both the demolition of existing structures, and construction and subsequent use of new structures. Projected air emissions are calculated using the Urban Emissions model (URBEMIS2007) distributed by the SCAQMD. The URBEMIS model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic and the Offroad2007 emission factors for construction equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, construction is estimated to begin in 2008 with completion in 2009 (1 year). Ileavy equipment use for demolition of the existing structures, site preparation, and the construction of the structures is based on model default values. The subsequent occupation of the site is also based on the URBEMIS model using traffic-projections as included in the RK Engineering Group, Inc. document Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, August 15, 2007 (Traffic Study). In accordance with the Traffic Stud},, based on the analysis of 127 multi-family dwelling units, 17,830 square feet of high turn- over, sit-down dining, and 41,400 square feet of retail use, the project would add 3,590 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD C'EQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 (Handbook) as well as updates included on the SCAQMD Internet Web site. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. For ease of the reader, the included analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist. 4.1 Project Consistencv Willi the Applicable Air Quality Plan The proposed project represents the construction and occupancy of a mixed-use development in the City of Rosemead. The project would not involve growth-inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections- Furthermore, with the included mitigation discussed below, the project would not create either short- or long-term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, and in this respect does not present a significant impact. 4.2 Project Potential to Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutants CEQA inquires as to whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an} criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). This increase could occur during project construction, or its subsequent operation. Each is addressed below. 4.2.1 Site Construction Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities required to implement the proposed land uses. Major sources of emissions during construction include exhaust emissions generated by 15 heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition, excavation, and grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. The project site includes approximately 3.68 acres of land. Demolition activities would encompass approximately 10,000 square feet of existing structures. Based on the URBEMIS2007 default construction schedule, the URBEMIS model estimates demolition at approximately 15 working days. In consideration of demolition, the URBEMIS model is predicated on a structure being removed and calculates truck haul trips accordingly. Based on an area of 10,000 square feet, and a height of 10 feet, approximately 926 cubic yards of material would be removed from the project site. Assuming that each truck has a capacity of 20 cubic yards, 46 truck trips would be produced over the 15-day period or about 3.1 trips per day on average. Demolition equipment is as projected by the URBEMIS2007 model and includes a dozer and two loaders. Grading and in this case, excavation typically occurs after demolition. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of the site is graded on any given day. Based on the number of residential units and proposed square footage for the commercial structures, the model estimates the site at 4.7 acres and assumes that 25 percent of this area (i.e., 1.18 acres) is disturbed on a daily basis during grading activities. This analysis recognizes that the site encompasses just 3.68 acres and that accordingly 0.92 acre would be disturbed daily, but defers to the more conservative model default of 1.18 acres daily. By default, the model then assigns a grader, a dozer, a loader, and a water truck to carry out the grading. Excavated soil would be hauled from the site. Assuming that the two-story-deep parking structure has an area of about 2.7 acres and a depth of 20 feet (i.e., 10 feet per level), approximately 87,120 cubic yards of material would be hauled from the site requiring approximately 4,356 truck trips or about 145 trips per day over a period of about 30 days. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs fugitive dust emissions from construction projects. This rule sets forth a list of control measures that must be undertaken for all construction projects to ensure that no dust emissions from the project are visible beyond the property boundaries. Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as such, does not denote mitigation under CEQA. The included analysis assumes the use of the minimal measures specified in Rule 403 that overlap between the Rule and the URBEMIS model. These include: • Soil stabilizers shall be applied to all disturbed, inactive areas, • Ground cover shall be quickly applied in all disturbed areas, • The active construction site shall be watered twice daily, • Stockpiles shall be covered with tarps, and • Unpaved haul roads shall be watered twice daily. In actuality, Rule 403 specifies several measures that the URBEMIS model does not consider so the modeled PM,o and PM,_5 emissions associated with fugitive dust are considered as conservative. Subsequent to excavation and grading, the parking areas would be installed and paved with asphalt. By default, the model estimates that asphalt paving would occur over an area of 1.18 acres (i.e., 25 percent of the site based on the model's default assumption of 4.7 acres). However, this analysis assumes that 7 acres would be paved (including both surface and subterranean parking and URBEMIS assigns a paver, a piece of paving equipment, a roller, a loader, and four mixers to the task estimated by the model at 10 days. The construction of the structures follows the paving and is estimated by the model at 170 working days. URBEMIS projects its emissions based on a crane, two forklifts, a loader, a generator, and three welders being used on an average day. Finally, paint is added in the last stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The model estimates the painting phase at 20 days. Table 5 summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. Note that NOx emissions, primarily from the hauling of excavated materials, and ROG emissions, primarily from the use of paints and coatings, both have the potential 16 11 11 11 • • to exceed their respective threshold values, at least during a potion of the construction effort, representing a potentially significant impact. Table i Construction I:n►is.vions Source ROG NO.Y CO S02 PMIO PMIO PMIO PMZS PM2_S PMZS C02 Dust Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total Demolition, 15 Davs Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 0.00 2.81 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.0 0.62 0.62 700.30 Demo On Road Diesel 0.27 3.44 1.42 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.00 0.14 0.15 394.41 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 124 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.45 Demolition Totals 1.62 12.20 7.57 0.00 2.83 0.84 3.67 0.59 0.76 1.36 1,219.16 Fine Grading. 30 Davs Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.00 2.16 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 8.47 107.42 44.19 0.12 0.41 4.85 5.26 0.13 4.47 4.60 12,308.32 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.24 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0 124.45 Fine Grading Totals 11.82 135.50' 58.99 0.12 2.58 6.26 8.84 0.58 5.77 6.35 14,680.09 Asphalt Paving, 1 U Davs Paving Off-Gas 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.99 17.76 9.40 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.41 1.41 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 1.10 13.89 5.71 0.01 0.05 0.63 0.68 0.02 0.58 0.60 1,591.53 Paving Worker Tri s 0.08 0.15 2.49 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.89 Asphalt Totals 6.00 31.80 17.60 0.01 0.06 2.18 2.24 0.02 2.00 2.02 3,112.46 Building Construction, 170 Days Building Off Road Diesel 4.07 18.22 11.80 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 0.0 1.22 1.22 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.57 6.55 5.08 0.01 0.04 0.30 0.33 0.01 0.27 0.28 1,023.89 Building Worker Trips 0.54 0.99 16.10 0.02 0.0_8 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.06 1,609.69 Building Totals 5.18 25.76 32.1)8 il.u; u. l 1. 1.671 1.78 0.04 1.53 1.56 4,254.78 Coating, 20 Davs Architectural Coating 103.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.10 0.18 2.98 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 318.68 Coating Totals 103.20 0.18 2.98 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 318.69 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 4 150 4 4 55 NT2 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No 4 No - N No Bold values indicate a potentially significant impact. ' NT - No Threshold Mitigation Measures Construction is anticipated to create significant NOx and ROG emissions, primarily associated with the hauling of soil and application of paints and coatings, and mitigation is warranted to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Applicable mitigation is included below: 17 NO_r Emissions ' • Heavy truck hauls shall be limited to no more than 97 on any given day- • A log shall be kept at the site denoting heavy truck traffic that enters the site during soil hauling activities. The log t shall be available for City of Rosemead inspection. Paints and Coatings ' • All primers and top coats shall average no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (102 gram/liter) VOC. ' Miscellaneous • The Applicant shall abide by any other measures as approved by the City of Rosemead and/or SCAQMD. , Residual Impacts: NO.r Emissions , The URBEMIS model estimates that the removal of soil from the excavation of the subterranean parking area would require 145 trucks per day over a period of 30 days. These trucks would produce 107.42 pounds of NOx per day. The ' requirement that no more than 97 truckloads of material be hauled would reduce these emissions to 71.86 pounds per day (i.e., 97 / 145 x 107.42 pounds). When added to the 28.00 pounds per day for the construction equipment and the 0.08 pound per day from the worker vehicles, the total is calculated at 99.94 pounds per day and would not exceed the 100 pounds per day threshold value. The impact is then reduced to less than significant. This measure would extend the modeled grading schedule by 15 days. Paints and Coatings ' Several of currently available primers have VOC (ROG) contents of less than 0.85 pound per gallon (e.g., dulux professional exterior primer 100% acrylic) and top coats can be far less. The 103.10 pound-per-day value presented in ' Table 5 is based on the model default value with non-residential coatings having a VOC content of 250 grams per liter as dictated by SCAQMD Rule 1113. The application of non-residential coatings creates 63.44 pounds of ROG per day with the residential component adding an additional 39.66 pounds per day. The requirement for 102 gram/liter VOC paints and coatings will reduce the non-residential coating ROG emissions by 59.2 percent with a residual value of 25.88 pounds per t day. When combined with the 39.66 pounds per day for the residential component and the 0.10 pound from worker trips, the combined emissions are calculated at 65.64 pounds per day. The resultant value is less than the threshold value of 75 pounds per day reducing the impact to less than significant. ' 4.2.2 Site Operations The major source of long-term air quality impacts is that associated with the emissions produced from project-generated ' vehicle trips. Stationary sources also add to these values. Mobile Source Emissions ' The Traffic Study estimates that based on the occupation of the 127 dwelling units and 59,230 square feet of commercial land use, the project would generate approximately 3,590 average daily trips (ADT). Emissions generated by project- related trips are based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model and assume a year 2009 occupancy. Both summer and ' winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 6. Note that all emissions are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix. Stationary Source Emissions ' In addition to vehicle trips, the land uses would produce emissions from on-site sources. "The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Any landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening ' equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over 1X 1 • • time that releases ROG emissions. Finally, the use of consumer aerosol products is associated with the residential component of the project would release ROG emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 6_ Note that all emissions are within their daily threshold values, resulting in a less than significant impact- Table 6 Dailt, Operational Emissions (Pounds/Day) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM,, PM2.5 CO Mobile Sources 32.52 50.39 365.84 0.35 57.38 11.19 32,504.04 Natural Gas 0.14 1.82 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,276.58 Landscape Maintenance 0.39 0.06 4.81 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.24 Structural Maintenance 0.56 0--- Consumer Products 6.52 0--- Operational Total 40.13 52.27 371.66 0.35 57.39 11.20 34,788.86 Threshold 55 55 55 150 150 55 NT` Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No No 1 Averaged from the summer and winter emissions. 2 NT - No Threshold 4.3 Project Potential to Violate or Add to a Violation of an Air Quality Standard CEQA inquires as to whether a project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. A violation could occur over the short-term during project construction, or over the long- term during its subsequent operation. Each is addressed below. 4.3.1 Short-Term Localized Impacts In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. This could present a significant impact if these concentrations were to exceed the Ambient Air Quality Standards included in Table 1 at receptor locations. The potential for this impact is demonstrated through dispersion modeling. In accordance with the SCAQMD criteria, peak daily emissions for CO, NOx, PM,o, and PM,5 were modeled to determine their concentration and contribution to the ambient concentrations within the project vicinity. The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodoook! (Methodology). In accordance with the Methodology, dispersion modeling is only to include exhaust and dust emissions associated with those pieces of equipment that actually operate on- site and omits vehicle trips that are distributed over a large area. In the Methodology, the SCAQMD notes receptor locations as "oft-site locations where persons may be exposed to the emissions from project activities. Receptor locations include residential, commercial, and industrial land use areas, and any other areas where persons can be situated for an hour or longer at a time." In accordance with the Methodology, receptor locations are to consider the actual location of the receptors. If these locations are unknown, or varied, they may be assumed to be located at distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In cases where proximate receptors may be closer than 25 meters, as per the Methodology, a value of 25 meters is to be used in the analysis as a worst-case scenario. Because the project area is urbanized with numerous nearby receptors, the recommended SCAQMD default distances were used for this analysis. In the cases of CO and NO2, the projected concentration is then added to an assumed ambient concentration in order to determine if the State Ambient Air Quality Standards would be exceeded. This ambient concentration is source-area dependant and is based on the peak value observed over the last 3 years of accumulated data at the nearest air monitoring station (Table 3). Because PM,o and PM2.5 are non-attainment pollutants, no ambient concentration is added. Instead, in 19 0 0 1 both cases, a short-term construction standard defined as a measurable increase of 10.4 pg/m' is to be applied at the ' proximate sensitive receptor locations. Table 7 presents the peak daily projected emissions from on-site construction as well as the projected concentrations at the ' various receptor distances. Note that all emissions concentrations are well within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. 1 ~ Table 7 , Localized Construction Emissions Concentrations' Distance CO (1-Hr Conc.) CO (8-Hr Conc.)' NO, (1-Hr Conc.) 4 PM,o (24-Hr Conc. PMzs (24-Hr Conc. Peak Daily On-site Emissions (lb/day) 13.56 13.56 28.0 3.57 1.75 Concentration at 25 meters 5.06 3.64 0.10 ' 6.93 3.39 Concentration at 50 meters 5.05 3.64 0.10 6.26 3.06 Concentration at 100 meters 5.04 3.63 0.10 4.71 2.31 Concentration at 200 meters 5.02 3.62 0.10 2.92 1.43 Concentration at 500 meters 5.01 3.61 0.10 1.14 0.56 Ambient Air Quality Standard 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 0.25 ppm 10.4 pg/m' 10.4 pg/m' Exceeds Standard? No No No No No 'CO and NO, are in ppm, PM10 and PM,.5 are in pg/m'. 2 Includes a background concentration of 5 ppm. 3 Includes a background concentration of 3.6 ppm. Includes a background concentration of 0.10 ppm. 4.3.2 Long-Term Localized Impacts Long-term effects of the project could also be significant if they exceed the State Ambient Air Quality Standards. As noted for construction, these criteria only apply to CO, N02, PM 10, and PM, 5. Again, CO and NO2 would be significant if the project were to raise existing levels above those values included in the State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because the Basin is a non-attainment area for particulate matter, the operational thresholds for both PM,o and PM2.5 are set at a measurable increase of 2.5 Vg/M3. Unlike construction equipment that generates exhaust and dust in a set area, the primary source of emissions from project operations is due to the addition of vehicles on the roadway system. These emissions are then spread over a vast area and do not result in localized concentrations in proximity to the project site. As such, localized modeling for the project operations is not prepared for residential or limited commercial development. Because CO is the criteria pollutant that is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, long-term adherence to Ambient Air Quality Standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create "pockets" of CO called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. These pockets of CO have the potential to exceed the State ambient air quality 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Typically for an intersection to exhibit a significant CO concentration, it would operate at level of service (LOS) D or worse. Table 8 presents those intersections in the project area that meet or exceed LOS D and would receive project-related tratTic. 20 j I 0 9 To demonstrate the potential for hot spots, CALINE4 modeling was performed using the procedures outlined in the Caltrans' Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Intersection movements are based on data included in the Traffic Study and include ambient growth, the project, and the related projects. Modeling was performed using year 2009 traffic volumes and emission factors. As a reasonable worst-case, the analysis assumes the retention of the existing intersection alignments and does not consider those measures outlined in the traffic analysis to improve traffic flow through the project area. Note that all predicted values are below the State's 1 and 8-hour standards and any potential impact is less than significant. Therefore, the project would not have a long-term significant impact on local air quality or result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unhealthful concentrations of CO. Modeling methodology and output are included in the appendix. Intersection I Level of Peak llour I-Hr Conc. 8-llr Conc. Service Volume (PPin) (Pnnr) Year New Hellman (a.m.) D 2,566 5.6 4.0 New t Garvey (a.m.) D 4,013 5.8 4.2 Del Mar Garvey (.m.) E 4,777 5.9 4.2 CAAQS 20 9.0 Exceeds Standard? No No ' As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value. CO values include background concentrations of 5.0 and 3.6 ppm for I- and 8-hour concentrations. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence factor of 0.7 of the I-hour concentration. 4.4 Project Potential to Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations 4.4.1 Criteria Pollutants As discussed above, CO is the criteria pollutant produced in the greatest quantities and local emissions are within the air quality standards. As such, no significant impacts related to sensitive receptors are anticipated to occur and no further mitigation measures are necessary. 4.4.2 Otter Tories While residential and most commercial development is not associated with the release of toxic air contaminants, various types of commercial operations have been identified with the use of toxic substances and release of toxic emissions (e.g., dry cleaning). Vehicle emissions, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen. However, as noted in the URBEMIS model, use of these trucks (medium-heavy duty and heavy-heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g., refuse collection) is limited to about 1.4 percent of the vehicle population and these emissions are distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions. The SCAQMD, under Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air Contaminants) enforces emission limits when a new facility applies for permits for new construction, modifications, or relocation of equipment that emits any of the TACs listed therein. Permits are granted if the increase in cancer risk from the new, modified or relocated source does not exceed one in a million or 10 in a million cancer cases, if the proposed controls are the best available and the equipment is supplied with Toxic-Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT). SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits emissions of air pollutants that "cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." Mandatory adhere to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air contaminants associated with the operation of the project remains less than significant. 21 Table 8 CO Microscale Analysis' 0 0 4. 5 Project Potential Create Objectionable Odors Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors may be adverse, but not a significant air quality impact. Additionally, some odor would be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Again, any exposure of the general public to these common odors would be of short duration and while potentially adverse, are less than significant. 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily C02) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction C02 emissions are as projected using the URBEMIS2007 computer model and are included in Table 5, above. In accordance with the project URBEMIS construction schedule approximately 1,21,501.10 pounds (609.75 tons) of C02 would be produced over the approximate 245 days of active construction (approximately one year). Site Operations In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically C02, is due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. The URBEMIS2007 model indicates that on average 34,788.86 pounds (17.439 tons) of C02 would be produced daily or about 12,697,933.9 pounds (6,389.97 tons) per year. In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) C02 equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO, equivalent for 2010. Year 2009 is then extrapolated to 526.1 million metric tons (579.9 short tons). At approximately 6,389.97 tons per year, the project operations represent 0.001 percent of this State's annual CO, emissions budget. 5.0 Cumulative Impacts The CEQA Guidelines require that projects be evaluated with respect to their contribution to the cumulative effects resulting from past, present, and probable future projects. This contribution with respect to air emissions would include both construction and operational emissions. Construction of the related projects would be short-term and depending on the extent of construction could have effects similar to or greater than that of the proposed project. With the included mitigation, construction of the Park Monterey mixed-use project is not anticipated to exceed the significance threshold limitations. Subsequent to construction, project operation is also shown to be less than significant. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed, or can be mitigated to less than the SCAQMD thresholds, do not add significantly to the cumulative impact. With respect to cumulative CO hot spots, the CO analysis presented above considers the contribution of ambient growth, cumulative traffic, and the project both in the years 2009 and 2025. No intersections that are to receive project-related traffic are projected to result in emissions in excess of the Ambient Air Quality Standards and as such, the project does not add to a cumulative violation of the standards. 22 6.0 References California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Air Toxics Assessment Manual, October 1, 1987 California Air Resources Board, CALINE4 Computer Model, 1990 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November I, 2006 California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS2007 Computer Model, Version 9.2.0 California Department of Transportation, Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, Revised December 1997 RK Engineering Group, Inc., Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, California, August 15, 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2002-2006, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) South Coast Air Quality Management District, A Climatological/Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin, Prepared by Ralph W. Keith, 1980 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 AQMP, June 1, 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, January 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size, February 2005 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 Southern California Association of Governments, 1997 Air Quality Management Plan, 1997 United States Environmental Protection Agency, SCREEN3 Dispersion Model, Version Dated 95250 23 • Appendix B. Historic Property Report • • HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 7423-7443 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead (Historic address 404-441 West Garvey Avenue, Wilmar-Garvey) Los Angeles County, California Submitted to: Joann Lombardo Comprehensive Planning Services P.O. Box 15592 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Prepared by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. Daly & Associates 4486 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 (949) 649-5149 September 20, 2007 • INTRODUCTION E Daly & Associates was engaged by Comprehensive Planning Services to provide a historic resource assessment of the features located at 7423 - 7443 Garvey Avenue, in the city of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California. Specifically, the parcels being investigated are located in the northern half of Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 12 West, El Monte USGS 7.5 minute topographic map, San Bernardino Baseline Meridian. The assessment was conducted to identify historic properties (historic sites, buildings, structures, objects, or districts) listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places and/or the California Register of Historic Resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). METHODS A records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center, located at California State University, Fullerton; it included a review of all recorded historic sites within a one-half mile radius of the project area, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey reports. In addition, we examined the National Register, California Register of Historic Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. The assessment of the project parcels was performed by Pamela Daly. Ms. Daly holds a Master of Science degree from the University of Vermont, in the field of Historic Preservation. Since 1998, Ms. Daly has performed numerous evaluations of historic resources in Vermont, New York, Arizona, California and Nevada. On September 19, 2007, Ms. Daly completed a field survey of the project area. The survey consisted of walking the site in 10 meter transects across the project area inspecting the historic features still remaining on the site. The purpose of the inspection was to identify any historic resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. RESULTS The results of the records search indicated that the subject parcels were not listed on the National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, or the California Points of Historical Interest. During the field survey, numerous features were found on the two parcels. The parcel with the address 7443 Garvey Avenue was the location of Roseland Trailer Court, established in 1947 by Donald and Mary Bean (Building permit on-file in Building and Planning Department, City of Rosemead). The lot is accessible directly from Garvey Avenue. The permit for the trailer court allowed spaces for 20 trailers. In 1952, a garage to house automobiles was approved to be erected on the property. The lot at 7443 Garvey Ave. has now been cleared of all structures, but still has some remnants of concrete foundations and lightposts, and metal pipes for water utilities. 1 0 0 The parcel of 7423 Garvey Avenue is located directly to the north of 7443 Garvey Avenue. The address is assigned to a large parcel that appears to be split in half, with the north half serving as a mobile home park, and the southern half is a large vacant lot. Aerial photographs show that in recent years the vacant lot has been accessed by a gate at the southeast corner of the lot and used as a car park. It is on this vacant lot of 7423 Garvey Avenue that a feature is located that appears to date from the early 1920s. The feature is a pair of steel rails 3-inches wide, laid parallel 3 feet apart and embedded in a concrete pad. The rails and concrete pad run approximately 100 feet on an east-west axis in the middle of the lot, from near the western boundary of the property to about three quarters across the lot. The rails and pad may have been constructed to be used for the base of a gantry or crane system. Running along the north edge of the rail pad is an 18-foot wide path paved with rough asphalt. ' The rails are embedded in a pad of rough aggregate concrete and there is a 4-inch wide and 2-inch deep channel in the concrete, on the inside of each rail. The channel of the rail pad would have held the wheels of the gantry as it was pushed back and forth, used to ' lift bricks or other heavy payloads from the ground to wagons or trucks that were parked on the asphalt pavement. The gantry or crane system was based on the balance of weights and pulleys. ' Research was performed to attempt to ascertain the type of business or industry that was located at the site noted on the 1924 Alhambra topo map. This research was perfonned ' with the archival records at the Rosemead Library and the permit records at the Rosemead Department of Planning. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this region of Los Angeles County was unincorporated until 1959, early records of property use are difficult ' to find. Sanborn Insurance maps did not cover the Wilmar-Garvey area and the City Directory for Wilmar-Garvey did not cross reference street addresses with the names of businesses or residents. ' IMPACT ANALYSIS t The proposed development of the property will cause the demolition of the features dating from 1947 that are associated with the historic trailer court at 7443 Garvey ' Avenue, and with the rail pad of the gantry system at 7423 Garvey Avenue that appears to date from the 1920s. Both parcels have not been found to be associated with any persons or events important in the history of the United States or California. The ' integrity of both parcels has been destroyed over the years, and this lack of integrity would prevent the resources from being deemed as architecturally significant under the criteria for the National Register and California Register. It is our finding therefore that the proposed project will not cause an adverse impact to historic resources. No miti ati i d i d t t ti g on s recommen e or pr o cons ruc on. • LOCATION MAP 0 1?k±+~~1a ,•:j: ~ - SJS7>~ BE577JA fIVD - f- I, fl NI rt•Kepyel `.j } Hi h S 1 ~ fl---_~i. I' r -="i~'"tif"-1~ 11: c , g . 'I y ~ R I M c' T { H pit A-r w !I 6 { l I _ 'tT3ch 7 `l 4 f z BM ~ N S I P I rar ' y Z V 1VT R i W p nw ; I _ _ I GA P V y VEN JE I d I S i Rkhird C-ne i Bch , 1 { Warr 1; 4~ wvc I 8 re !Tanks SU >w~AaK , - - = A - ~ 1J4.1 CAA S - II L I -f _ u I ro x I a "ilYfl li• 0 F, ; 7. v. r, sc I , wven,y [ Q I f ,o -Garrey! R n h, k. - k ~ ~ y • ~ 0 r G y ':lt` ~ ! " 3sr ~ ~ J ~ ~ - lea ' - - v~`~w - i : .31 ale El Monte 1981 USGS quad, 1:24,000 UTM: Z11 397953E 3769547N 3 LI CJ - :-irpFbi ' w Gantry tracks, looking east i Close-up of tracks, looking east 4 • 1 q 1 . ~ ~ . 9 fi 1A-r ~ tiff t• O 1; 1 6. g s V ~ 7421 GaR CA' ~~l cnnt (_iantr} tracks 11 4 t ' All a i F ~ 44 7413 Garvey, venuc Roseland Trailer Court "°1 ..j ~ ` ~ r` ~ ~ ~ tom/.. _ ~ n yf t ' 6 l s ' £ • 1994 aerial photo of project area (Topozone, ESRI, 1994) 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • Al- ~ + f _F W ~t f y L y- d ti z,_ } r. a ~Y 7443 Garvey Avenue Entrance to Roseland _ 'trailer Court Will 7423 Garvey Avenue Gantry tracks 2004 aerial photo of project area (Topozone. ESRI.2004) 6 • • I NV t • ■ o ~ I ° t'• *A s { i .0 N ,l • • • ° i.• I .tt / !7 1 My~ . I i I It + , s i " ire • r. r. • f i , • ~!V i R # ; 1 IT: • ~R t i,• I1 ,fS i • I • s i( •f ;t . ~ = • • • • f • an f • ' r • Approximate location of FR r 1 • °i i • 7423 Garrey A%enue • • •s It t~ , I j t ~ t • ' ~ ~r r ~ ,i ` • fry; 1 ~ t'~ Isk i's ti ° l i•• All 1~ 1 • P A R K- USGS Alhambra, 1924 Location of historic site between New Avenue and Jackson Street, north of Garvey Avenue. tau _alexantlria ue:h e+ls>'¢min log ,mgrlcs_cnunWalhambra 1.924 -P ' I1 1 1 • • Appendix C. Noise Evaluation • • • Park Monterey Mixed-Use Project Focused Noise Analysis City of Rosemead, CA Prepared by: Synectecology 10232 Overhill Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 714-669-9799 Prepared for: Comprehensive Planning Services P.O. Box 15592 Newport Beach, CA 92695 949-650-3206 September 14, 2007 NOISE 1.0 Methodology This noise evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if significant noise impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with the type and scale of development associated with the Park Monterey mixed-use project to be located in the City of Rosemead. The Park Monterey mixed-use project involves the construction and operation of 127 multi-family dwelling units (condominiums) and approximately 59,230 square feet of retail use on approximately 3.68 acres of land. Projected noise levels are calculated using the Caltrans SOUND32 Noise Model. Modeling parameters were selected in accordance with the California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2007 computer model (BURDEN2007 Module). Both existing and with project traffic volumes are based on data provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc. The analysis examines the impacts both from the construction and operation of the project. Construction noise has the potential to exceed the provisions included within the City Noise Ordinance and the following mitigation shall be included to reduce the impact to less than significant: • In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site, • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions, • All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less .effective than originally equipped, • The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off of the power grid where feasible (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible). • To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the parcel, • The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as an on- site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents, and • Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning Department. Subsequent to construction, the site would include both residential and commercial land uses. The analysis finds that noise generated by vehicles traveling along Garvey Avenue would create noise levels at the proposed residential units in excess of the City and State standards for exterior noise (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL). The following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant and include: • • 1 1 At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction. • South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28. These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g., electrical conduits, HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. • All residential units within 307 feet and all commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. 2.0 E.visling Selling 2.1 Characteristics of Sound Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dB under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than I dB are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dB is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a change of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies- Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15.000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity- The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever-widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This is known as "spreading loss." The typical spreading loss for point source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. 11 0 0 A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, will also be reduced with distance, but the rate of reduction is a function of both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas will actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with the noise reduction placed somewhere in between these two factors. Unfortunately, the only way to actually determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Objects that block the line-of-sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the "shadow" of the blockage (such as behind a sound wall). If a receptor is located behind the wall, but has a view of the source, the wall will do little to reduce the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level, as the wall may reflect noise back to the receptor compounding the noise. Several rating scales (or noise "metrics") exist to analyze adverse effects of noise, including traffic- generated noise, on a community. These scales include the equivalent noise level (Leq), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day/night noise level (Ldn or DNL). Leq is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged over a specified time period (usually I-hour). Leq represents the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over a time interval in a single numerical value. For example, a 1-hour Leq noise level measurement represents the average amount of acoustic energy that occurred in that hour. Time variation in noise exposure may also be expressed in terms of a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, Lob, and Lei values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These "L" values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with the applicable noise ordinance. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period. Unlike the Leq metric, the CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL. also differs from Leq in that it applies a time-weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is penalized by 5 dBA, while nighttime noise (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is penalized by 10 dBA. The Ldn (or DNL) noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and Ldn metrics yield approximately the same 24-hour value (within 1 dBA) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two. 2.2 Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the 11 11 11 • nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 190 dBA will rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. 2.3 Vibration Fundamentals Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, ' etc.. or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trucks or trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of ' soil displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate t of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second per second or millimeters per second per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Table I presents the human reaction and effect on buildings to various levels of continuous vibration. 1 1 Table 1 Human Reaction To Typical Vibration Levels Vibration Level Peak Particle Velocity inches/second) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of of intrusion any type 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.10 Level at which continuous vibration Virtually no risk of "architectural" begins to annov people. damage to normal buildings 0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in Threshold at which there is a risk to buildings. "architectural" damage to normal dwelling- houses with plastered walls and ceilings 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by Vibrations at a greater level than normally people subjected to continuous expected from traffic, but would cause vibrations and unacceptable to some "architectural" damage and possibly people walking b bridges minor structural damage Source: Caltrans 2002. 1 0 0 Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibration falls in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies. However, due to their suspension systems, city buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is more uncommon, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earth borne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation; surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground's surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a "push-pull" fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or "side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation." As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provides by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave. 2.4 Relevant Planning To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging, as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various County governments, and most municipalities in the State have established standards and ordinances to control noise. Federal Government The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the USEPA. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility's Health and Safety Plan. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding. (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provides 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA. State of California Noise Standards Figure 1 presents a land use compatibility chart for community noise prepared by the California Office of Noise Control. It identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. As shown in Figure 1, single family residences are normally acceptable in exterior noise environments up to 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable in areas up to 70 dBA CNEL. Multi-family residential uses are normally acceptable in exterior environments up to 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable in those up to 70 dBA CNEL. Schools, libraries, churches, offices, and business, commercial, and professional uses are normally acceptable in exterior noise environments up to 70 dBA CNEL. City of Rosemead Noise Standards The project site is located within the City of Rosemead and is subject to both the General Plan Noise Element as well as the local municipal code. The roll of the Noise Element is to include noise control in the planning process. It serves as a tool for local planners to achieve and maintain land uses compatible with environmental noise levels. The City's General Plan Noise Element adopts the State noise guidelines included in Figure 1. These guidelines are presented in a more explicit format in Table 2. The City regulates noise though Chapter 8.36 of the Municipal Code. Section 8.36.060, Noise Standards, includes the exterior standards shown in Table 3. These criteria are given in terms of allowable noise levels for a given period of time at the receptor property boundary. The levels included in Table 3 are not to be exceeded: • For a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour, or • The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, • The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour, • The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour, 1 • The noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time Note that if the measured ambient noise levels exceed any of the noise limit categories, the cumulative period shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. The City also sets interior noise standards as included in Table 4. However, for interior noise, this level is not to be exceeded more than 5 minutes in any hour. The level is increased by 5 dBA for a cumulative period of I minute in any hour, but is not to be exceeded by 10 dBA for any period of time. • • Figure 1 Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise Environments 1.:\\ 1) 1' St: 1' AIt GORN ('(l\1♦It.MIN Nif)lSt- t\POSt Rt. I. V VET, I.dw nr('\t.i.-dlt.% Itr+tAcwhal-I.ma 11,`wwthSinglc Funtih. Puplr\- Mobile Ilurnr> 1(a•udrrtix l-Jlulnpie t"alnil~lranairwt 1 odLin~-\lntrla. llotcl> \a•hool4. I thrariea, Churches. ifolpitale Artlin-_ lleanc. :\udilor i u nra. k on", l Ilalla. X-Philhrarrra \pnrla .\rcna- Uutduor tiprclwt~r rpurla Pla>p".und>. \rll;h Lur h.•ad Park, G.tlf fiidinl; "Ambler, \talrr Itecrewtion 1'c meter ir> 1 )!tier Huilalin;;a, Ituainaraa•a. [ nm mrr riwl, .nul i'rnh•>shmal ludn>Irial, ?lamfartrrin~. [ lihlic>, \t,rirullrrc :\rrrwall~ \ccaptahlr: aM1 .a • w.r~, ~ ~ • , :»la, . yr It unditionall. \n a•y/ul.lr: ,.~J n •IN.re • .•Irh.1 r> \arrr.al►a 1'nacc ayatahlr: el.r My .aL wl..4. 1. 1'h lnna'a•rptahlc: 7 0 0 Table 2 City of Rosemead General Plan Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use Cate ories Avera e CNEL Category Uses Interior' Exterior` Residential Single Family, Duplex, 45 65 Multiple Family Mobile Homes 65 Commercial, Industrial, Hotel, Motel, Transient 45 65 Institutional Lodging Commercial Retail, Bank, 55 Restaurant Office Building, Research 50 and Development, Professional Offices, City Offices Amphitheater, Concert 45 Hall, Auditorium, Meeting Hall Gymnasium 50 (Multipurpose) Sports Club 55 Manufacturing, 65 Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Movie Theaters 45 Institutional Hospitals, School 45 65 Classrooms Church, Library 45 Open Space Parks 65 ' Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, corridors. 2 Outdoor environment limited to private yard of a single family residence, multi-family private patio or balcony which is served by means of an exit from the inside, mobile home park, hospital patio, park picnic area, school playground, and hotel and motel recreation area. 3 Noise level requirement with closed windows. Mechanical ventilating system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as of Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the UBC. 4 Exterior noise level should be such that the interior noise level will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. ` Except those areas affected by aircraft noise. Source: City of Rosemead General Plan Noise Element (April 1986) Table 3 7. 00 a.m. -10:00 Residential 60 1 65 10:00 p.m. - 7.00 a.m. 45 60 Table 4 • • The City recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of disturbance. Specifically, Section 8.36.030, 3 exempts noise sources associated with or created by construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the noise standard of sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as measured on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety. Other exemptions relative to the project include: • Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property provided such activities take place between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. on any day except Sunday, or between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m. on Sunday; and • Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law, including but not limited to: aircraft, motor vehicles, railroads, and other interstate carriers. 2.5 Existing Noise Environment The primary sources of noise in the project area are transportation facilities. Road noise from traffic traveling along Garvey Avenue and aircraft activities are the dominant noise sources in the project area. However, noise generated at local automotive-related shops across from the site along Garvey Avenue is also notable. Field Survey To determine on-site and local noise in the project area, Synectecology obtained noise measurements on Tuesday, August 28, 2007. The field study included two sets of readings obtained toward the center of the subject parcel; one proximate to Garvey Avenue and the other near the northern wall. Noise monitoring was performed using a Quest Technologies Model 2900 Type 2 Integrating/logging Sound Level Meter. The unit meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard SIA- 1983 for Type 2, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2, and IEC Standard 651 - 1979 for Type 2 sound level meters. The unit was field calibrated at 11:06 a.m. using a Quest Technologies QC-10 calibrator immediately prior to the readings. The calibration was then rechecked at 12:07 p.m. after the readings and no meter "drift" was noted. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The unit meets the requirements of ANSI Standard SIA-1984 and IEC Standard 942: 1988 for Class 1 equipment. The Leq, Lmin, Lmax, L02, Los, L25, and L50 values were recorded to document the ambient noise. As discussed above, the Leq value is representative of the equivalent noise level or logarithmic average noise level obtained over the measurement period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of I second. The Lot, Lox, L25, and Lo represent the values that are exceeded 2, 8, 25, and 50 percent of the time or 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes per hour if the readings were extrapolated out to an hour's duration. The approximate noise reading locations are shown in Figure 2. (Note that most of the on-site structures had been removed prior to the readings, but after the aerial photo had been taken.) The readings are summarized below and results of the field study are included in Table 5. • • Table 5 Noise Level Measurements' Monitoring Location Leq (dBA) Lo. (dBA) Lox (dBA Lzs (dBA Lgo (dBA Lmin (dB,4 Lmar (dBA NR-1 63.6 70.1 67.0 64.9 62.1 46.9 74.3 NR-3 48.3 53.2 50.5 48.9 47.4 43.9 59.7 ' The Leq represents the equivalent sound level and is the numeric value of a constant level that over the given period of time transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound level. The Lot, Log, and L5o are the levels that are exceeded 2, 8, 25, and 50 percent of the time, respectively. Alternatively, these values represent the noise level that would be exceeded for 1, 5, 15, and 30 minutes during a 1-hour period. The Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over a period of I second. 10 Figure 2 Noise Monitoring Locations • • NR-1 - To characterize ambient noise on-site and in the adjoining areas, this reading was obtained along Garvey Avenue toward the center of the site. Specifically, the meter was placed 50 feet south of the centerline of travel (grease stain) of Garvey Avenue's near, westbound lane, and 435 feet east of the New Avenue curb line. The 15-minute reading began at 11:24 a.m. The most prevalent source of noise was from traffic traveling along Garvey Avenue, but noise from the auto service facilities located across Garvey and commercial aircraft operations were also noted. Eastbound traffic along Garvey Avenue included 191 autos, five medium trucks, and one heavy truck. Westbound traffic included 195 autos, four medium trucks, and one heavy truck. Garvey Avenue is posted for 35 mph. NR-2 - This reading was also obtained on-site due east of NR-l, but this time 10 feet south of the northern wall. This placed the meter approximately 400 feet south of the Garvey Avenue curb line. Mobile homes are located to the north of the wall. The 15-minute reading began at 11:48 a.m. Again, the most prevalent source of noise was from traffic traveling along Garvey Avenue, but aircraft noise was also noted. Eastbound traffic along Garvey Avenue included 215 autos and four medium trucks. Westbound traffic included 195 autos and three medium trucks. Mobile Source Noise Level Modeling; Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of 5 miles per hour reduces noise by about 1 to 2 dBA. The Caltrans Sound32 (Release 7/30/91) version of the Federal Highway Administration traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions at the project site. The model uses various parameters including the traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent 1-hour noise level. The model is based on vehicles being at steady state speeds. To verify the accuracy of the Sound32 Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Curves), the observed volumes of vehicles along with roadway logistics for Garvey Avenue noted in field measurements NR-I and NR-2 were modeled. While the road is posted at 35 mph, much of the traffic was observed to go slower due to the proximity of New Avenue to the west. Additionally, some acoustic shielding is afforded by the neighboring structures that lie to the east and west of the site and partially obscure the view of traffic and its noise. As such, modeling was conducted at both 30 and 35 mph and included in Table 6. Note that the reading shows good correlation with the model, especially for soft site modeling at 30 mph. Table 6 Noise Level Measurements Versus Predicted Model Results Monitoring Location Measured Leq (dBA Modeled Leq (dBA) (Hard/So 1-Site) Difference (dBA) (Hard/So t-Site) NR- 1, 30 mph 63.6 64.7/63.1 1.110.5 NR-1, 35 mph 66.1/64.5 2.5/0.9 NR-2,30 mph 48.3 53.8/48.6 5.5/0.3 NR-2, 35 m h 55.6/50.4 7.3/2.1 1 t 0 0 Modeling of Existing Traffic Volumes Noise within the project area is primarily created by local traffic. In order to gauge the potential for project-generated impacts, it is necessary to quantify the existing traffic-generated noise. The Caltrans Sound32 version of the Federal Highway Administration traffic noise prediction model (Sound32 - Release 07/30/91) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The model predicts 1-hour Leq noise levels and, as discussed below, is adjusted by vehicle percentage and time of day to ascertain the CNEL noise levels. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided in the Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study) (Tra#1c %cly) (RK Engineering Group, Inc., August 15, 2007). To determine the CNEL noise level produced by this traffic, the percentage contribution from each hour of traffic was determined from a Los Angeles County, year 2007 run of the EMFAC2007 (BURDEN2007 module) computer model distributed by the California Air Resources Board. The EMFAC2007 model is typically used in air quality analyses, but provides projected vehicle counts and mileage, by vehicle type, for each hour of the day, for each county in the State of California. The ratio of each hour of traffic to the total daily traffic volume was then calculated. Traffic between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. was assigned a 5-dBA penalty whereas the traffic predicted between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. was assigned a 10-dBA penalty. The resultant noise associated with each hour was then logarithmically summed and averaged so that a CNEL associated with the total Los Angeles County volume, calculated in thousands of trip miles per day (i.e., 217,711) could be determined. This value is rounded off to 217,707 thousand of trip miles per day, so that when distributed over the 24 hours of the day, the Sound32 Noise Model would deal with "partial vehicles" (e.g., 13,152.2 auto miles per hour would be rounded to 13,152 auto miles per hour). The traffic volumes on the local routes were then compared with this total volume and its noise determined proportionally. The Sound32 Noise Model considers four main parameters in its calculations. These include the speed of ' the vehicles, the ratio of the vehicles (i.e., autos, medium trucks, and heavy trucks), the roadway logistics (i.e., distance that traffic is observed as it approaches/leaves, curvature of the road, etc.), and the volume of vehicles. A reasonable worst-case assumes a straight road and countless iterations of the model have ' shown that after about 750 feet, more distant vehicles do not add measurably to the modeled noise levels. As such, a distance of 1,500 feet (i.e., 750 feet in either direction) was used in the modeling effort. I 11 Actual projected roadway noise levels are then calculated in a spreadsheet and referenced to this 217,707 vehicle "standard" at a distance of 50 feet. For example, if a 40 mph route is projected to included 9,059 vehicles per day, the spreadsheet compares this volume with that for a 40 mph route that includes the 217,707 vehicle standard and reduces the CNEL by 13.8 dBA accordingly using the formula: Resultant Noise = 10 log(Projected Volume / 217,707) The spreadsheet then calculates the distances to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours using soft site modeling as predicted by the formula: Resultant Noise = 15 log(Contour Distance / 50 feet) Table 7 presents the projected traffic-generated noise levels along site access roads in the project area as well as the distances to the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours. As noted, the noise contours are based soft site modeling that showed the better fit with the field data. Roads are modeled at their posted speeds. The analysis assumes a clear, unobstructed view of the traffic and does not consider any noise reduction due to intervening strictures. Also, the analysis considers only traffic noise on the noted 12 • roadway and omits other local (e.g., auto shop) or regional sources (e.g., aircraft overflights, etc.) that add to the ambient levels. Note that the existing CNEL is projected at 70.7 dBA at the project site (between New and Jackson) as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Table 7 Existing Noise Levels Along Site Access Roads Location Speed Existing Existing CNEL Distance to 70 Distance to 65 Distance to 60 (►nph) ADT (dBA (a-) 50 Feet) CNEL (Feet) CNEL (Feet) CNEL (Feet) Alhambra - New 130 18,200 166.2 128 160 1130 New - Jackson 130 7.600 65.9 27 57 IM Oarvev Avenue W/O Alhambra 30 19.600 70.0 50 108 33 Alhambra - New 35 0,200 70.4 54 115 49 New - Jackson 35 1,600 70.7 56 121 260 Jackson - Del Mar 35 4,100 71.2 60 130 80 E/O Del Mar 35 1900 71.2 60 129 78 Graves Avenue Alhambra - New 30 8,100 66.2 28 60 129 New - Jackson 30 11,700 67.8 36 77 165 Alhambra Avenue varvev - rveN New Avenue N/O Hellman 35 5,000 71.4 62 133 86 Hellman - Emerson 35 22,000 70.8 57 122 263 Emerson - Garvey 35 19,500 70.3 52 113 43 Garvey -Newmark 35 11,300 67.9 36 78 169 Newmark - Graves 35 8,700 66.8 31 6 142 Jackson Avenue Emerson - Garve Garvey - Graves Del Mar Avenue Emerson - Garvev - ( 13 11 U 0 0 3.0 Thresholds Of Significance The generation of noise associated with the proposed project would occur over the short-term for site construction activities. In addition, noise would result from the long-term operation of the project. Both short-term and long-term noise impacts associated with the project are examined in this analysis. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible," refers to a change in noise level between I and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than I dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only "audible" changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations are considered potentially significant. For stationary sources, the applicable noise standards include criteria established by local as well as any State regulations applicable to the proposed project. As noted, the City sets an exterior standard of 60 dBA Leq for daytime and 45 dBA Leq for nighttime noise intrusion on multi-family sensitive land uses. Mobile-source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation. Here an impact is considered significant if the project was to expose new residents to exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL in habitable exterior areas, or such that interior levels exceed 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed. With respect to off-site receptors, noise would represent a significant impact if existing noise levels exceed the objectives of the General Plan and the project were to increase this noise level by 3 dBA (barely noticeable in an exterior environment); or if the project adds 5 dBA (noticeable to most people) and the resultant noise level remains tinder the objectives of the General Plan. ' 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The project involves both the demolition of existing structures, and construction and subsequent use of ' new structures. Projected ambient noise levels are calculated using the Sound32 Noise Model distributed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Noise associated with site construction is based on construction noise values provided by the USEPA for use in noise assessments. ' Noise associated with site occupancy is primarily from mobile sources and most notably traffic traveling along Garvey Avenue. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes are as provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc. and included in the Traffic Study. In accordance with the Traffic Study, based on the analysis of 127 multi-family dwelling units (condominiums) and approximately 59,230 square feet of retail use, the project would add 3,590 average daily trips (ADT) to the roadways. ' I'he calculated noise associated with this traffic is then are compared to the thresholds of significance noted in Section 3.0, above. For ease of the reader, the included analysis follows the outline of the CEQA Checklist. ' 4.1 Project consistency with standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ' Fhe existing City of Rosemead Municipal Code sets a conditional land use compatibility level of 60 dBA Leq during the day and 45 dBA Leq at night for stationary noise source intrusion on sensitive, multi- family land uses from noise sources subject to City control. The City Noise Element allows for an overall 1 14 • exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA CNEL, so long as interior levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Under the Municipal Code, less sensitive land uses, such as the proposed retail commercial aspect of the project, are conditionally acceptable to stationary source noise levels of 65 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night. The City Noise Element does not set an exterior CNEL level for these commercial uses, but does specify that interior levels should not exceed 55 dBA CNEL. Assuming standard Title 22 construction provides a minimum of 20 dBA of attenuation with windows closed, this would infer an acceptable exterior CNEL of 75 dBA for commercial uses so long as these facilities are equipped with forced air ventilation. A reasonable worst-case would consider the project as a sensitive, residential land use and for the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered as significant if the exterior noise were to exceed 60 dBA during the day or 45 dBA at night at any proposed residential units from local stationary sources, or 65 dBA CNEL from mobile sources. This latter value applies to exterior habitable areas and assumes the use of forced air ventilation sized and installed in compliance with California Title 22 requirements thereby allowing the residents to leave their windows closed. In actuality, the City Municipal Code defines the residential component of the project as a commercial land use and would apply the commercial noise standard. Section 8.36.020 of the Municipal Code notes, "Commercial property" means a parcel of real property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for commercial purposes." As such, use of residential criteria provides a conservative evaluation for the proposed residential units. As noted above, reading NR-1 showed Leq values of 63.6 dBA Leq. The noise measurement was obtained during the 11:00 a.m. hour and the CNEL would be greater than this reading that was obtained when traffic is relatively light. Data provided in the Traffic Study indicate that the existing volume along Garvey Avenue at the project site is currently at 21,600 ADT. But the project represents a long-term commitment and as such, this analysis looks at the potential for impact in the year 2025. Based on City recommendation, an annual growth rate of 1 percent per year was been applied to the existing traffic in the area. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth throughout the city. Based on 18 years of growth, the roadway ADT volumes are increased by 19.6 percent. Including the project, year 2025 traffic along Garvey Avenue along the project frontage is then estimated at 27,800 ADT. Sound32 noise modeling for year 2025 with project traffic volumes show a noise level of 71.8 dBA CNEL as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. Based on soft site modeling, the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours fall at distances of 143 and 307 feet, respectively. from the Garvey Avenue centerline. The southern-most residential units that are to be placed on the second and third floors fall within this distance and have a direct view of Garvey Avenue. These units are on the order of 60 feet from the centerline of the road with noise projected at about 70.6 dBA CNEL. Conventional construction with windows open provides approximately 12 to 15 dBA of attenuation (over 20 dBA with windows closed) from exterior noise sources reducing interior levels no more than about 56 - 58 dBA CNEL (with windows open) or about 50 dBA with windows closed. These levels could then continue to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard and mitigation is required to protect the interior habitat. The following measures would ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. Mitigation At a minimum all south-facing exterior walls at the southern-most residential units shall be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction. 15 11 0 0 South-facing rooms in the southern-most units shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum STC rating of 28. These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. • All exterior fittings that enter the southern-most residential units (e.g., electrical conduits, HVAC ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight. Any metal ductwork that is exposed to the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. ' • All residential units within 307 feet and all commercial units within 104 feet of the Garvey Avenue centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. t The requirement for forced air ventilation would allow the occupants to leave windows closed reducing interior levels by in excess of 20 dBA. However, the southern exposure of the southern-most rooms could still be exposed to exterior levels of about 70.6 dBA CNEL. Assuming that typical construction ' with the inclusion of forced air ventilation and windows closed provides 20 dBA of attenuation, interior levels could be on the order of 50 dBA CNEL. ' The Noise Guidebook (HUD, 1985) presents Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for various types of construction materials and techniques. The Sound Transmission Class rating is the official rating endorsed by the American Society of Testing and Measurement and can be used as a guide in determining ' what type of construction is needed to reduce noise. Conversely, these same principles can be used to determine interior noise for a given type of construction. An STC is a measure of a material's ability to reduce sound and is equal to the number of decibels a ' sound is reduced as it passes through the material. Thus, a high STC rating indicates a good insulting material. For example, if the external noise is 75 dBA and the desired interior level is 45 dBA, a partition of 30 STC is required. Because of minor differences in ratings, as well as construction flaws, gaps, seams, openings, ducting, etc., field studies indicate that laboratory-derived STC ratings may be overstated by as much as 5 dBA. (HUD puts this discrepancy at about 2-3 dBA.) As such, the mitigation would need to achieve a composite laboratory STC rating of approximately 35 to ensure that interior ' levels were adequately mitigated to less than 45 dBA. According to HUD, a common stud wall has an STC of approximately 35 dBA. While a typical 1/4-inch thick pane of glass may have an STC rating of about 20 dBA, a 3/16-inch piece increases this rating to about 25 dBA, and a 1/2-inch thick piece would have an STC. of about 35 dBA. There comes a point of diminishing returns, and beyond 1/2 inch additional thickness produces minimal gains. (A 3/4-inch piece ' of glass has an STC of about 37 dBA.) The STC for a typical wood, double hung closed window is listed at 22. Noise within the interior of the structure comes through the walls, windows, doors, and ductwork. HUD ' provides a nomograph that can be used to determine the composite STC for walls that include windows and doors. Assuming the wall has an STC of 35, the windows/doors have an STC of 22, and the windows/doors encompasses 30 percent of the wall, the composite STC is 27. Allowing for a 5 dBA ' "cushion," this value falls approximately 4 dBA short of the necessary 31 dBA of attenuation to ensure interior noise levels remain under 45 dBA CNEL. 16 Using the required minimum STC 28 window and door assemblies, but retaining the window area at 30 percent, results in a composite STC value of 32. Assuming an exterior level of 71 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels would be reduced to approximately 39 dBA CNEL. Assuming that this STC is overestimated by 5 dBA, interior noise would be reduced to no more than 44 dBA CNEL and the impact is reduced to less than significant. 4.2 Project exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels The proposed project would involve the construction and occupancy of commercial and residential structures. Caltrans notes that ground borne vibration is typically associated with blasting operations, the use of pile drivers, and large-scale demolition activities, none of which are anticipated for the construction or operation of the project. As such, no excessive ground borne vibrations would be created by the proposed project and any potential impacts are less than significant. 4.3 Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Any addition from the project to the ambient noise would be due to the addition of vehicles to the local roadways. The Traffic Study indicates that the project would add 3,590 ADT to the local roadways. The vehicle mix, day/evening/night split, and average speeds are as indicated in the analysis of the existing noise levels. Results of the modeling effort are included in Table 8. Note that modeling indicates that the noise increase along all access roads would not exceed 0.4 dBA CNEL and is neither audible nor significant. Table 8 Existing Versus With Project Noise Levels Along Site Access Roads Location Speed E isting I Existing CNEL Existing With Willi Project CNEL Difference Avenue New - Jackson Alhambra - New 30 ,200 5.7 7,200 5.7 .0 New - Jackson 30 5,100 64.2 5.200 64.3 0.1 Garvey Avenue W/O Alhambra 30 19,600 70.0 20,500 70.2 0.2 Alhambra - New 35 20,200 70.4 2L100 70.6 0.2 New - Jackson 35 1,600 70.7 23,600 71.1 0.4 Jackson - Del Mar 35 24,100 71.2 24,900 71.4 0.1 E/O Del Mar 35 23,900 71.2 4,500 71.3 0.1 I~ Newmark Avenue New - Jackson 30 3,200 62.1 3,200 2.1 .0 ' Graves Avenue Alhambra - New 30 8,100 66.2 8,400 66.3 0.2 New - Jackson 1 30 1 11,700 67.8 12,000 7.9 0.1 ' Alhambra Avenue Emerson - Garvey 35 7,200 66.0 7,200 66.0 0.0 1 17 1 11 I I • • Garvey - Newmark 35 5,700 65.0 5,800 65.0 0.1 New Avenue N/O Hellman 35 5,000 71.4 6,000 71.5 0.2 Hellman - Emerson 35 2,000 70.8 3,200 71.0 0.2 Emerson - Garvey 35 19,500 70.3 20,800 70.6 0.3 Garvey - Newmark 35 11,300 67.9 1 11,900 68.1 0.2 Newmark - Graves 35 8,700 66.8 9,300 67.1 0.3 Del Mar A ' Em erson - Garvey - 1 I 4.4 Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the increase in noise would be less than l dBA when averaged over a 24-hour period, and would therefore have a less than significant impact on noise receptors along the truck routes. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on-site construction operations and local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of this equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 9 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessment at a distance of 50 feet. Table 9 Noise Levels Generated By Typical Construction Equipment Type o Equipment Range of Sound Levels Measured (dBA at SO eet) Suggested .Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front-l d F~,ul~rs 1 18 • • Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, BBN 1987. Noise ranges have been found to be similar during all phases of construction, although the actual construction of the structures is typically reduced from the grading efforts. The grading and site preparation phase tends to create the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is found in the earthmoving equipment category. This category includes excavating machinery (backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, etc.) and earthmoving and compacting equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders, etc.). Typical operating cycles may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment range from 73 to 96 dBA while Leq noise levels range up to about 88 dBA for residential development. The later construction of structure is somewhat reduced from this value and the physical presence of the structure may break up line-of-sight noise propagation. The most proximate residential structures include the existing single-family and mobile homes located to the immediate north, northeast, and northwest of the project site. The mobile homes will in all probability be removed during the initial phases of construction leaving the single-family residential units as the nearest sensitive receptors. The nearest of these homes are situated approximately 25 feet from the site. The homes are protected, at least to some extent, by a wooden fence. Using an assumed construction value of 88 dBA Leq as measured at a distance of 50 feet, proximate construction could be on the order of 94 dBA at the nearest home. The existing wall would serve as an effective noise barrier for construction of the basement and first floor, but would offer little protection from second and third story construction noise. Other homes are also located to the north, the most proximate of which are on the order of 100 to 200 feet with noise levels projected at 88 - 82 dBA, Leq, respectively. These home are at least partially shielded from the site by the proximate dwelling and actual noise levels could be somewhat lower. However, construction noise levels could exceed 65 dBA at these residents resulting in a significant impact. In all cases, interior levels at off-site residents could be reduced by over 20 dBA (with windows closed) from these values. During the vast majority of the construction period, however, both exterior and interior noise levels would be 20 to 30 dBA lower, due to lower power settings and sound attenuation provided by longer distances and partial blocking both from the structure under construction and off-site structures. Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would increase during construction phase, but would drop considerably after construction of the proposed facilities is completed. Still, based on the projected noise levels, the short- term impact is considered as significant. Mitigatioir The City recognizes that control of construction noise is limited and therefore places special provisions on this noise. As noted, Section 8.36.030, 3 exempts noise sources associated with or created by construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, and provided the noise level created by 19 0 0 such activities does not exceed the noise standard of sixty-five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in Section 8.36.060(B) as measured on residential property and does not endanger the public health, welfare and safety. While all construction would be subject to this ordinance, implementation of the included measures would reduce the nuisance value of construction at existing proximate receptor location, as feasible, and ensure that the impact remains less than significant: • In accordance with the Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site, • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions, • All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped. • The contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment that can operate off of the power grid where feasible (e.g., compressors). Where unfeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (i.e., as close to the Garvey Avenue as feasible), • To the extent feasible, the contractor shall first perform building construction on those proposed structures located toward north side of the parcel. These units then serve as a partial sound wall for the residents to the north from construction toward the south side of the parcel, • The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as an on- site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents, and • Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Rosemead Planning Department. 4.5 Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive public airport aircraft noise levely The El Monte Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast of the project site. The airport's runway is aligned in roughly a north/south orientation and the project site is not in the prevailing flight path. The airport averages about 434 operations (i.e., take-offs and landings) per day. The project site is well beyond the airport's 65-dBA CNEL noise contour and on-site noise monitoring indicates that while aircraft operations (both light planes and commercial airliners to the south) are readily audible, the resultant aircraft noise levels are well below any regulatory standards. No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project. 4.6 Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to e-Ycessive private airport aircraft noise levels The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of any private airstrip. 20 0 0 5.0 References Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2007 Computer Model, Version 2.3, November 1, 2006 California Department of Transportation, Sound32 Version of the FHWA Noise Program, Release 1.4, September 28, 1992 California Department of Transportation, Technical Analysis Notes, March 13, 1991 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October 1998 California Department of Transportation, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, February 20, 2002 City of Rosemead, General Plan Noise Element, Adopted April 25, 1986 City of Rosemead, Municipal Code, On-line Electronic Version, October 1999 RK Engineering Group, Inc., Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, California, August 15, 2007 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, A Guide to HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards Contained in 24 CFR Part 51, August 1984 U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1985, The Noise Guidebook, March 1985. 21 0 0 Appendix D. Traffic Study 22 PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Rosemead, California a 4! engineering group, inc. 23 0 0 • • PARK MONTEREY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY City of Rosemead, California Prepared for: Ms. Joann Lombardo ' COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SERVICES 2916 Clay Street ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: ' RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 3991 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 310 , Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Kahn, P.E. Kerin Smith,E.I.T. 1 August 15, 2007 ' RK:KS.'nq'RK5821. doc ' JN. 0905 07 01 25 , • r,nk engineering group, inc. August 15, 2007 Ms. Joann Lombardo COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SERVICES 2916 Clay Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Park Monterey Project Traffic Impact Study Dear Ms. Lombardo: L_J anslorlalion planning • traffic engineering ac owzlic al viigine.erimr, • Larking studies RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to submit this traffic impact study for the proposed Park Monterey project. The project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of Garvey Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of Rosemead and is proposed to consist of 127 residential condominiums and 59,230 square feet of mixed-use commercial space. The project will have three access points onto Garvey Avenue. The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review existing and future conditions with and without the proposed future development. Future conditions include area-wide growth and other development in the vicinity of the site as well as city buildout projections. A shared parking analysis has also been performed as part of this study to verify adequate parking is provided on the site. Based upon our analysis of existing and future traffic volumes, all study area intersections are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of service with the recommended improvements. In addition, the project is expected to have sufficient parking spaces as noted on the site plan for the proposed uses. Therefore, the project can be accommodated in the City of Rosemead with the recommendations included in this report. RK is pleased to provide this traffic study for the proposed Park Monterey project located in the City of Rosemead to Comprehensive Planning Services. If you have any questions puld like further review, please do not hesitate to call us at regarding this study, or wtc` (949) 474-0809. Sincerely, ENGINEERING Robert Kahn, P.E. Principal Attachments RK: KS: nq%RK5821. doc IN:0905-07-01 ~P INC. - No C";'55 3,p~ G7 `RAFT v~~~P er Smith, E.I.T. Transportation Engineer 401 m.,: ,ulhur Loulr~ard, Suitt' ; 10 r i•:r1z n'r he•arh. C AiTnrnia 1326W tilt?`i f:1\ 0.111.474.0901 Imp! vm %v rkenginctv.c om 24 Table of Contents Section Page 0 1 d ti I t 1-1 ' . on n ro uc 2.0 Existing Conditions 2-1 , 3.0 Intersection Analysis 3-1 3.1 HCM Analysis 3-1 3.2 ICU Analysis 3-3 3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact 3-6 4.0 Trip Generation 4-1 ' 5.0 Trip Distribution 5-1 ' 6.0 Trip Assignment 6-1 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis 7-1 ' 7.1 Existing Plus Project 7-1 7-2 Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project 7-1 7.3 Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project 7-2 ' 7.4 Year 2025 Without Project Conditions 7-3 7.5 Year 2025 With Project Conditions 7-4 ' 8.0 Signal Warrant Analysis 8-1 ' 9.0 Fair-Share Analysis 9-1 10.0 Parking Analysis 10-1 ' 10.1 Parking Analysis 10-1 10.2 Shared Parking Analysis 10.3 Shared Parking Results 10-2 10-3 ' 10.4 Overflow Parking 10-5 11.0 Findings 11-1 ' 12.0 Recommendations 12-1 ' 13.0 Conclusions 13-1 1 26 1 0 0 0 0 List of Attachments Exhibits Location Map A Site Plan B City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element C City of Rosemead General Plan Roadway Cross Sections D Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls E Existing Traffic Volumes F Inbound Project Trip Distribution G Outbound Project Trip Distribution H Project Traffic Volumes I Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes J Other Development Location Map K Zone 1 Trip Distribution L Zone 2 Trip Distribution M Other Development Traffic Volumes N Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Traffic Volumes O Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Traffic Volumes P Year 2025 Without Project Traffic Volumes Q Year 2025 With Project Traffic Volumes R Peak Month Weekday Parking Demand S Peak Month Weekend Parking Demand T 27 0 0 Exhibits (Cont'd) Peak Month Daily Parking Demand U Recommendations V Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions Trip Generation Rates 2 Project Trip Generation 3 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions 4 Other Development Trip Generation 5 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Conditions 6 Intersection Analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Conditions 7 Intersection Analysis for Year 2025 Without Project Conditions 8 Intersection Analysis for Year 2025 With Project Conditions 9 Summary Intersection Analysis 10 City of Rosemead Parking Code Requirements 11 Peak Month Parking Demand 12 Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution 13 Appendices Traffic Count Worksheets A Existing Level of Service Analysis Worksheets B Existing Plus Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets C Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets.... D Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets E 28 • • 0 0 Appendices Continued (Cont'd) Year 2025 Without Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets F Year 2025 With Project Level of Service Analysis Worksheets G Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets H City of Rosemead Parking Code I Shared Parking Worksheets (City of Rosemead Rates) J Shared Parking Worksheets (ULI Rates) K 29 0 0 • • 1.0 Introduction The proposed Park Monterey project is located south of Whitmore Street, north of Garvey Avenue, east of New Avenue, and west of Prospect Avenue in the City of Rosemead, as shown on Exhibit A. The proposed project consists of 127 residential condominiums and 59,230 square feet of mixed restaurant and retail space. Access to the proposed project will be provided via three (3) unsignalized driveways along Garvey Road. The west driveway (project access driveway A) will restrict left-turns exiting the site, the center driveway (project access driveway B) will provide right-turn in/right-turn out access only, and the east driveway (project access driveway C) will provide full access. The site plan for the proposed development is illustrated on Exhibit B. After discussions with Comprehensive Planning Services and officials from the City of Rosemead, the following intersections have been analyzed in this traffic impact study: `North Sodth Street . East-'Vilest Street - Alhambra Avenue E Garvey Avenue Hellman Avenue Emerson Avenue New Avenue Garvey Avenue Newmark Avenue Graves Avenue Project Access Drives Garrey Avenue Jackson Avenue Garvey Avenue Del Mar Avenue Garvey Avenue The purpose of this traffic impact study is to review Existing, Existing Plus Project, Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project, Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project, Year 2025 Without Project, and Year 2025 With Project traffic conditions. The traffic impact study will determine any recommendations necessary to accommodate the project. II 1 t t 1 1 1 1-1 n 3U ' 0 0 6 1 2.0 Existing Conditions Exhibit C shows the City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit D shows the Existing Roadway Cross Sections. The City of Rosemead is currently in the process of updating their General Plan. Exhibit E identifies the existing roadway conditions, ' number of through traffic lanes, and the intersection controls for the study area roadways. 1 Existing traffic volumes on roadways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit F. These volumes are based upon weekday traffic data collected in July 2007 for RK. The ' traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A. Table 1 represents the Existing conditions intersection levels of service. All study area t intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service during Existing peak ' hour conditions. Level of service worksheets for Existing conditions are included in Appendix B. ' 1 2-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1-2 3.0 Intersection Analysis The levels of service determined in this study for unsignalized intersections are calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000) methodology while the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology has been used for signalized intersections. 3.1 HCM Analysis The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: • LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver. • LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. 3-1 t t t 1 n n n 32 1 t • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-2 E LJ • LOS D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience. • LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement. LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. Uninterrupted flow is generally found only on limited access (freeway) facilities in urban areas. The level of service is based on the HCM, Exhibit 23-2. The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study for unsignalized intersections are calculated using the HCM methodology. 3-2 33 0 0 The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows: Average Total Control Delay. Per Vehicle (Seconds) Los Signalized Unsignallized A 0.00-10.00 0.00-10.00 B 10.01-20.00 10.01-15.00 C 20.01 - 35.00 15.01 - 25.00 D 35.01 - 55.00 25.01 - 35.00 E 55.01 - 80.00 35.01 - 50.00 F > 80.01 > 50.01 Adjustment factors for elements such as lane width, trucks, grade, obstructions, parking or pedestrians are as stated in the 2000 HCM. For all analysis conditions, the higher of either a default peak hour factor of 0.95 or an average peak hour factor taken from the counts collected for RK has been used at each study area intersection in order to provide an accurate analysis comparison. Saturation flow rates of 1,600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through and right turn lanes, 1,600 vehicles for single left turn lanes, and 2,880 vehicles per lane for dual left turn lanes have been assumed for all capacity analysis. I 1 I 1 11 3.2 ICU Analysis I An alternative technique used to assess the operation of an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate the ICU level of service, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. ICU is usually expressed as a percent. The percent represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The levels of service 3-3 I i I~I I I 34 I • • determined in this study for signalized intersections are calculated using the ICU methodology. The calculation method consists of the following: Calculation Method: a. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) for study area intersections; b. Saturation Flow Rate: Saturation flow value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour for through lanes, 1,600 vehicles per hour for single turn lanes and 2,880 for dual turn lanes; no adjustments are used for protected movements with dedicated lanes (including both right and left turns). C. Clearance Internal: A clearance interval factor of 10% (0.10) is applied to the ICU calculations. d. Level of Service Ranges: The following thresholds are used in assigning a letter value to the resulting LOS: LOS Critical Volume to Capacity Ratio A 0.00-0.60 8 0.61 -0.70 C 0.71 -0.80 D 0.81- 0.90 E 0.91 -1.00 F > 1.00 3-4 35 0 0 li e. Peak-Periods: f 9- Weekday peak-hour analysis periods are defined as follows: 7:00 to 9:00 AM 4:00 to 6:00 PM Peak-Hour: The highest one-hour period in both the AM and PM peak periods, as determined by four consecutive 15-minute count periods are used in the ICU calculations. Both AM and PM peak hours are studied. Peak-Hour Data Consistency: Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS calculations because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, no counts are taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends. The traffic count worksheets for this study are included in Appendix A. h. Right Turn Movements: I If the distance from the edge of the outside through lane is at least 22 feet and parking is prohibited during the peak period, right turning vehicles may be assumed to utilize this "unofficial" right turn lane. Otherwise, all right turn traffic is assigned to the through lane. If a right turn lane exists, right turn activity is checked for conflicts with other critical movements. It is assumed that right turn movements are accommodated during non-conflicting left turn phases (e.g., northbound right turns during westbound left turn phase), as well as non-conflicting through flows (e.g., northbound right turn movements and north/south through flows). Right turn movements become critical when conflicting movements (e.g., northbound right turns, southbound left turns, and eastbound through flows) represent a sum of V/C ratios that are greater than the normal through/left turn critical movements. 3-5 36 • • 3.3 Definition of Deficiency and Significant Impact The following definitions of deficiencies and significant impacts have been developed in accordance with the City of Rosemead General Plan: Deficiency The definition of an intersection deficiency has been obtained from the City of Rosemead General Plan. The General Plan states that peak hour intersection operations of LOS D or better are generally acceptable. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F will be considered deficient. Significant Impact According to the City of Rosemead General Plan, a project is considered significant if it increases traffic demand by 2% of capacity (V/C>_0.02), causing LOS F (V/C> 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the project increases traffic demand by 2% of capacity (V/C_0.02). 3-6 37 0 0 1~ 4.0 Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a ' development. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition and San Diego Association of ' Governments (SANDAG) Traffic Generation Rates. These publications provide a comprehensive evaluation of trip generation rates for a variety of land uses. Both daily and ' peak hour trip generation rates for the uses analyzed in this study are shown in Table 2. The traffic generation for the proposed project is based upon the specific land uses that ' have been planned for the development. The proposed site will consist of 127 residential , condominiums, 17,830 square feet of restaurant space, and 41,400 square feet of retail space. A reduction of 5% has been applied in order to account for internal trips within the , project between the residential dwellings and the commercial uses. In addition, to account for the pass-by trips to the commercial portion of the project, a reduction in trips of 15% ' and 25% have been taken for the restaurant and retail components of the site, respectively. The proposed development in its entirety is projected to generate approximately 3,590 net , trip-ends per day, with 231 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net ' vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Both daily and peak-hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 3. I1 4-1 38 • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4-2 39 0 0 1 ~ 1 5.0 Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. ' Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of employment, commercial, and recreational opportunities, and the proximity to the ' regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing and proposed land uses and highways within the community, and ' existing traffic volumes. The proposed project has three (3) access points. The trip distribution for this analysis has been based upon project buildout conditions, based upon those highway facilities that are ' in place or will be contemplated over the near-term. The trip distribution patterns for the project are shown on Exhibit G. I 1 5-1 40 ' 0 • 6.0 Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and existing arterial highway and local street systems. Based upon the identified project trip generation and distributions, project related traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit I. 6-1 41 J • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK S-2 • 1 7.0 Traffic Impact Analysis ' Traffic impacts have been projected and analyzed for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Project ' Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project, Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project, Year 2030 Without Project, and Year 2030 With Project traffic conditions,. ' 7.1 Existing Plus Project Existing Plus Project traffic volumes have been determined by combining existing ' traffic volumes with project traffic volumes. Exhibit I shows the Existing Plus Project traffic volumes. ' As presented in Table 4, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an ' acceptable level of service during Existing Plus Project peak hour conditions with the exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue. HCM and ICU ' calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. 7.2 Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project t Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic volumes have been determined ' by applying an annual growth rate and adding traffic generated by Other ' Development to existing traffic volumes. Based on discussions with representatives from the City of Rosemead, an annual , growth rate of 1 percent was identified as being representative of City and area- , wide growth. Therefore, a 2 percent growth rate (1 percent compounded over two years) was applied to the Existing volumes to generate the Project Buildout (Year ' 2009) traffic-volume conditions. 7-1 42 ' 11 r L THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6-2 7.3 Other Development projects within the vicinity of the site have been determined for Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This includes all projects within approximately one mile of the project site. Their location in relation to the Park Monterey project is shown on Exhibit K. The expected trip generation of the other Developments is shown in Table 5. The trip distribution maps associated with each Other Development project are shown on Exhibits L and M. The expected vehicle trips generated by Other Development have been estimated and distributed to the study area network as shown on Exhibit N. To assess Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic conditions, existing traffic has been combined with area-wide growth and Other Development within the vicinity of the site. The traffic volumes for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit 0. For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. Table 6 presents the intersection analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions. The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix D. Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project To assess Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, project traffic has been combined with Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project traffic. Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit P. For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours, with the exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue which is expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. However, with the recommended improvements, this intersection is projected to improve to an 7-2 43 9 0 t 1 acceptable level of service. Table 7 presents the intersection analysis for Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions both with and without improvements. 1 The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix E. 1 7.4 Year 2025 Without Project Conditions 1 Year 2025 Without Project traffic volumes have been determined by applying an annual growth rate and adding traffic generated by Other Development to existing 1 traffic volumes. 1 As previously described, an annual growth rate of 1 percent has been applied to existing traffic in the area. This growth factor takes into account ambient growth 1 throughout the city. Per discussion with City officials, a Year 2025 analysis condition was analyzed; therefore, a total of 19.6% has been applied to include the 1 eighteen-year period. In order to determine Year 2025 Without Project conditions traffic volumes, existing volumes, a growth rate and other developments have been combined and the 1 resulting traffic volumes for Year 2025 Without Project conditions are shown on Exhibit Q. 1 For Year 2025 Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected , to operate at an acceptable Level of Service during peak hours with the exception of the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue and the Del Mar Avenue 1 intersection with Garvey Avenue which both operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the PM peak hour. Table 8 presents the intersection analysis for Year 1 2025 Without Project conditions. The HCM and ICU calculation worksheets are included in Appendix F. 1 7-3 1 44 1 0 0 7.5 Year 2025 With Project Conditions To assess Year 2025 With Project conditions, project traffic has been combined with Year 2025 Without Project traffic. Year 2025 With Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit R. As shown in Table 6, HCM and ICU calculations are based on the existing intersection geometrics and the intersection geometrics necessary to mitigate the impacts. For Year 2025 With Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during peak hours with the exception of two intersections. The New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue and the Del Mar Avenue intersection with Garvey Avenue are both expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. With the roadway mitigation shown in Table 9, these intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better for Year 2025 With Project peak hour conditions. HCM and ICU calculation worksheets for Year 2025 With Project Conditions are provided in Appendix G. 7-4 45 • • 8.0 Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrants have been analyzed to determine the project's impact at the New Avenue intersection with Graves Avenue. The intersection currently warrants a traffic signal based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions. The traffic signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix H. 8-1 46 9.0 Fair-Share Analysis 1 The project's fair-share contribution is shown in Table 11. The project should pay for its ' pro-rata share of the cost of study area intersection improvements through the payment of adopted City transportation fee programs. This pro-rata share should be based upon the ' project's fair-share contribution of the cost of the improvements. The fair-share analysis shown in Table 11 is based upon a comparison of the project's traffic to the Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project growth in traffic and the Year 2025 With Project growth in traffic. 1 ~i n I' t ~I 91 n 47 1 I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT 8LAN 8-2 0 0 1 1 1 10.0 Parking Analysis 10.1 Parking Analysis The City of Rosemead Parking Code requirements are included in Appendix I. Based upon the current City Parking Code, the various uses (residential condominiums, restaurants, and retail shops) would require 662 spaces. Table 11 shows the City ' parking requirements per land use within the site. However, because of the mixed- use nature of the Park Monterey project, a shared parking analysis has been completed to determine if the proposed parking is appropriate to accommodate the project. Although the project provides sufficient parking spaces to meet City Code ' (662 spaces provided), the analysis will assure sufficient parking is provided due to the complimentary uses, which will reduce the demand for parking spaces. Furthermore, many of the users of the project will utilize multiple uses within the project site. For example, some portion of the residents will also use the restaurants , and the retail shops within the site. There are 662 proposed parking spaces as part of the Monterey Park project. Of , these spaces, 254 will be reserved exclusively for the residential use and the remainder will be used in common for the residential guest, restaurant, and retail uses. Based upon the shared parking concept, there will be sufficient parking ' spaces available for parking to meet the needs of the proposed project. The project uses are compatible with one another and lend themselves to the use of shared parking because the uses are complimentary (i.e., residential, restaurant, and , retail), and people could often visit the site for more than one purpose in only one trip. For example, people visiting restaurants site could also visit the retail shops, therefore, reducing the typical parking demand required for the individual uses. The 10-1 1 48 11 11 Il 11 1 0 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAN 9-2 multi-use nature of the land uses at the Park Monterey project lends itself to the reduction in overall parking generation as a result of the mix of land uses within the site. 10.2 Shared Parking Analysis RK has used procedures developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) from its 2005 publication, Shared Parking, Second Edition. This document contains the latest procedures and data with respect to parking demand and shared parking. Parking demand rates were developed from the City of Rosemead Parking Code Requirements. The ULI has also conducted a substantial parking demand survey in conjunction with the ITE to develop parking demand rates. The analysis was performed using both rates and the results are discussed later in this section. The ULI shared parking analysis evaluates the types of land uses, parking rates, monthly variations of parking demand by land use, differences between weekday and weekend parking demand, the hourly distribution of peak parking demand for each type of land use, and captive versus non-captive parking demand within the project site. The ULI procedures were utilized within this study to evaluate peak parking demand that will occur at the proposed Park Monterey project. RK used the proposed land uses in determining the project parking demand. Peak Parking Demand for each land use at the Park Monterey project was estimated using City of Rosemead parking requirements for individual land uses. Furthermore, each month of the year was evaluated and the peak parking demand for both weekdays and weekends was determined utilizing data contained in the ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition report and the operational characteristics of the proposed land uses within the site. 10-2 49 The ULI-developed computer spreadsheet was used to analyze parking demand at th P t k M t Th h th h d l d e ar erey projec on . e program t at e ULI as eve ope is consistent with the procedures included in the ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition publication. Th f ll i t i i l d d i hi h o ow ng e npu s were nc e u w t n t e shared parking computer program for each land use: 1. Peak parking demand by land use for visitors and employees. 2. Captive versus non-captive parking demand. 1 3. Hourly Variations of parking demand. 4. Weekday versus weekend adjustment factor. 5. Monthly adjustment factors to account for variations of parking demand over h ' t e year. The shared parking demand for individual rates takes into account the peak parking , characteristics of the residential, restaurant, and retail uses. Each of these land uses has different peaking characteristics with respect to time of day and month of year. Adjustments have been made to take into consideration both weekday and weekend peak conditions, based upon the individual types of uses. The latest ULI ' procedures also separate visitors versus employee parking demand for each land use. ' 10.3 Shared Parking Results ' Since the peak parking demand for each land use occurs at different hours, and also , varies by month and day of the week, the peak parking demand is not solely determined by adding the individual peak parking requirements for each land use. , Also, there are some captive trips between users within the development, which 10-3 50 ' further reduces the parking demand. Exhibit S indicates the peak parking demand for weekday conditions and Exhibit T indicates the peak parking demand for weekend conditions at the Park Monterey project. Exhibit U shows a comparison of peak parking demand by hour during the peak month of the year. As shown on these exhibits, peak parking demand does not occur continually throughout the day and would peak infrequently during the course of a day. This study finds that the month of December resulted in the highest peak parking demand during the year for the Park Monterey project. The computer output datasheets for the various months are included in Appendix J. The hourly parking demand for the peak month of December is shown in Table 12. As shown, the maximum parking demand on weekdays is 572 parking spaces. Peak demand on weekends is 565 parking spaces. The Park Monterey project provides for a total of 662 parking spaces. Of the spaces provided, 254 spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of the residences. The remaining 408 spaces are used in common and would accommodate parking demand from the residential guests, restaurant, and retail uses. Based upon this shared parking analysis, the proposed land uses within the Park Monterey project can be accommodated by the 662 parking spaces without creating an overflow parking situation. It is projected that there will be an excess of 90 spaces during weekdays and 97 spaces during weekends during the peak month of the year with full occupancy of the development for peak conditions. ULI-developed parking demand rates differ from the City of Rosemead rates. Therefore, in order to ensure that sufficient parking has been provided, RK performed an additional shared parking analysis using ULI rates. This analysis further confirms the proposed land uses within the Park Monterey project can be accommodated by the 662 parking spaces without creating an overflow parking situation. Using ULI rates, it is projected that there will be an excess of 107 spaces during weekdays and 26 spaces during weekends during the peak month of the 10-4 51 0 0 1~ year with full occupancy of the development for peak conditions. The computer output datasheets for the various months and the hourly parking demand for the peak month of December using ULI rates are included in Appendix K. 10.4 Overflow Parking t Based upon the shared parking analysis, the peak parking demand for weekdays is projected to be 572 parking spaces and the peak weekend parking demand is 1 projected to be 565 parking spaces. Of these spaces, 254 are reserved for the exclusive use of the residences, leaving 318 and 311 spaces required during the weekdays and weekends, respectively. While residential parking is reserved in the lower basement level, it is recommended that guests visiting the residences will also t have access to the Resident Parking basement level. The Park Monterey project has 408 common spaces available, accounting for the 254 reserved spaces; therefore, at least 90 parking spaces (22% of the common ' parking spaces) should be available for any overflow parking needs during the peak weekday conditions and at least 97 parking spaces (24% of the common parking , spaces) should be available for any overflow parking needs during the peak weekend conditions. ' 1 I' 10-5 52 1 0 0 1 1 1 11.0 Findings ' A summary of the level of service analysis for each condition is included in Table 9. 1 The study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service during ' Existing peak hour conditions. The study area intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue currently warrants a traffic signal based upon the peak hour signal warrant analysis for Existing conditions. The proposed development in its entirety is projected to generate approximately 3,590 net trip-ends per day, with 231 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 313 net 1 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. During Existing Plus Project conditions, all of the study area intersections excluding the project access driveways are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during 1 peak hour conditions with the exception of New Avenue with Graves Avenue. However, with the recommended improvements, this study area intersection is projected improve to 1 an acceptable level of service during the peak hours. For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project conditions, all study area intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours. , For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project conditions, all study area intersections ' excluding the project access driveways are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours, with the exception of New Avenue at Graves Avenue and Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue. However, with the recommended improvements, these study area intersections are projected improve to an acceptable level of service during the peak hours. 11-1 , 5 3 ' • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10-6 0 0 Garvey Avenue provides a center turn lane that extends along the front of the site. The center turn lane improves operations and safety for vehicles turning left out of the site as they are able to cross westbound traffic on Garvey Avenue and wait in the center turn lane before merging with eastbound traffic. Taking into consideration the benefits of the center turn lane, all three project access driveways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The project should contribute towards intersection improvements based upon fair-share analysis included in this report, through participation in adopted City transportation fee programs. Based upon the City of Rosemead Parking Code requirements for individual uses, a total of 662 parking spaces are required for the Park Monterey project. The required number of spaces has been provided as indicated on the site plan. Due to the mix of land uses, the shared parking concept is viable for this project. Utilizing the shared parking concept and rates from the City of Rosemead Parking Code, peak demand is estimated to be 572 parking spaces for weekdays and 565 parking spaces for weekends. The results of the shared parking analysis indicate that sufficient parking is available on-site to accommodate the project. 11-2 54 0 0 1 11 12.0 Recommendations Project Recommendations are summarized on Exhibit S. At the intersection of New Avenue and Graves Avenue, participate in the fair-share funding to install a traffic signal to provide acceptable levels of service for Project Buildout (Year 2009) conditions. This signal is warranted under existing traffic volumes. At the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, participate in the fair-share funding to construct an additional exclusive left-turn lane on the Garvey Avenue eastbound approach to provide acceptable levels of service for Year 2025 conditions. 1 Existin center t l l G A b g urn ane a ong arvey venue may e re-striped to provide exclusive left- turn lanes entering the east and west project access driveways. Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends at the project access driveways. Participate in City approved development impact and roadway fees. In conjunction with the preparation of precise grading, landscape, and street improvement lans si ht distance h ld b i d ll r p , g s ou e rev ewe at a project access points per City of Rosemead and Caltrans standards. While residential parking is reserved in the lower basement level, it is recommended that e i t iti th id ill l h t gu s v s s e res ences w ng a so ave access to the Resident Parking basement level. Provide 662 parking spaces, as shown on the proposed site plan. After full occupancy of ' the Monterey Park project, peak parking demand should be monitored to refine parking management operations. 12-1 1 55 1 0 0 13.0 Conclusions Based upon this analysis of Existing, Project Buildout (Year 2009), and Year 2025 traffic conditions, all study area intersections are projected to perform at satisfactory levels of service with the implementation of the recommendations included in this report. Based upon the shared parking analysis, the project is expected to have sufficient parking spaces as noted on the site plan. Therefore, the proposed Park Monterey project can be accommodated within the City of Rosemead. 13-1 56 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12-2 Exhibits 57 11 • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 13-2 0 0 1 Exhibit A Location Map Legend: • = study Area Inoersection N 0905-07-01 (ExA) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, California engineering _ group, inc. 58 t I I • 0 • N 0905-07-01 (ExB) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Cky of Rosemead, C31 famfa Exhibit B Site Plan engineering group, inc. 59 • • Exhibit C City of Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element i N 0905.07-01 PC) PARK MONTEREY PROJECTTRWX IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead. California engineering group, inc. 60 ' Exhibit D City of Rosemead General Plan Roadway Cross Sections 4•LT i I F ► M..An fi1.0. 2 W LONI AIY~f V ' 4 ~ LT Bi I 1 ' z ' 4+LTa l/S 2 2 1 i y , LT 4 1 4«LT8 I/S 2 ; 2 1I'i '¢F 4t LT 8 VS 2 Yar.fiul 91. z 10 A 7 EIM 001461VOM9 Ff"v ' R 2 a. LT 41 LT 8 IIS ! 6 • L'T 4t LT I ` EL, G ENp j 2 4 + LT I 6• LT = 6 LANES PINS LT6 i' LEFT TURN LAMES 4• 1/S 4+LT 4•LT z 4 LANES PLUS 4t LT S 1!3 LEFT TURN LANES a,+.. . 2 1 4 = 4 LANES NO LEFT 1 TURN LANES 4. LY ` 4• LT 9 I/$ = 4 LANES PtV3 pr.+ 61 ; LEFT TURN LAZES AT INTERSECTION ' a P = 2 LANES FREEWAY WITERCHANGE u pM 4 I _ J1 100"Re row? 4.LT N 0905-07-01 (ExD) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, city of Rosemead, CaGiomia 1 engineering _ group, inc. 61 • • Exhibit E Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Controls = Traffic Signal Stop Sign 4 = Number of Lanes D = Divided U = Undivided L-_ = Defacto Right Turn N 0905-07-01 (ExE) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rownead, Califomh engineering _ group, inc. 62 LL h u t 3 w- v f. 00 C 41 N K W ~-asAe ~So MEW; id~ 6IfB6~ ~ci re►I ` zIL gga- `ii [19 a`$ es~c, r9Y T: -T ~ ~ J ► LY-E 8y, II~ALLy-.j. X!"yL^ LE-~ ~ r ►IZ/9L , } r at ` aLIN01-, WI E+ a f1/-I S'EZ 681 --w sW PO 6Z SZ ~V .e W O-a S'61 ri) EII L'8 '~V ^ N 10 ti ~ M S i'L L's ~r E e o ~ o ry 0 J 3 d ~ z c v m~ c o- mo m a► 63 • • ~I 0 0 Exhibit G Inbound Project Trip Distribution Legend: 10 = Percent to/from Project N 0905-07-01 (ExG) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Qty of Rosrnaad. Catifomw engineering _ group, inc. 64 0 0 Exhibit H Outbound Project Trip Distribution Legend: 10 = Percent to/from Project N 4905-07-01 IExM PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, Clay of Rosemead, Californo engineering _ group, inc. 65 - In ~E x 3 w C V L 41 u d •L CL • oA v 0/0-1 ~l r J~ J~ J~ IUtIL- ~8 OU61J 010-' ~ d4-~ ao-'1 3333 II/01-I ~ ~~-1 09/K-~ _ All k-LM I'0 0 'iMii~v Rlf 01 Y111 my uonp! ~ d m O O w C p L r ) -I L"I CI U) 9-0 --W -N 10 E i s u Iti ---Y I c lc c~ m m ~ X ~a E c < C I I Ix p o ~z 66 0 0 Ul ~E xR Ey C u H 4J V d .i a CL 00 c K W ~.ose(y~ ~t 221 ms S-tI1B1 J~ L ~I1I05 ~r 'p' II- LIH►1 w 66#M&L-1 Ji QOD-J Esmg-l -mn _a p$ a eT ~ 1 ~ s S n e--'vr JET' 1 4EZ 6'91 yLeV RFI PQ w H 9T 9'Z ilYGd Ol O m W W ow Z'EZ FOE 611 F6 w+ V -N 2 V U 6s aiway aqumyy m c ~a mo m a`► 3 S ~ a F ~ o p p c c J 1 Z Z 67 0 0 Exhibit K Other Development Location Map Hellman Avenue Emerson Avenue m a a Z SITE b Garvey Avenue Newmark Avenue Graves Avenue Legend: O = CUP 06-1079 © = CUP 04-960 N 0905-07-01 (ExK) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead. CaDfornia engineering group, inc. 68 Exhibit L Zone ! Trip Distribution Legend: 10 = Percent to/from Project N 0905-07-01 (ExL) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, California engineering group, inc. 69 • • Exhibit M Zone 2 Trip Distribution Legend: 10 = Percent tolfrom Project N 040507.01 fExK PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, Callfomla engineering group, inc. 70 0 0 w ~o u a O d D m s O W ILI 0 t' 1 Vo ~ vRWf+O r rRra"Y ~ ro 0 W m ro ~ S o Rv"V -W I m~ a. dco 13 ~ F =r m o n o c J o 1a z S 71 0 9 O,w S O E 3 w 3 O V_ O N i L~ rd y0 v .O a+ L CL 0 a m .O IL > Jn e~ , C 3~t~, r ~ r L►R~+ LU£E-~~2r 901 1151 ~~,a. `L ~597fi9 ~ ~Et 16► osLU , 1EI/oQ€~~_ 4l~6rclE~-~ i N I~ -a Q'SL f 5"61 WE n 91 w 9'SE SZZ 661 51I 6E ry < f"L B'S ~W/T~YV c~ CD ca 3 ~ O m m 8 a E C p ~ O so J c 0 ~ z S 72 ~s N v+ 4`J 0 X /1 E 0` O O O N v L ~ A ri t9/Ez SS -dK1665 O 0 J+ ruse ` r ei uis CL c~Nt-" 0 a ew z" m ~ Y AO L. 9 CL a S_x J1 A ~ [►Iff" r$ m$ $ M r#T /r{lt3M$3 JT ~ LM V~ JT °sw1 iileo` ►oi q~i rose:, fsL S'61 ~v.w PO 8'i 91 -.-V LLJ qqi [ Ei :W a W c rj m~ ma c~ ~o c~ m ~ aN 0 :6 E r~ EL o V ~.r V O L 0.. 3 .C 3 N O N L d • 0 m~ L6M EW9$ --U9ADL J I B J i~ ~ 1/sl J 1, EIAM E E9/1~ L ~n Ti 6EKo a 2- l9LL J1 PAIL I NIL yI~ 9 IAYH 11~ 9YO1 tl YY-N felcotY~- _ 58/901--~ f51lLL11 ~ 6t llLL-~ LLIMLI-"~ ~ 'a ~'uM/ X41 N0 CE 01 0'E P onmw .p n - W 6'6t Y9t VEZ SEI Y'DI u"i w R ~ h < E` S P 'L` q a 9B B'9 c m- mQ ~o cL m << nn o 19 1 Z fits 74 CC wwwlo Y_ W E X 3 w C V a+ V C a s Ln N N f`11 r L • .°g L-09196 &q • 6 I I 14 rilT f-40V J 7 l -6I b9 L119FJ { rq LINK ' f L KyMj8E1Y 6S J ~r9~1r J 1 I n /L J I m YLE9SI~S LSF/FEIJ , d'd-~~f OAC $N S91/LOI--Y 09/" NN g r-T LELI/LLI E-iS~}}}E9r J { `N Eil►L .p.p~. IHS r J~ d ,'FB 68NI1-J ~_~}d gYll4~/ ~f~ QJI I/0~-t' A mfn YLJ 9L INY - ~d ODI I/6E~i-~ 910 ~9LY-~ K 1~6 59190 fS11LLI1 ;ZF IRl--Y C6L 6'LL x V nW FU 0 C [ C)l 1'F ~nwy uou{ m `o m U.{ 0'IE SLL 9'YL ff•7 IYI 0'II tD m P m ~ Q N O 9B 63 xaa"V •+9u~1(V CA C U C CD d ~p C O m w Ili m 0 J _ o ~Z 5 75 Exhibit S Peak Month Weekday Parking Demand i 700 soo 500 400 m Y d 300 200 100 Weekday Month-by-Month Estimated Parking Demand N 0905-07-01 (E)p engineering PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead. Calffornia group, Inc. 76 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lat Dec Month 0 0 Exhibit U Peak Month Daily Parking Demand Peak Month Dally Parking Demand by Hour 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1EIM Kvn r kLrA VW %va.- LNywY A NVA i nww NW ~ nwn rw M , WA hMQ.,1YCL~LIri, LM" ~ r4" ~ nvw 0'# 14 e e re c) Hour N 0905-07.01 (ExU) PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, CaRomia AWeekday M Weakend engineering group, inc. 78 0 0 Exhibit T Peak Month Weekend Parking Demand Weekend Month-by-Month Estimated Parking Demand h 8 m m _c R d N OM-07-01 (E)M PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. City of Rosemead, Callfomla engineering group, inc. 77 Jazz Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lat Dec Month • • Exhibit V Recommendations Participate in a Fair-Share Funding for intersection improvements shown and participate in applicable city adopted Roadway Fee Programs. Sight distance at each project access should be reviewed at the time of construction per City of Rosemend and Caltrans standards. v c Q ~4 Install stop signs, stop bars, and stop legends Q `o at all project access points. Z r1 T r- Existing center turn lane on Garvey Avenue should be. estriped to provide exclusive left-turn lanes at project access drrveways. Graves Avenue Legend: = Traffic Signal t__ = Defacto Right Turn - L Traffic Signal is Warranted for Existing Conditions. Improvements N OMS-o7-01 PARK MONTEREY PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, City of Rosemead, California engineering group, inc. 79 0 0 1 Tables 1 1 t 1 1 I • • TABLE 1 Intersection Analysis For Existing Conditions Intersection A roach Lane(s)' Delay' "CM Level ICU Level Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) of Service ICU4 of Service Intersection Controls L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - 0.553 0.519 A A New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - - 0.725 0.655 C B • Emerson Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - 0.455 0.574 A A • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - 0.749 0.579 C A • Newmark Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 - - 0.608 0.441 B A • Graves Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 16.6 28.6 C D - - Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - - - 0.578 0.532 A A Del Mar Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW) IS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 2 1 0.555 0.760 A C When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where •1" is indicated for the through movement and '01s are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Turn; 02W = Improvement ' Analysis Software: Trafhx, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal AWS = AB Way Stop CSS = Goss Street Stop ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization i:lrktabhe IRK582178 1M.10905-okol 80 • • I c: TABLE 2 Trip Generation Rates' • Peak Hour ITE AM PM Land Use Code Units' In Out In Out Daily Specialty Retail Center 814 TSF 0.80 0.53 1.19 1.52 44.32 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 932 TSF 5.99 5.53 6.66 4.26 127.1 5 Residential Condominiunyiownhouse 230 DU 0.07 0.37 0.35 0.17 5.86 ' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003 and SANDAG Traffic Generation Rates- ' DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet j:1tktabks1RK5821 T8 IN: 090S-07-01 81 TABLE 3 Project Trip Generation • Peak Hour ITE AM PM Land Use Code uanti Units' In Out Total In Out Total Dail Residential Condominium/Townhouse Nigh Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant S" ping Center 230 932 820 127 17.83 41.4 DU TSF TSF 9 107 26 47 99 17 56 2D6 43 44 119 75 22 76 81 66 195 156 744 2,267 1,778 Less 5%Intemal Capture -7 -8 -15 -12 -9 -21 -239 Gross Total' 135 155 290 226 170 396 4,550 Less 15% Pass-by (Restaurant) Less 25% Pass-by (Retail) -25 -6 -24 -4 -49 -10 -28 -18 -18 -19 -46 -37 -538 -422 Net Total 104 127 231 180 133 313 3,590 OCS = Occupied Camp Sites TSF = Thousand Square Feet Full Trip Generation Without Pass-by Trips, Utilized for Analysis at Project Access Points r: /rktabhs1RK5&21 TB 1N: 0905-07-01 82 0 • TABLE 4 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection roach Lane(s Delay2 HCM Level ICU Level Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) of Se rvice ICU' of Se rvice Intersection ControP L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.563 0.535 A A New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.739 0.672 C B • Emerson Avenue (EM T5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.470 0.591 A A • Garrey Avenue (FM TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.689 0.648 B B • Newmark Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 - 0.615 0.461 B A • Graves Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 17.9 363 C - E - - Project Access A (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (E" CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 15.3 12.5 C B - - Project Access B (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EM CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 14.5 12.0 B B Project Access C (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 0.5 22.6 15.6 C C - - Jackson Avenue (NS) at _ _ - • Garvey Avenue (E" TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 - _ 0.589 0.538 A A _ Del Mar Avenue (NS) al: - • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - 0.563 0.777 A C r When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where •t• is indicated for the through movement and •0"s are indicated for fVL movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left- T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > - Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement r Analysis Software: Traffx, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the wont individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal AWS = All Way Stop CSS = Goss Street Slop ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization is /rktables/PpIC582I T8 1N:0905-07-01 g~ • TABLE 5 Other Development Trip Generation • Peak Hour 1TE AM Pl y Zone Project Land Use Code Quantity Unltsl In Out In Out Daily 1 CUP 06-1079 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Specialty Retail High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 230 814 932 36 5.865 5.640 Olt TSF TSF 3 5 34 13 3 31 13 7 38 6 9 24 211 260 717 Subtotal Zone 1 42 47 58 39 1188 3 CUP 04-960 Residential CondominiunVTownhouse Shopping Center 230 820 O [205100 DU TSF 4 36 19 23 19 104 9 113 293 354 Subtotal Zone 2 40 42 123 122 647 otae 82 89 181 161 1,835 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet ' Numbers may not add due to rounding. j •hktabk-VW582178 BY:0905-07-01 84 0 0 TABLE 6 Intersection Analysis For Project Buildout (Year 2009) Without Project Conditions Intersection Approach Lane(s)' Delay HCM Level ICU Level Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) of Se rvice ICU4 of Service Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - 0.567 0.539 A A New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - 0.742 0.665 C B • Emerson Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - - 0.467 0.589 A A • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.674 0.594 B A • Newmark Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.618 0.448 B A • Graves Avenue (EM CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 17.4 34.6 C D - - - Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 l 2 1 0.593 0.552 A A Del Mar Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - 0.592 0.813 A D When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where'll" is indicated for the through movement and "0"s are indicated for R2 movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement z Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7-9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and leoel of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 TS = Traffic Signal AWS =,U Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization i=1rktab&WWK58217R /N.D905-07-01 85 0 0 TABLE 7 Intersection Analysis For Project Buildout (Year 2009) With Project Conditions In tersection Approach Lane(s Delay' HCM Level ICU Level Significant Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) of Se rvice ICU' of Service Im d Intersection Controft L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue TS I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 - 0.577 0.555 A A No No New Avenue • Heilman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - 0.755 0.687 C 8 No No • Emerson Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - - 0.482 0.606 A B No No • Garvey Avenue (E" TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0,5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - 0.704 0.669 C B No No • Newmark Avenue (E" TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 - 0.625 0.467 B A No No • Graves Avenue (EVO CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 18.8 45.7 C E - - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 - - 0.376 0.480 A A No Yes Project Access A (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (L°W) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1.5 0.5 15.5 12.6 C B - Project Access B (NS) at - • Garvey Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 14.9 12.3 8 8 - - - - - Project Access C (NS) at _ _ _ _ _ • Garvey Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 24.0 16.6 C C Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EM TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.604 0.559 B A No No Del Mar Avenue (NS) at: _ • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - 0.500 0.830 A D No No When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can ekW be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. vvhere'1' is indicated for the through movement t and 'OS are indicated for PA movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. L = Left; T - Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; » = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 Analysis Software; Trallbt, version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and Iwel of , service are shown lot intersections with traffic signal or alfway stop control. For intersections with crass-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal AWS = M Way Stop ' CSS = Cross Street Stop ICU = Into ection Capacity utilization , r/~klahlcr/AICSB? r iB Mr:0905-07-0r 86 0 0 TABLE 8 Intersection Analysis For Year 2025 Without Project Conditions Intersection Approach Lane(s)' Delay2 HCM Level ICU Level Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Seconds) of Service ICUs of Service Intersection Control' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.647 0.613 B B New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.852 0.762 D C • Emerson Avenue (EVh TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.529 0.673 A 8 • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.773 0.677 C B • Newmark Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 D 0 0.708 0.508 C A • Graves Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 21.9 -4 C F - Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW_) TS _ 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.577 0.628 B B Del Mar Avenue (NS) at' _ • Garvey Avenue (EM I'S 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 D 672 0.929 1 B F ~ When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where'1' is indicated for the through movement and 10•s are indicated for FVL movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement L - Lett; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Right Turn; Bold = Improvement 2 Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal AWS = AD Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop Delay High. Intersection Unstable. Level of Service F. s ICU = Intersection Capacity utilization j:1rktahk-d4K587178 JN:0905 07.01 87 • TABLE 9 Intersection Analysis For Year 2025 With Project Conditions Intersection Approach Lane(s)' Delay HCM Level ICU Level Significant Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (seco nds) of Se rvice ICUs of Se rvice I act Intersection Controe L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • EGarn Avenue TS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.657 0.629 B 8 No No New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 - - 0.865 0.776 D C No No • Emerson Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.545 0.690 A B No No • Garvey Avenue (EW) TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.803 0.752 D C No No • Newmark Avenue (EW) TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.715 0.528 C A No No • Graves Avenue (EM CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 24.5 4 C F - - With Improvements TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 - - 0.421 0.552 A A No Yes Project Access A (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 18.1 13.8 C B - Project Access B (NS) at • Garvey Aven a (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 16.9 13.3 C 8 - - Project Access C (NS) at _ - - - - - - • Garvey Avenue (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 0.5 31.7 19.2 D C - - - Jackson Avenue (NS) at. - - - - - - - - • Garvey Avenue (EVV) TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1- 2- 1 1 2 1 - - 0.688 0.635 B B No No Del Mar Avenue (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) T5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 2 1 1 2 1 - 0.68 0.946 B E No No - With Improvements TS 1 1.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 2 2 1 1 2 1 0.663 0.899 B D r When a right turn lane is designated, the lane can either be striped or trumped. To function as a right turn lane there meat be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. Where'l' is indicated for the through movement and'Irs are indicated for R/L movements, the R and/or L turns are shared with the through movement. ' L - Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap; > > = Free Riot Turn; of = Improvement ' Analysis Software Traff Version 7.9. Per the 2000 Hr'ghay w Capacity AAanual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. for intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. ' TS = Traffic Signal AWS : - Al Way Stop CSS = Cross Street Stop t Delay High. Intersection Unstable. Level of Service F- s ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization r. rikrabkv'RK581 r >H M:0905-02-01 ' 88 L O r c E N • 's n r m i~ ~ , I I r 1 1 m k y ~ - t I 1 t 1 I 1 i~ 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 I ~ i 3 I l l i 1 i f 'I t V m v< ~ ~ g ~ O[ O V V V V D f n& N I P n f, S 6 c O G C O s~ Y y ' { j nn i~ an o o e o I ~ g Z! I 1 I 1 I ` _ n _ S i t P V _ V m m ( r J ~ O< V V U 1 p b C o I I I b o P o 3 c o o c 3 u i ° E"d aooo' E o 11 I l I l i l l q .1 I t l l( I I ~ I t l t -f I I 3L~ ~ I X 1 1 1^ I 1 I I i 1 I I I f I I 1 1 1 1 t f n ~ ~ ; ( ( m m m Q .u m V VV ( V V V~ d V O Q a-gy ~ ~ ~p p~ g I O IC ID ~ I q r 0 b x o 0 0 0 0 0 {p SZ~ y i n~ $n u I i a o p d ~ I I m b a Q m< Q< o [ o s ~ < V 4 m m V Q < $x ~ ' a ° ;sail oo~m a o 5 i s t ~ ~ n m0 b b I t ~h ; S SSS C O C C O t I I I O € ooao t a oY ~ o 0 f Z < m 4<< O i I 4 r n n o m N l 1 N o °ooo 0 0 0°°° t I I, o i : 1 I p ¢ t I i I I ~Nn V SS ~ ~ ` ~ 3 3 C Z C ~ C 2 • z z b ~ q Y 89 TABLE 11 City of Rosemead Parking Code Requirements • Land Use Quantity Units' Parkin Rate2 Parking Spaces Required Residential Owner 127 DU 2SP/DU 254 Residential Guest 127 DU 0.5SP/DU 63.5 Restaurant 17,830 SF 1 SP/100 SF 178.3 Retail 41,400 SF 1 SP/250 SF 165.6 Total 661.4 DU = Dwelling Units SF = Square Feet z SP - Parking Space j:1rktables1RK5821 TB.xls IN,-0-905-07-07 90 0 0 TABLE 13 Project Fair-Share Intersection Contribution Project Buildout Project % of (Year 2009) Project Buildout Existing With Project Project (Year 2009) Traffic Traffic Growth in Traffic Traffic Growth in Traffic Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey Avenue 2,193 2,195 2,334 2,391 141 196 63 85 44.7% 43.4% New Avenue • Hellman Avenue (EM 2,076 2,549 2,201 2,718 125 169 75 101 60.0% 59.8% • Emerson Avenue (EW) 1,455 2,242 1,576 2,419 121 177 85 108 70.2% 61.0% • Garvey Avenue (EW) 3,119 2,674 3,399 3,038 280 364 184 243 65.7% 66.8% • Newmark Avenue (EW) 1,364 934 1,432 1,003 68 69 40 51 58.8% 73.9% • Graves Avenue (EW) 839 1,144 914 _ 1,252 75 108 40 50 53.3% 46.3% Project Access A (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) 1,992 1,664 2,312 2,096 320 432 246 331 76.9% 76.6% Project Access B (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) 1,992 1,664 2,180 1,917 188 253 114 152 60.6% 60.1% Project Access C (NS) at _ • Garvey Avenue (RAI) 1,992 1,664 2,152 1,890 160 226 86 125 53.8% 55.3% Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EM 2,187 2,052 2,312 2,232 125 180 46 71 36.8% 3 9.4% Del Mar Avenue (NS) at: . _ • Garvey Avenue (EW) 2,312 3,767 2,505 4,114 193 347 50 74 25.9% 21.3% Year 2025 Project % of Existing With Project Project Year 2025 Traffic Traffic Growth in Traffic Traffic Growth in Traffic Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Alhambra Avenue (NS) at: • E Garvey_A_venue 2,193 2,195 2,719 2,780 526 585 63 85 12.0% 14.5% New Avenue _ _ • Hellman Avenue (EW) 2,076 2,549 2,566 3,167 490 618 75 101 15.3% 16.3% • Emerson Avenue (EW) 1,455 2,242 1,827 2,814 372 572 85 108 22.8% 18.9% • Garvey Avenue (EW) 3,119 2,674 3,948 3,510 829 836 184 243 22.2% 29.1% • Newmark Avenue (EW) 1,364 934 1,671 1,168 307 234 40 51 13.00/a 21.8% • Graves Avenue (EW) 839 1,144 1,061 1,451 222 307 40 50 18.0% 16.3% Project Access A (NS) at • Garvey Avenue (EW) 1,992 1,664 2,662 2,389 670 725 24 6 331 36.7% 45.7% Project Access B (NS) at _ • Garvey Avenue (EW) 1,992 1,664 2,530 2,210 538 546 1 14 152 21.2% 27.8% Project Access C (NS) at . • Garvey Avenue (EW) 1,992 1,664 2,502 2,183 510 519 86 125 16.9% 24.1% Jackson Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW) 2_,18.7_ 2,052 2,694 2,595 507 543 46 71 9.1% 13.1% Del Mar Avenue (NS) at: • Garvey Avenue (EW) 2,312 3,767 2,911 4,777 99 1,010 71 ~i j:1rktabkslRK582? 78 1N:0905-07-01 91 ~ w E M YC L d C r Y 2 LU $ x E J M = m d C E O 3 4 W A a 3 • S M .0 o v N v 0 v ID m w in N a Ul N h N r y C N N N 1!1 V1 y r T = n o M m m m V l ~ m 00 In m I v u, 0 n 0 ~a d N rv i N N n N VI n Vl S M a l ~ ~ N ~ VVI M m ~ N N N V1 U'1 4 d S m m ~ r V1 N ~ ID N ✓1 ~ N M1 Vl M1 Vl N a r N_ , rYi O1 Igi m l1OD O1 l~ m $ V1 D1 t0 Q N M N p J1 h Ov n M ^ ~ ~n p Vl v IO lD n m N v U1 m ~'1 O N N Q d D1 Y l 1n N m m c> N ' Q N N ID p N In Q v I f l N In U Y1 D1 6 r M1 0 M 0 Q N Q ry tO N '11 r 4 O+ m , d W M ~ N a~ Vl N ~ b N m r N r V5 n ~ m rn ~ m O ~ v rv C In m m m v V5 vl v ln N ln ✓ d ID ~ N N N ~ ~ 6 N p r m m o Q N ' Q Vl N VD N O M N N I/1 v U1 N O M V1 a m r m M N ID D 1 r Q 1l1 N M rv Vf v N N v P V v m " T Ivn T QVi vrvi uvi o d m N N V N m a, - Ivn N l ^ n N vvi N ~ h ~ 01 ^ M M y N v 1 N v N m w N ro ~ x N W V1 ~ p_ N ~ n O r- m M m M in rv Q V1 N m ~ m N N m Il1 Q N N o n IIl ^ D1 cc M v N o N v v1 N M ~ ID N N {D It1 aa N N Ia m N ~ N ~ N 1vn T Qi N ~ O _O Ifl S vV D1 T N O N Vl N m ~ T m d A N v m ~ M OMO N vvi N m ^ v 10 In rv v S 4 Q ~ ~ IUD ~ 1Q/1 ~ m N 1f1 1!1 r N N m o In m Q v+ r In m 1o - Q v1 V1 O In I = o b Z~ b ~ E o 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ ~ w ~j z c c ~ Q N 0 N m N~ 4 3 O O C E E W -°o E V - - E S :2 ; 1 U q W , a I 0 C Q C Y 6 Z o 3 = IQ N IO N v N Q 0 lD V 1 N Ill K V V1 V l ✓1 l Vl y d ~ h N N N Il l N y W i .H ~ d o ~ m m n vvi N m v N p vQim N Y b 1 to 41 d d N = x ~ m m m M N h N QQ V1 N M D ~ N m V1 Q 1AT N<n M N ~SS V a ~ O m m rv N ! N ~ N U 1 V l O o . v rn a In N rvl0 m v o+ v v1 N m V 1 n ro m ~ v Y1 - C 1110 . M 1rv h ~b a ' N N M S d N v Vl - v m m - Q N O ~ v T m Q r N N v ~ D1 voii N `v nroi N IQD~ v n~ n r M1 v1 rv m 00 lD N v o - O v I n m N N N I/ 1 ~ d Po r4 r4 (71 D1 N ' Q to N I cv N ,r vl n N M n r u1 D 1 m N I to, ID N , Q N m m rn N v N vr N Vm 1 10 m a O M f~ m n ' ✓v1 N ,~.rv N Ihl1 IvA N N V l ~ ~ M m e r m ^ o m Q N 0 1 a ~ N N Q v ~ d M °i ~ m n r°rv I~ N mm ITil ~1m N v a N m a°o N ~ rv .2;Z ~N D Am- Nm m m b N M1 r A ~N po 'D p Vi 6 a N r o ~ m m N ' N `^v ~ N $ °nIID N V D 1 m m m m rv n N ' Q 1n N mm ~ N m v1 v lnm N V 1 r m N m N t~ N A r ~ In l = U ' N N N1l 1 C Z Q O O 1 0 1 rv I Q rv T m N V Q IQl1 I N A v T N ID v N ' I A M r f c r o m v m y n N N m m S V QQQQ n IO N A N ' IA N r If 1 N Jf N m T ~ m V V ' V N n r V W ID N N N 0 0 ~ v v M c q E c o ` $ ~gg b ~ N ? ~ 3 O H C E ~I - _ W j v -o d V m ro a34 S N 4 O 201 92 0 0 0 0 CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 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 Vuu led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice-Chairman Kunioka delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice-Chairman Kunioka, Commissioners Bevington and Vuu ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Bermejo, Trinh, and Yin 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 forward. None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 069079 - 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Boulevard. Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new mixed-use development project consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on 1.04 acres of land located at 9016 Guess Avenue 3862 Rosemead Boulevard, in the R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) zone. Resolution No. 07-50 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 EXHIBIT D Page T of 27 0 0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 AND RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET ZONE (APN: 8594-009-001, 8594-009-002, and 8594-009-004). Presentation: Senior Planner George Agaba Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 069079. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 07-50. Senior Planner Agaba stated the applicant and representatives were present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the applicant or architect. Mr. Michael Sun of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, the architect of the project, stated since the last meeting, they've been working closely with staff to come up with a solution. He said they feel comfortable and accept all conditions. Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he wants to clarify some things before these issues come up later. He said the current mass of the structure makes it look very imposing. He said the traffic generation is less than what was expected. He said although the structure is quite large, most of it is residential. Mr. Sun stated the traffic report shows very minimum impact. Vice-Chairman Kunioka discussed about the rooftop garden. He questioned if they have any awareness of how that will affect the energy cost to the building. Mr. Sun stated it will have a green building effect. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Brian Lewin questioned if the use of the unit on the corner of Guess Street is now office only. Senior Planner Agaba stated yes. Mr. Adrian Suzuki of 8608 Edmond Drive, a projects. He said several elements should developments in Rosemead. He would lik resident, stated he is all in favor of mixed use be incorporated and a lot is ignored in the e to inquire the developer on how they are Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 27 0 0 9 0 occupying the spaces. Mr. Sun stated the office portion will be subdivided. He said there will be one owner and tenants that may rent the space. He also said there will be some retail shops and one restaurant space as well. He then said the upper levels will be residential. Mr. Sidney Rubinstein of 9026 Guess Street, a neighboring resident, stated he is not against the project, but questions if sound wall can be installed first. He said his neighbor, residing at 9020 Guess Street, is an ill man who had a stroke, is on a wheelchair, and has breathing problems, so he would like that to be built first. Chairman Lopez said they have resolved that issue at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, a resident, stated he would like to talk about Table 6 of the EIR. He said under item 6a)(ii), "less than significant with mitigation" should be marked, not "less than significant impact." He said the reason is, we're putting up projects in the city and not adjusting for nearby earthquakes or soil. He said it will just be like the Mission project. He said no one in our staff is checking the draft EIR. He then referred to the text of 6a)(iii) and said it talks about liquefaction, but we haven't been doing the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. Chairman Lopez questioned if staff is looking at faults or any possibilities when these projects are submitted into the city. City Planner Everling stated those items are reviewed through the CEQA process. Mr. Flournoy stated it's clear that there's a seismic hazard zone, but it doesn't say what mitigation is required to fix it. Senior Planner Agaba stated the proposed mitigation measure says this project is not within an identified fault zone, however, it's within a liquefaction zone. He said the map that the city has, signed by the city geologist, refers to another code, Public Resource Code Section 2691, which says if the Planning Commission approves this project; it will come back before building permit issuance. He said the applicant must comply with all the recommendations by the geologist. Chairman Lopez questioned where this information is stored and where it can be obtained. He questioned if the right staff is determining whether the site meets state requirements. Senior Planner Agaba stated if the Commission approves this project, they can condition that. City Planner Everling stated at the time of building permits, the plans will be stamped by a licensed structural engineer and that is reviewed. He said building permits are not issued to projects that are in violation. Flournoy stated not in this City and referred to other projects. He said a condition should Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 27 9 0 be added requiring this. Mr. Bevington stated let's only discuss about this project. City Planner Everling stated seismic issues are not something the Planning Commission should review. He added that he and the Assistant City Manager has met with Mr. Flournoy last week and staff is adding level of review to projects. He said while Willdan is reviewing building permits, we will add another level of review by a staff geologist. He also said he knows that state law allows a civil engineer to review building plans for structural and/or a geologist. He said we are adding two opinions on these reports as they come in. Mr. Flournoy stated we are making progress. He said we want to make sure things are done. He also said we need to give the heads up to people and formalize the fact that this is a condition that needs to be done. He then discussed about item 6c). Chairman Lopez stated we need to move on with this project. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Bevington said he thinks the revised project has answered all his questions from the previous meeting. He said the only thing that concerns him is staffs mathematics on page 8. He wants to make sure there are only 32 residential units. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated the conditions in the staff report are not consistent with those in the resolution. He pointed out condition 21 in the staff report does not appear in the resolution. City Planner Everling stated that is a standard condition and staff will add it. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said the numbering is different as well. He said he has figured out that some conditions are combined. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff is transitioning into bringing the resolution with the staff report. He said the final conditions approved by the Planning Commission with be the final Conditions of Approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 27 0 0 • 9 NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Conditional Use Permit 06-1076 - 3201 Muscatel Avenue. Terence Kwok has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on an existing 6,645± square foot parcel currently occupied by a 940± square foot single-family residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling unit and replace it with a 2,990± square foot house and attached three-car garage. The subject site is located at 3201 Muscatel Avenue in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone. Resolution No. 07-51 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1076 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 2,990± SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED AT 3201 MUSCATEL AVENUE IN THE R-1; SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN: 5289-009-089). Presentation: Associate Planner Sheri Bermejo Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - Conditional Use Permit 06-1076, subject to conditions, for six (6) months and ADOPT Resolution 07-51. Associate Planner Bermejo stated the representative was present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Sam Yam of 260 E. Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, the designer of the project, stated he is the designer and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he is looking at the pictures and the property map and it appears to him that to the north of the proposed home should be a driveway going to the back house. Mr. Yam stated it's a subdivided lot and there is another driveway. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the driveway width. Associate Planner Bermejo stated 15 feet. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned why the side yard setbacks are different, He then questioned if they are closer to the driveway or the other wall. Mr. Yam said it's closer to the other wall. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 27 ~ A Vice-Chairman Kunioka said it would make more sense to switch the numbers. He questioned if it's feasible to move the house. Mr. Yam said there are other homes. He also said the driveway belongs to the other neighbor. Associate Planner Bermejo clarifies Mr. Kunioka's concern. Mr. Yam said they would like to make the driveway even since there are many people going through. That is why the setbacks are set like that. City Planner Everling questioned if it's preference. Mr. Yam stated yes, it's not architectural. Commissioner Vuu questioned why there is a fascia board on the east elevation and exposed rafter tails on the other elevations. Mr. Yam said this was discussed with Senior Planner Agaba. Commissioner Vuu questioned how they will architecturally finish the fascia on the side. Mr. Yam said it's easy to connect, like a gable. Senior Planner Agaba stated this project has been around for a long time. He said this is the third or fourth proposal. He said the east elevation is a proposal from staff for the details. Chairman said he understands what Commissioner Vuu is discussing about. He said he thinks the fascia should be removed. City Planner Everling questioned if they wanted the fascia to be completely removed from the project replace it with exposed rafter tails. The Commissioners answered yes. George stated if the Commission would like the fascia to be removed, staff can condition it. Commissioner Vuu questioned the star on the east elevation. Mr. Yam stated it was staffs idea as an architectural design. Senior Planner Agaba stated the elevations had no architectural detail, so staff recommended the applicant to add something. Commissioner Vuu stated from a builder's experience, there's no way they can build the Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 27 ~ • • • first story roof under the proposed second floor elevation. He said the roof is only five feet. City Planner Everling stated they can work with staff to revise the plans. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned how close the existing house is to the north property wall. He said the north side of the house may be right at the wall. City Planner Everling questioned which side of the property line Vice-Chairman Kunioka is speaking about. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said the north side. City Planner Everling said it's just a pilaster for decorative purposes. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there is a lot of space to the next house, so maybe the house should be moved 2.5 feet to the north, if it's feasible. City Planner Everling stated it's the Commission's decision. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Mr. Suzuki stated he doesn't appreciate the speculation of older homes being remodeled and replaced by newer homes. He said our community will be transitioning to these sort of development. He said he supposes that in order to maintain the home that they have now, there would have to be a preservation plan. He then questioned if this project is subject to the new single family design guidelines? Vice-Chairman Kunioka answered no. He said they are grandfathered in. Chairman Lopez asked the for anyone else who wished to oppose the application. None. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the fencing removal and height. Chairman Lopez asked for a motion. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 27 • • 0 0 C Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the Commission should make a motion to move it with conditions added. City Planner Everling stated staff would want to add the conditions. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to add the condition on reversing side yard set back. Commissioner Vuu said he wants staff to work with designer to redesign the front elevation. City Planner Everling and Senior Planner Agaba agreed. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, to APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1076 WITH CONDITIONS ADDED. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044. 7419-7459 Garvey Avenue - Patrick Yang has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use development project consisting of 127 residential condominium units (145,649 square feet) above 59,230 square feet of retail and restaurant space on 160,434 square feet of land (3.68 acres) located on the north side of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. Resolution No. 07-52 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-02, ZONE CHANGE 07-225, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419-7459 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5286-020-001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018, and 023). Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 27 Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMEND to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and RECOMMEND approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-02, Zone Change 07-225, Conditional Use Permit 07-1090, Planned Development Review 07-01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 07-52. City Planner Everling stated in response to a request from adjacent neighbors, staff has been asked to continue this item to the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bevington questioned why. City Planner Everling stated the adjacent neighbors have made a request to continue this item, since they are unable to voice their opinions tonight on this project. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there are a lot of people here tonight and those who will not be able to make it to this meeting may have an opportunity to speak at City Council. He said he spent a lot of time this weekend reading these reports and asked for this project to move forward. Commissioner Bevington stated it's addendum to discussion. He said at this point, he moves on. Chairman Lopez moved on with this public hearing. City Planner Everling presented this item. During the presentation, Commissioner Bevington questioned the access point. City Planner Everling stated there are two access points off Garvey Avenue that will remain. He said access will not be impeded to the existing mobile home park to the north during construction. He also said staff has added conditions to the staff report and resolution, maintaining access to the mobile home park and its residents. He said the applicant originally wanted to take the mobile home park area and use it as a staging area for construction of the primary building, but staff didn't feel it was appropriate under state laws requiring relocation of those residents. He added the City is in the process of creating a mobile home relocation ordinance. He said it's not required that the ordinance be into effect prior to adoption of the Phase II area, but the City feels that it's not good faith to enact upon that area without that ordinance in place to benefit the people. Commissioner Bevington stated there was a relocation packet in the staff report. City Planner Everling stated it's included for the Commissioners reference only. At the end of the presentation, City Planner Everling stated the applicant, representatives, and EIR Consultant Joann were present to answer questions from the Commissioners. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 9 of 27 • • 0 9 Commissioner Bevington questioned if the western boundary of this development is Monterey Park. Matt answered yes. Chairman Lopez called asked the designer to come up and speak. Mr. Daniel Amaya of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, the architect of the project, stated he's present to answer any questions the Commissioners have. He said they have worked with staff to meet all the requirements. He said Mr. Yang is unable to attend tonight, however, the Principal Architect, Michael Sun is also present to answer any questions the Commissioners have. He added they would like to adhere to any of the Commission's Conditions of Approval. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the condition on garbage chutes for the second, third, and fourth level. He said he doesn't know if there is a city ordinance in regards to this, but should we worry about trash separation. Matt stated he's not sure if the city has an ordinance requiring that, but the trash chutes were not an original part of this project, but staff felt that it's needed for the residents that plan to live there. He said as far as separation, he's not sure if the city requires that or if that's something the applicant sets up with the trash service. He said the Commission can require that. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned where the 8 foot wall will be located. City Planner Everling stated along the north property line. He said there will be some temporary fencing between the two phases, to protect the existing residents from noise, dust, and odor. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't know if it should be conditioned to have a temporary wall. City Planner Everling stated it's a good idea to add a condition of approval requiring that. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated after it's completed, residents probably wouldn't want a permanent wall there, so they can have visual connection to the shopping center. Matt agreed. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is any intention of bringing a grocery store in the 13,820 square foot space. Mr. Amaya stated he's not aware of it yet. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated a grocery store would reduce the number of trips there. He said he would certainly like to see that in this project. He then questioned if there is an open space area for children to throw things around without risking any injuries. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 10 of 27 • • • • Mr. Amaya said this is something they would consider this in Phase II. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said it's something to consider. He said there are open space areas to walk, but if you're a kid, it might not be sufficient recreation. He said it's something he's concerned about. City Planner Everling questioned if the Commission is interested in seeing more of an active recreation. Vice-Chairman Kunioka answered yes. He said more open space for people to run around. City Planner Everling asked the applicant to take that into consideration. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned condition 41 & 42 on lighting. He said he's happy to see how low-pressure sodium lighting is considered more preferable than mercury night lighting. He then questioned condition 47, regarding a paleontologist. Senior Planner Agaba stated its part of the proactive mitigation measure. He said there was prior development, so this condition is saying that if something is recovered during construction, it will be stopped. He also said the environmental consultant is here to answer the questions. City Planner Everling added to what Senior Planner Agaba said. He said it's a standard condition in other jurisdictions and it's just saying that in case of any cultural findings, there are certain steps that must be taken. He also said it's just a proactive condition. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Ms. Holly Knapp of 8367 Whitmore Street, a resident, stated she is not in favor or against the project. She said in every city has to develop low income housing. She is wondering if this project could be considered as a low income housing project that could accommodate the residents at the mobile home trailer park. City Planner Everling stated 10% of the residential units, or 12 units in this project are planned to be dedicated to moderate income. He said it's the Commission's prerogative to require low income, very low income, and moderate income and under state law, there are different percentages that need to be allocated depending on the type of income. He also said Senior Planner Agaba has been working with the applicant in dedicating some of the units to be available first to the residents living in the mobile home. Ms. Knapp questioned if the other projects that are being proposed will also provide low income housing. City Planner Everling answered yes. Commissioner Bevington stated there has to be. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 11 of 27 0 0 • • City Planner Everling said all mixed use projects coming into the City of Rosemead will be asked to set aside X amount of units on which income category they would like to set aside for low, very low, or moderate income households. Ms. Knapp questioned how this information gets out to people. City Planner Everling stated this information usually comes up at these public hearings. He said people within a 300 foot radius are notified of the public hearing. He said it's also advertised in the newspaper. He said the staff report information is also available at the counter. He added the city is in the process of revamping the website and one of his goals is to get everything on the website, so people can get access through the internet. Ms. Knapp stated there are two senior housing projects in the City and questioned if there are any future senior housing projects. City Planner Everling stated not in this project, but it's something that staff discusses with all the mixed use applicants. Ms. Knapp said she just wants to make sure the City of Rosemead will aim at accommodating people in that category. City Planner Everling stated yes. Ms. Knapp said she wants the city to keep that promise. Commissioner Bevington informed the audience of all the items that the Planning Commission were given to read in one weekend. He stated there is a great deal of effort and time to get into these projects. He stated Phase I is very acceptable. City Planner Everling stated the conditions of approval don't include any type of deed restriction on those 12 units, so he would like to read a condition for the Planning Commission to consider in the minutes to be added to the Conditions of Approval: "Prior to issuance of building permit, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City Attorney, will be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for moderate income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915." Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to anyone else IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Flournoy asked everyone to turn to page 41 of the EIR. He read item 6ai) and said it's okay to be less than significant with mitigation, but the verbiage is incorrect. He said it's not in the Alquist-Priolo Zone. He then read the second sentence and three other faults that dealt with the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake were not mentioned. He said both of them are closer than the Raymond Hill fault zone and even one of them is at the corner or Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. He said another fault towards Monterey Park was also not mentioned. He said the seismic considerations need to be taken into effect as well. He then discussed about page 42 and said in 1987, those two inactive faults Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 12 of 27 0 0 0 0 became very active, because it killed people. He said if the mitigation measure is done, it will pick up some stuff, but it won't pick up the extra shake and it needs to be corrected. He also said the site is in a geologic unit called "uplifted alluvium," where you have two instances of fissures in the soil. He said one is at the Walmart site and the other at the Southern California Edison project. He also said these are not recorded in the literature, so only the city would know. He said a geologist who doesn't work in the city would not be familiar with these geologic reports. Commissioner Bevington said we will correct and follow the mitigation measure Mr. Flournoy said we are making progress. City Planner Everling asked EIR Consultant, Ms. Joann Lombardo to come up and answer the questions. Ms. Lombardo stated she would like to clarify some issues. She said what makes this somewhat unusual is that they did not have a site-specific geology report to work from, so the information that they worked from is from the general plan and state maps. She said that is why they added the mitigation, GEO-1. She said she recommends in the future, as part of the application process, that the city requests the applicant to prepare a preliminary geotechnical study, which will identify site-specific information. She also said they have a historical archaeologist that looked at the site, but nothing showed up. Commissioner Bevington stated a condition should be added regarding page 42. He said he is concerned. He said if this is added as a condition, designers won't miss it. City Planner Everling stated it's the Commission's ability to take this GEO 1 condition and add it to the Conditions of Approval. He said in the long run, if the Commission would like, staff can add this to projects as a standard condition. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Flournoy stated we need to know if the fissures go that far, for the next project. Mr. Scott Yun of 9136 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he supports this project and believes this development will improve the community. Mr. Rodney Quoc of 9240 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he's here to support the project. He said it looks like a well planned project. Mr. Suzuki questioned if the demolition of the mobile home part of this project. City Planner Everling stated no. Mr. Suzuki questioned if the motion today affects Phase II. He then questioned whether the mobile home park gets demolished or not has yet to be determined or will be determined at a later date. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 13 of 27 0 9 0 0 Chairman Lopez answered yes. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Ms. Margaret Clark stated she is on the City Council, but is speaking as a resident. She said she lives down the street and has some concerns. She said she is also speaking on behalf of her neighbors as well, who were unable to attend tonight. She said she was a bit frightened by what was just said on whether the second stage of the project has anything to do with tonight. She said she is under the impression that the zone change and general plan amendment affects the entire parcel. She said her request is that the general plan amendment and zone change does not affect the back portion of this parcel. City Planner Everling stated Mr. Suzuki was referring to the current condition of the mobile home park and if this will require the demolition of the mobile home park. Ms. Clark stated so the zone change and general plan amendment does not affect the back portion at this time. . She said she wants to start out by saying that she has been reading the minutes and she appreciates how Vice-Chairman Kunioka and Commissioner Bevington pay attention to the details. She said she wants to point out there is a grocery store at the corner of the street. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we want to minimize trips. Ms. Clark stated she is into trash chutes. She said she is very much into recycling. She hopes the City will look into recycling. She then questioned affordable housing and what moderate income is. City Planner Everling stated for a 3 person family, the moderate income is $61,000. He said he doesn't have the other numbers in front of him. Ms. Clark stated that is not the kind of affordable housing we want in the city. She said $61,000 is too much and she hopes that the Commission reconsiders that condition to be low income. She said this is not satisfying anything. She said she read in the staff report that state law requires incentives for developers who provide so much affordable housing, such as reduced parking ratio. She also said if we give developers bonuses, it's got to be for very low income. She referred to page 16 of the staff report on parking ratios and said four or more bedrooms will only require 2'/Z parking spaces. City Planner Everling stated that is state law. Ms. Clark said she knows it is. She said we are giving bonuses right now if the Planning Commission approves and the City Council approves later, we are just doing the developers a favor. She said if we don't want to have this kind of parking ratio; don't give them the zone change or general plan amendment. She stated with four bedrooms or more bedrooms, you can have a husband, wife, and three teenagers. She said that would require 5 parking spaces for five cars, not 2 '/z. She said she's very concerned with the parking. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 14 of 27 0 0 • • Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated there is nothing larger than three bedrooms, Ms. Clark stated with 2 or 3 bedrooms, you can still theoretically have a husband, wife, and three teenagers. She said you can still have the 5 cars. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if the restriction of parking takes place during the permitting process. City Planner Everling stated under state law, even without an affordable housing component with this project, if the applicant requests concessions for parking, cities cannot require additional parking for any project. Ms. Clark questioned even without affordable. City Planner Everling stated yes. He said we under state law, they can still request concessions for parking without an affordable housing component. Ms. Clark questioned if he's referring to all condos. City Planner Everling said for all mixed use projects. He said the city requires 2-3 bedroom condos to have at least two onsite parking spaces, as well as a guest and handicap parking, but under state law, the two onsite parking spaces are inclusive to guest and handicap parking. He said it really restricts the amount of parking a city can require. Clark questioned if it's because it's mixed use. City Planner Everling answered no. He said in any commercial project with a residential portion. He said we're preempted under state law to abide by that. He said the city doesn't have to practice this, unless the applicant makes the request. He said in this case, the applicant understood the law and made this request. Ms. Clark stated she has a big concern over subterranean parking. She said she would like the Commission to have this be deferred, so they can look more closely at other projects in other cities that have used subterranean parking. She said she wants to make sure people will use this. She then gave an example of the "The Marketplace," located in the City of Alhambra. She said that parking lot is always crowded. She said they have wonderful parking behind, at least 57 spaces, and it's always vacant. She wants staff to look closely to make sure it works, rather than just having it on paper. She then read a sentence on page 11, "The proposed building is not subject to the City's variable height requirement pursuant to Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, as the building will not be adjacent to an R-1 or R-2 zoned property." She said it bothers her and there is a technicality. She said she's lived down the street for 42 years and where the Mc Donald's is located, there is commercial and parking zone. She said on the main boulevards, there is commercial, parking, and residential homes all the way down the city. She refers to the plans and said the big four-story building will impact the residential neighborhood. She said you can say it doesn't apply, but it will impact people. She added we're here to serve Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 15 of 27 0 0 • • people. She then went back to page 11 and read, "The building would be substantially set away from any nearby R-2 zoned property located 220 feet north of the mixed use project site." She said that discussing the homes down the street and ignoring the homes she just mentioned, so she feels that it should be revisited. She then discussed about the second portion of the condos and said it's going to be 35 feet and there are people that live behind them with single-story homes. She said they have no idea this is happening. She then said the actual density is an increase of 300% than what's in that area and its way over building. She said the whole picture should be looked at because the Del Mar Avenue mixed use project is just blocks down. She said she wants this project postponed and hopes it will become 2 parcels, so a zone change and general plan amendment won't be made. Mr. Jay Harveyson of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated the residents of the mobile home are concerned with safety issues since there are families, children, and elderly people. He questioned what steps would the Commission take as far as safety for the park, such as privacy walls and sound barriers. He said they want to make sure all of Phase I is taken care of before Phase II. He questioned access through the mobile home park during the construction. City Planner Everling stated the condition of approval in the staff report prohibits encroachment in the mobile home park area. Mr. Harveyson questioned if a wall or fence will be installed as far as privacy for the mobile home residents and the safety of the children before construction begins. Chairman Lopez answered yes. He said there will be a temporary wall. Mr. Harveyson said they have put something up and it's not safe and there are holes. City Planner Everling stated it's a chain link fence and there will be something more substantial than that. Mr. Harveyson said residents are concerned about that. Someone from the audience shouted an 8 foot soundproof should be installed. Chairman Lopez questioned the existing fence. City Planner Everling said it's currently chain-link. Mr. Harveyson want s to make sure everything is to code and it's safe. Chairman Lopez questioned if a condition should be added to ensure the applicant will a temporary fence to be installed. City Planner Everling said the Commission can direct the applicant to work with staff creating a fence that's substantial enough for the residents. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 16 of 27 • • Chairman Lopez wants to make sure dust and noise is controlled from start to finish. Ms. Elizabeth Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident said she is directly adjacent to the actual construction and would like to know what the space is from her mobile home is from the wall. She also questioned why is the Commission discussing about Phase II, if Phase I should only be discussed tonight. City Planner Everling stated it's his duty to inform the Commission of the overall project. Ms. Ramirez stated it hasn't been submitted. City Planner Everling said correct. He said it's his duty to make the Commission aware of the overall project, so they can take into consideration all the impacts. Ms. Ramirez questioned if there are any plans for residents of the 7433 mobile home park in regards to Hawaii Supermarket submitting plans for their future. She said she would like to know what the plans are. She said it wasn't until 7 days ago, when she found out this was the plan. She also said if one of the residents did not walk by the sign, they wouldn't have known. She questioned what responsibility does the city has to let the surrounding community know of these hearings and what to take place. City Planner Everling stated under state law, the city is required 10 days prior to the hearing to notify all property owners within a 300 foot radius. Planning Administrative Assistant Lily Trinh stated we sent out 600 foot for this hearing. Ms. Ramirez stated they did not get one. City Planner Everling questioned if they are the property owner or a tenant. Ms. Ramirez said they own the mobile home. City Planner Everling stated he's not sure if the actual mobile home spaces received the notice. He said state law requires ownership. Ms. Ramirez questioned what state law requires for owners to inform their tenants. City Planner Everling said he wouldn't know. Attorney Yin stated he doesn't know at the top of his head either. City Planner Everling questioned if a sign was posted on the property. Ms. Ramirez stated yes, about a block over and very small. She said it's on the Mc Donald's side. Senior Planner Agaba stated as an additional noticing measure, staff handed notices to the park manager for distribution. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 27 0 0 0 0 Ms. Ramirez stated there is no park manager. She said their lives are being placed on hold as of right now and there's nothing they can do about it. She then questioned if placing 32 families in the City of Rosemead concern the Commission at all. Mr. Harveyson questioned if the city is working on a relocation plan. City Planner Everling stated we have a relocation plan that was submitted by the applicants. Mr. Harveyson questioned when the residents can get copies. City Planner Everling stated staff will have it ready at the counter tomorrow morning. He said staff will make every effort to assist them. From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated she will hold staff to it. Mr. Harveyson questioned if twelve units will be moderate/low living, what happens to the rest of the families that are low income. He also questioned if there is a waiting list. City Planner Everling said that is something staff has to get back to him on. He said he has to defer Mr. Harveyson to the housing specialist. He also said he believes there is a waiting list. Mr. Harveyson questioned if there is a possibility that mobile home residents be prioritized. City Planner Everling stated staff has been working with the applicant to set aside those units on a "right of first refusal," for the existing tenants to have the first opportunity before anyone else. He added Vice-Chairman Kunioka is trying to establish a condition in these projects to give Rosemead residents first rights. He also said if it's in the Commission's interest, they can direct staff to work with the applicant and revise the plans. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated for low income, they would only have to set aside 5% of the slots, which is about 6 units. Mr. Harveyson stated there are 32 mobile homes, but only 12 units. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated the relocation benefit is available to everybody. Mr. Harveyson said they have been left in the dark. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he understands. Mr. Harveyson stated he would like the City of Rosemead to take care of its residents first. Commissioner Bevington questioned in Phase I and Phase II, when will the actual relocation take place. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 18 of 27 0 0 0 • City Planner Everling stated when the applicant decides to start Phase II. Lopez said we need to direct staff to speak with the applicant to come up with an agreement, so people can afford it. He said he has been a resident in the city for 32 years and it hurts to know that we're allowing privates to come in. He also said he's not against this project, but he thinks we need to set a standard for our community. Ms. Leah Simon-Wesberg, an attorney for several of the residents for a few years, stated she wanted to share that when the park owners started to think about this development, they tried to get people to leave. They would try to increase the rent, so the tenants can't afford to remain because it's cheaper to evict those who can't pay, rather than pay the relocation fee at the end of this. She said she's concerned about the contracts. She also said she wants to make sure the applicant does not increase their rent within the next two years. Commissioner Bevington questioned if there is a housing person who works for the city. City Planner Everling stated yes, Michelle Ramirez. Commissioner Bevington said we need to get her involved before we go any further. Attorney Yin questioned if Chairman Lopez wants the City Attorney to look into if the City have the jurisdiction over rental increases. Chairman Lopez stated yes. Commissioner Bevington said he is concerned about setting the moderate income. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't remember the date, but there is a fair housing symposium that will take place. He said he saw it on the website. Ms. Ramirez introduced Ms. Bo Quan, one of the mobile home residents who is very low income. She said she has no family and her husband died years ago. She said these are the people that are impacted and she wants the Commission to know at first hand. She asked the Commission to please keep low income in consideration, and low income means under $1,000. She added Hawaii Supermarket has a representative who comes in when someone is ill and tries to get them out. She said please let the applicants know that they know what the applicants are trying to do. Mr. Amaya stated he understands their concerns. He said he's not pushing them out right now, it's in phase two. He said they will work with staff regarding moderate to low income. He also said they have to look at what's legal. He said he wants this part of the project to be moved on and he's willing to work with the neighborhood. City Planner Everling clarifies that this is only Phase I with 12 units. Commissioner Bevington questioned if Phase II consists of single family residences. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 19 of 27 0 0 City Planner Everling said it's yet to be decided. He said it's just conceptual right now. He added that if it's proposed now, it would be attached town homes. Mr. Fred Nakamura, representing neighborhood legal services in El Monte, stated it makes sense that if any action is taken, it's only done on Phase I. He said doing a zone change during Phase II means we're giving them a green light on Phase II. He said he thinks it's essential that anything done in this phase will not affect Phase II. Chairman Lopez said we're not considering phase 2 at all. Mr. Nakamura questioned even with the zoning issue. Chairman Lopez stated yes. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked with the title to acquire some of the information as far as affordability concerns. He then read some numbers that were taken out of the Health and Safety Codes, Section 50052.5 (attached to minutes). He also added the existing general plan designation allows commercial uses. He said the applicant can come in and bring in plans for commercial use. He also said under commercial zone requirement, the structure can be built at zero setback. From the audience, Mr. Harveyson said they can build up to the mobile home property line. Vice-Chairman Kunioka clarifies the audiences' concerns. He said this project is mixed use which means the total retail of this project is a little under 60,000 square feet and if it was pure commercial, they can put up to 180,000 square feet of commercial, up to the property line. City Planner Everling added that it can be as high as 75 feet high under current zoning. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked on the Conditions of Approval to make sure residents of the mobile home park is protected. He said if the applicant comes back with Phase II, they would have to do an environmental impact report. Mr. Gilbert Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated he has a 90- year-old neighbor that was never notified about this. He said when he gave her the paper, she started crying. He said she said she has no family and nowhere to go. He also said she said she wants to go find a job. He added, they have family there, especially children, and it's not considered. He said he has a 1-year-old child. He questioned what you would do to a 90-year-old or a 1-year-old child. He said $60,000 a year is too much and we must think about this. He said it's not right. Mr. Flournoy stated he would like to talk about the sound wall issue. He said there is another project in the city that required a 14-foot decorative concrete sound wall that was installed without approval in the middle of the construction. He said they didn't install it where it's supposed to be installed and after 45 days, they were told to remove. He said Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 20 of 27 0 0 • • he is concerned with the sound wall. Chairman Lopez called for questions from anyone else in the audience. Commissioner Bevington motioned to go to closed session to discuss this project. Attorney Yin stated we can't do that. Commissioner Bevington stated we have been discussing Phase I. He questioned if the Commission can condition things in Phase I that they want to be done in Phase II. He also said the notification process was incorrect. He said the property owner of the mobile home park was notified, but not the residents. He said he is concerned, but we aren't discussing this project, just the commercial construction in the front. He said he hasn't heard enough to vote against or vote to delay Phase I tonight. City Planner Everling stated he has come up with a draft for the temporary fence condition. Commissioner Vuu suggested a solid concrete wall similar to Caltrans. He said it's not easy to be removed. City Planner Everling read, "The applicant shall submit an 8 foot tall temporary fence detailed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division for the purposes of sound attenuation, privacy and dust control." The Planning Commissioners agreed. From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated they prefer 10 feet. City Planner Everling stated it can be 10 feet. Commissioner Vuu questioned if it is a fence or wall. City Planner Everling stated it would be a sound wall. Chairman Lopez said Commissioner Bevington brings up a good point. He said we are only looking at Phase I tonight. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to run through the conditions. He said they have already agreed on the "right of first refusal" for the mobile home residents. He Then he said in the mitigation, there isn't a rule 403 condition. He said that should be added. He also said the geotechnical report should be included. He then discussed about trash separation other than the two chutes. He said there should be at least two chutes on both sides. Then he referred to the sound wall, and said it should be up until the end of the construction. He also discussed about the notification process and said staff should consider specifying that the actual residents be informed as well as the owners. Ms. Ramirez questioned if there is a time frame in regards to the Phase I and Phase II. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 21 of 27 0 9 0 0 City Planner Everling said he will defer it to the applicant. Ms. Ramirez questioned when this information is available for Phase II, where can they go to get this information City Planner Everling stated the front counter. Mr. Amaya stated it depends on going through the process of building permits. Chairman Lopez questioned how long they think Phase II will go into effect after they obtain building permits for Phase I. Mr. Amaya said probably 8 months. Mr. Flournoy questioned if we do a general plan amendment and zone change on one piece of property on two buildings. City Planner Everling stated it's good to be consistent with each other. Mr. Flournoy stated we're discussing about Phase I and Phase II and doing separate general plan amendments and zone changes. City Planner Everling stated there are 7 lots on the property. He said for the overall project, the Commission can just leave the general plan amendment and zone change for Phase I and leave Phase II for a separate date. Mr. Flournoy questioned if it has to be two pieces of property. City Planner Everling stated it doesn't matter how many pieces of property there are. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned if we're only considering in Phase I, the zone change and the general plan amendment is already considered for Phase II. City Planner Everling stated correct. He said staff thought it would streamline the project to get overall zoning in place and at a later time bring forward a tentative tract map and environmental review for Phase II. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated at previous meeting there was a limit of general plan amendments that can be passed a year. Attorney Yin stated 4. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we wouldn't be precluding any previous change. Mr. Harveyson stated if Phase I is passed tonight, you're changing zoning. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 22 of 27 0 0 0 • City Planner Everling said if the Commission decides to change it. He said the request for zone change tonight is for both phases. He also said the Commission can change it to Phase I only. Mr. Harveyson thanked the Commission and staff. Mr. Brian Lewin of 9501 Ralph Street, a resident, questioned when construction projects are underway, is there anything that requires postings of hours of operations. City Planner Everling said he has to defer this question to Building Official Jim Donovan or Jim Guerra. Mr. Lewin said there was a large construction in the southern part of the city that continually violated this and there was nothing in the setup to deal with this violation. He said in the City of Burbank, there is a sign at the entrance of the project that clearly states hours of operations and contact information for any violation. City Planner Everling said he's not sure if it's required for every project. Mr. Lewin stated he's suggesting this to be considered. City Planner Everling deferred the question to Ms. Lombardo. Ms. Lombardo stated as a mitigation measure, it's required. Ms.Ramirez questioned the time frame. Ms. Nancy Eng of 3146 Jackson Avenue, a resident, stated her biggest concern is with the increase of commercial use, more trucks will be coming into Ralph Street into Jackson Avenue. She questioned if any mitigation has been considered to minimize delivery trucks going through residential streets. City Planner Everling stated it's a prohibited use under city ordinance. Chairman Lopez said we will make sure to condition that. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated we have capped the number of trips in the conditions. He said we would have to define truck routes in the city. He said another change is limiting the general plan and zoning permit to only Phase I. Lopez questioned If this project shall be moved to the next meeting or approved tonight. Commissioner Bevington said he moves to approve Phase I of this project with the changes that has been agreed to by the conditions tonight. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 23 of 27 0 0 Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated with all the things that he said earlier. Attorney Yin stated there's also a trash separation, subject to the City Attorney's review. Vice-Chairman Kunioka also added the truck route condition. Chairman Lopez asked developer if they agree. Mr. Amaya stated yes. Ms. Clark questioned if they will require it to be very low income. Attorney Yin said it can be subject to review by the City Attorney's office. Chairman Lopez said we're shooting for as low as possible. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said he doesn't think that would be fair to the developer. Ms. Clark said we should shoot for very low income people. Commissioner Bevington said he doesn't think we can force these people to un-financial positions for their projects. He said he doesn't agree to very low income. He said his motion stands on low income, not very low. Mr. Flournoy stated he doesn't know if this is appropriate, but maybe we should look at subsidies, such as one room studios or Section 8. Mr. Suzuki stated our city is revising our general plan. He questioned if we can find balance in acknowledging very low, low, and moderate income in the future and incorporating this into the general plan. City Planner Everling stated all cities are required to revise their housing element every 5 years. He said the City of Rosemead is in the process and will submit it to the state next year. Mr. Suzuki questioned if there is a designation for this area. City Planner Everling said he's not currently aware. Mr. Suzuki questioned if it's broken down by regions. City Planner Everling stated no. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA to APPROVE PHASE I WITH THE CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION HAVE MADE AND CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MODERATE TO LOW, SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: /November 5, 2007 Page 24 of 27 • ~ Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. Tentative Tract Map 069258 - 9400-9416 Valley Boulevard. Tammy Gong has submitted applications for a new three-story mixed-use development project consisting of 38 residential condominium units (27,669 square feet) above 10,010 square feet of commercial/retail space on 23,406 square feet of land (0.537 acres) located at the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Avenue. Resolution No. 07-53 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-05, ZONE CHANGE 07-228, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1013, DESIGN REVIEW 05-127, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-02, ZONE VARIANCE 07-349, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069258 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9400-9416 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 8593-001-001, 002, 003 and 004). Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting a continuance to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on November 19, 2007. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-05, ZONE CHANGE 07-228, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1013, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07-02, ZONE VARIANCE 07- 349, DESIGN REVIEW 05-127, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069258 TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 25 of 27 • • 0 0 4. 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 - September 17, 2007 Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to make one minor change to page 5. He said he would like to add in the second sentence, "bus routes." B. Resolution No. 07-49 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-01, ZONE CHANGE 05- 221, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-960, ZONE VARIANCE 04-325, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-02, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061336 IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A 53,793 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3212-3232 DEL MAR AVENUE (APN: 5287-020-033,-034, -036, & -038). Mr. Flournoy stated he would like this item pulled. He said he would like a geotechnical report. City Planner Everling clarified Mr. Flournoy's request. He said he would like that same geo condition added to this resolution. The Commissioners agreed. Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the other items on the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, CAM, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS 6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY PLANNER AND STAFF City Planner Everling discussed about the Wal-Mart review, the Planning Division Pre- Application Process, Resolution Approval Process, and the American Planning Association Membership. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 26 of 27 • • • Attorney Yin questioned if the City Attorney can join as well, using their own funding. City Planner Everling stated yes. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 10:12 p.m. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA to ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. M E/LT Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 27 of 27 • •