The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 2B - General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Tentative Tract Map 069079• • ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET. SUMMARY Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use 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 located at the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site consists of three parcels with one and two-story multifamily residential buildings. All existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development, which includes approximately 4,160 square feet of restaurant uses and approximately 6,685 square feet of retail space. All commercial tenant spaces will have storefronts facing Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. Primary access to the commercial suites will be provided via the parking lot in the rear of the site. The condominiums located on the second, third, and fourth floors will be oriented towards the Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street frontages. The site will include 59 parking spaces at grade, along with a subterranean parking garage with 84 parking spaces, for a total of 143 off-street parking spaces. This project was considered by the Planning Commission at its public hearing on October 15, 2007. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant's representative and the public, the Commission continued the item to the November 5th hearing and directed staff to work with the applicant regarding solutions to vehicular access onto Guess Street and the issues of privacy with the adjacent neighbors. In an effort to restrict traffic on Guess Street, the applicant has altered the entry drive, added "no right turn" signs adjacent to the Guess Street driveway, and will construct an 8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall along the south and east property lines for added neighbor privacy. The revised project was presented to the Planning Commission on November 5th and was unanimously recommended for approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 861, thereby APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, and Tentative Tract Map 069079, 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 5, 2007. A APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: _AL • • City Council Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS The subject site is within the Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is needed in order to exceed the allowable residential density of 14 units per acre. The proposed 32 dwelling units will have a resulting residential density of 30.68 dwelling units per acre. The Zone Change request is to allow a change of zone from R-3 (Medium Multi Family) to PD (Planned Development) in order to develop a mixed use project. This change is consistent with the current Mixed Use Residential/Commercial General Plan designation. Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 is required by the General Plan to allow a mixed-use development. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 069079) for condominium purposes to allow the 32-unit residential units to be sold as owner-occupied dwelling units. Prepared by: AAYI~ Matt Eve City Planner SuVale by: 1 ki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: Ordinance 861 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 5, 2007 with amended Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2007 0 0 Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 1 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 861 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-222, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R-3 (MEDIUM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06- 1064 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 32 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 10,845 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 8594-009-001, 002). WHEREAS, Long Bach Trinh tiled applications with the City of Rosemead requesting a Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) 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 and 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 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street (APN: 8594-009-001 & 002); 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 05-222 would designate the subject property as PD (Planned Development) allowing mixed-use types of development on the subject property such as commercial and residential uses: and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of zone change applications and governs development of private properties; and EXHIBIT A Ordinance No. 86/ General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-122 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 2 of 6 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 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 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 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-50, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and 0 9 Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 3 of 6 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 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 neighborhood where the development is proposed. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that General Plan Amendment 07-06 and Zone Change 05-222 meet the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The proposed mixed use project consists of a Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) 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 a condominium 0 0 Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 4 of6 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 is located on Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. Primary access to the proposed mixed use project site will be via Rosemead Boulevard. 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 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 three units for sale to persons and families of moderate 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 to all socio-economic segments of the community. D. Resource Mana e~ ment: 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 provided with a new 8-foot tall decorative perimeter CMU block wall that should mitigate residual commercial noise impacts. Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans for the mixed use project. The proposed project will not impede or interfere with the City's emergency or evacuation plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. G. CEOA Compliance: The City as a "Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 5 of 6 minimize identified significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Hence, the City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04. Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 for development of a mixed-use project located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street. 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. 861 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: Kamal Bhate, Acting City Clerk • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 6 of 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROSEMEAD • I Kamal Bhate, Acting City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 861 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-222, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R-3 (MEDIUM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 32 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 10,845 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 8594-009-001, 002). Ordinance 861 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 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: Kamal Bhate. Acting City Clerk 0 0 0 • ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: NOVEMBER 05, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET. Summary Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new four-story 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 the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site consists of three parcels with one and two-story multifamily residential buildings. All existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. This project was considered by Planning Commission at its public hearing meeting on October 15, 2007. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant's representative and the public, the Commission resolved to continue the project until November 5, 2007 due to unresolved vehicular access on Guess Street and proposed block wall issues. The Commission directed staff to bring back the project on November 5, 2007 with solutions to traffic access onto Guess Street and phasing of the Block wall among other corrections. Changes have been made and incorporated into the project materials by installing no right sign on Guess Street-east bound and building an 8-foot block wall fence along the south and east property lines of the project site during phase one. The proposed development includes 4,160 square feet of restaurant uses, and 6,685 square feet of retail space. All commercial tenant spaces on the ground floor have storefronts facing Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street, and secondary access to the commercial suites will be provided from the parking areas in the rear of the proposed EXHIBIT B • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 29 building. The condominiums will be located on the second, third, and fourth floors oriented towards the street frontages along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site development will include 59 parking spaces at grade in the rear of the proposed buildings, and a subterranean parking structure with 84 parking spaces, for a total of 143 off-street parking spaces. The subject site is within the Residential / Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is needed in order to exceed the allowable residential density of 14 units per acre for mixed use development. The proposed 32 dwelling units will have a resulting residential density of 30.68 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with the "density bonus" provisions of the California Government Code which require fractional density allocations to be rounded up to the nearest whole number, in an effort to promote affordable housing, as noted in §65915(g)5 which reads as follows. (5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. The project qualifies for the density bonus provisions of the Government Code because 10% of the dwellings will be offered for sale to households of moderate income. The mixed use project with the requested density of 30 dwelling units per acre would equal a maximum of 31.29 dwelling units (1.043 acres X 30 du's/acre = 31.29) or 32 units maximum. The Zone Change request is to allow a change of zone from R-3 (Medium Multi Family) to PD (Planned Development) zone in order to develop a mixed use (commercial and residential) project. This change will be consistent with the current General Plan that designates the subject parcel as Mixed Use Residential/Commercial. Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 is an application to allow mixed-use development in the Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Overlay designation as required by the General Plan Land Use Element. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 69079) for condominium purposes to allow the 32-unit residential units on the upper floors to be sold as owner- occupied dwelling units. Environmental Determination An Initial Study recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. This is an environmental analysis of the proposed mixed use project to determine whether the project will have potentially significant effects on the environment. This study has 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 Air Quality, and Hazards and Hazardous • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 29 Materials. However, with the incorporation of 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 September 13, 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 the City Council for approval, the Commission must first make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment by adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. General Plan Amendment The subject site is located within the Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan, which currently allows mixed-use projects at a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre and a maximum "commercial" Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 (total floor area in relation to total land area). The proposed project has 10,845 square feet of commercial which equals a FAR of 0.24:1 in compliance with the General Plan (basement is exempt from FAR).The project exceeds the maximum allowable residential density of 14 dwelling units per acre for mixed use developments, as stipulated in the General Plan thus is requesting to amend the General Plan to allow development of 30 units per acre on the subject site. It is recognized that contemporary mixed use developments is the current trend in the San Gabriel Valley, and throughout the State of California. High-density residential uses (typically 30 dwelling units per acre or higher) is vital in order to make the project financially feasible and to facilitate density bonus incentives encouraged by the State. As such, the City is in the process of updating the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements to allow high-density residential uses (up to 30 units per acre) within the Mixed Use Overlay designations. This update and corresponding environmental review will provide the mechanism to allow for orderly development of mixed use projects that are in compliance with the current industry trends, and would allow for targeted growth to occur within the Mixed Use Overlay designations throughout the City. However, until such time that the General Plan update is completed, applicants for mixed use projects must process individual amendment applications for developments that exceed 14 dwelling units per acre in the Mixed Use Overlay designation. The proposed density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre. 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 safety, necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Additionally, a zone change must be found consistent with the General Plan. 10 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 29 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: • 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 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: 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 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 subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity; • The proposed division will not be contrary to any official adopted plans or policies; 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 29 Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes; All streets, alleys and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys and driveways are of sufficient width, design and construction to preserve public safety and to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic; All easements and covenants required for the approval of Tentative Tract Map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution# 07-50 and RECOMMEND to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as contained in Exhibit C 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 69079, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A." ANALYSIS PROPERTY HISTORY & DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of 15 residential units at the southeast corner of Guess Street and Rosemead Boulevard that were constructed in the late 1940's. Additionally, there is a residential triplex structure built in the late 1920's at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard. There are no prior zoning entitlements on these properties, and no indication of any non-residential uses on the site. Due to the age of the existing structures, and given the City's history as a farming community, there is a possibility that a portion of the property may have been used for incidental agricultural uses. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of three R-3 zoned contiguous parcels. The site is surrounded by the following General Plan designations, Zoning districts, and land uses: North: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use: Multiple Family Residential and Single Family Residential. South: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use: Multiple Family Residential and Single Family Residential. East: General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Land Use: Single Family Residential • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 29 West: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: PO-D (Professional Office - Design Overlay Zone) Land Use: Medical Offices The applicant proposes to combine three (3) lots for the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project, consisting of one L-shaped building oriented towards the two street frontages. The applicant has agreed to allocate ten percent (10%), or three (3) 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 of the household. Tentative Tract Map Review Tentative Tract Map 61336 has been distributed to various agencies for their review. Responding agencies have made their comments, which are on file. The City Engineer has checked the parcel for its accuracy, and appropriate conditions of approval have been added as Exhibit A. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map will result in no significant environmental impacts to the subject site and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential land use is consistent with the surrounding mix of commercial and residential land uses. Development Standards Staff has used the development standards of the PD (Planned Development) zone for the proposed mixed-use development which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to grant approval of a specific development with diversification in the location of structures and other land uses while insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility with existing and future development proposal for the site as specified in Section 17.76.010 of the Zoning Code. There are additional applicable development standards within the General Requirements of the Zoning Code (§17.12.290) and in the parking regulations (§17.84) that were used for reviewing the project. The following is a summary of the zoning development standards and the project's compliance with such standards. Zoning Setbacks - The proposed building will provide a minimum front yard setback of six feet (6-0") along the Rosemead Boulevard street property line, and a zero setback along the Guess Street property line. A side yard setback of 50'-6" will be provided along the east property line, and a rear setback of 32 feet is proposed along the south property line. Additionally, the southerly 164 feet of the proposed building would be setback 117 feet from the easterly property line, due to the location of the at-grade parking area on the east side of the building. 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 29 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 zero 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. The proposed project will comply with the seven-foot clear passageway requirement in the City's mixed use design guidelines. Building Height - The proposed project is regulated by the City's variable height requirement of Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, which requires a structure to be stepped back when adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts. This requirement exists to protect adjacent residential land uses from the massing of development that may impact light, air, ventilation and views. The proposed building complies with the variable height requirements of the Code, as indicated on the elevation drawings that were submitted with this application. The upper floors that front on Guess Street were "stepped" back away from the east property line, in order to comply with the variable height restriction. Floor Plans Commercial - The proposed building has two tenant suites totaling 4,160 square feet which will be utilized for sit-down restaurant uses. Three tenant spaces totaling 5,205 square feet will be utilized for retail use, and one 1,480 square foot office tenant space is proposed. Staff encouraged the applicant to locate an office use in the southernmost commercial tenant space, as shown on the submitted plans, because it would be more compatible with the main lobby entrance into the condominiums than retail or restaurant uses. Mixed use projects are intended to provide active commercial storefront uses (such as retail, restaurant, or personal service uses), as encouraged in the City's Mixed Use Development Guidelines, in order to promote an active pedestrian environment. Only one office use will be allowed for this project, and staff has conditioned the approval accordingly. Residential - A total of thirty-two (32) condominium units are proposed for this development. All units will be located on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. The floor plans for the units range in size from 808 to 1,375 square feet of living area. The applicant is proposing a one-bedroom unit with 808 square feet on the second floor which has less than the City's minimum 900 square foot area requirement for one-bedroom condominium units, as specified in Section 17.88.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. While the PD zone allows flexibility in setting the standards for the project, a minor adjustment to the floor plans would allow the unit to have 900 square feet. Staff has conditioned the approval of this project accordingly. Each unit will be provided with two (2) covered parking spaces located in a subterranean parking structure, which is to be accessed through a ramp from the central portion of the rear parking area. There are four different residential floor plans detailed by the following summary. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 29 Plan A: A total of 24 units have this two-bedroom floor plan with 1,180 square feet of living area. These are interior and end units located in the portion of the building that fronts on Rosemead Boulevard. They include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, and bedroom #2 with common bathroom. Bedroom #2 has access to the common bathroom, and the master bedroom has access to a private balcony that is approximately 40 square feet in size. Plan B: A total of three (3) units have this two-bedroom plan, which has 1,250 square feet of living area. These are the end units located at the northwest corner of the building, below the domed roof tower. They include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry room, master bedroom/bath, and bedroom #2 with separate common bathroom. There is no balcony provided for these units. Plan C: A total of four (4) units have this two-bedroom plan, which has 1,375 square feet of living area. These are interior and end units facing Guess Street, and they include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, and Bedroom #2. There is no balcony provided for these units. Plan D: These two (2) units have a one-bedroom floor plan with 808 and 1,062 square feet of living area, respectively. These are end units on the second floor in the easternmost portion of the building. They include a living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry area, one bedroom, and one bathroom. The bedroom in these units has access to a 242-square foot private rooftop deck. Staff has conditioned the 808 square foot unit to be a minimum of 900 square feet of floor area, to be in keeping with the City-wide area requirements for "stand alone" condominium developments. Open Space/Landscapin_g Mixed use developments in the PD (Planned Development) zone do not have a minimum open space requirement. Stand-alone multifamily residential developments are required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of any combination of private and public open space per unit, exclusive of front yard setback, side yard setback, vehicular access ways and off-street parking areas. (§17.88.130). While this project is not subject to this requirement, the applicant proposes to have a total of 15,274 square feet on the roof decks, and incidental open space areas on the ground floor in the rear of the building. A roof garden terrace is proposed above the third floor deck on the eastern portion of the building and will include a combination of open trellises, garden area, toddler play equipment and park benches. A larger open space roof garden is proposed on the deck above the fourth floor. This garden area will have walking/jogging trail, park benches and tables, a gazebo, and a community meeting room. Elevator shafts and two staircases are provided to the upper floor decks. The exiting requirements of the Building and Fire Departments may affect the final design of the rooftop gardens. Minor modifications to the project's exterior appearance resulting from the exiting compliance will be handled administratively by the Planning Director. 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 9 of 29 The commercial parking lot will have 3,163 square feet of landscaped area, which is approximately 6.96% of the total parking area. This exceeds the City's policy for 3% overall landscaping for commercial developments. Parkin_i and Circulation Chapter 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) requires one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of commercial space use and one (1) parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant space use. Section 17.88.110 of the Code establishes minimum parking for multifamily residential uses. Dwelling units that contain three bedrooms or less, provide two (2) fully enclosed parking spaces and two (2) guest parking spaces per dwelling unit. As such a minimum of 196 parking spaces is required by Code for the entire project, as shown on the following matrix (Figure 2). FIGURE 2 (Required Parking Spaces) Land Use Area / No. of units Parkin Ratio TOTAL Retail 6685 sf 1 space/250 sf 26.74 Restaurant 4160 sf 1 space/100 sf 41.6 Residential 32 units 2 covered 64 spaces per unit Guest Parking 32 units % 2 space per unit 64 REQUIRED 196 TOTALSPACES The applicant has requested a development incentive for reduced parking stall dimensions of 9' X 20' for the residential parking (the minimum dimension is 10' X 20'). 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. With respect to the required number of parking spaces, Section 65915(p) of the Government Code 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. • 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 10 of 29 Based on the above, the developer has requested to apply the above parking ratios for the proposed development, in order to facilitate the housing affordability component. The applicant will be selling 10% of the condominiums to moderate income households. At a ratio of two spaces per unit, a maximum of two parking spaces per dwelling (64 spaces) would be required for the condominium portion of the development. This is inclusive of handicapped and guest parking. The proposed project meets the parking ratios established by Government Code Section 65915(p). The 64 parking spaces for the commercial component will be provided at grade (59 spaces) the northeastern portion of the subterranean parking structure, where 20 additional spaces will be provided. Parking for all commercial employees will be encouraged in this non-gated portion of the subterranean parking garage. The gated portion of the subterranean structure will only be used exclusively by residents and their guests. The plans submitted shows 27 compact parking spaces (39% of required parking for commercial portion of project) for the on-grade parking lot, which exceeds the City's allowable ratio of 25% compact parking. In staffs experience, the excessive use of compact parking will result in the inefficient use of parking stalls, as larger vehicles (trucks and SUV's) tend to take up two parking stalls. Staff is recommending a condition to allow no more than 17 parking spaces (25% of required commercial spaces) as compact parking. The parking row along the western boundary of the on-grade parking lot will be required to have standard stall dimensions to comply with this condition of approval. The landscaped islands shown within this parking row may be reduced accordingly to accommodate the 9'X 20' dimension for these parking stalls. Access to the parking areas of the project will be provided via two 28'-0" driveways from Rosemead Boulevard and from Guess Street, respectively. Access to the subterranean parking structure will be from a 22'-0" driveway accessed from the on-grade parking structure in the rear of the buildings. Staff is recommending that a landscape planter with six-inch curb be installed on the west side of the guard wall, two feet in width, to protect the guard wall from vehicles that maneuver adjacent to the parking aisle, and to soften the appearance of the concrete wall next to the pavement. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, dated April 6, 2007, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon four (4) adjoining intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: Rosemead BoulevardNalley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street (north leg), Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street (south leg), and Rosemead Boulevard/Marshall Street. The Level of Service (LOS) concept indicates a measure of average operating conditions at an intersection. The Levels of Service vary from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F (jammed condition). When comparing the existing conditions and future base plus related project conditions, the LOS remains unchanged for all four intersections. The Rosemead BoulevardNalley 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 11 of 29 Boulevard intersection will remain at a LOS "F" for AM and PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street (north leg) will remain unchanged at LOS "C" for both AM and PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street (south leg) will remain at LOS "D" for AM peak hour, and LOS "C" for PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street will remain at LOS "E" for AM peak hour, and LOS "F" for PM peak hour traffic. The above traffic impacts take anticipated projects in the area into consideration. The Los Angeles County CMP criteria describe a significant impact at an intersection when the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) is increasing more than 2% for existing LOS "F" intersections, or if there is a resulting change from LOS "E" to "F". Table 9 of the Traffic Study indicates that neither of these thresholds is met for the proposed development, and that there will be no significant adverse traffic impacts created by the proposed development. Accordingly, there are no mitigation measures recommended in the Traffic Study. 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. This shared parking scenario allows for maximizing the use of parking space that otherwise would be underutilized during hours when the peak demands occur for each of the different land uses. Architecture The proposed building has a post-modern Italianate style of architecture, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam- stucco trims, plaster balustrades, domed corner tower with cupola, predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines, and smooth stucco plaster. There is substantial variation in the front wall plane facing both street frontages due to the private balconies that provide fenestration along the expanse of multi-story structure. Additionally the roof line has a varying height due to the fourth story unit cluster and rooftop trellis covers. The Guess Street frontage has a "stepped" building height that provides a reduced massing where it is closest to adjoining residential property to the east. The exteriors consist of smooth stucco plaster in a combination of Dunn Edwards colors, including "Peach", "Poppy Crepe" and "Royal Sable". The accent/trim colors include Dunn Edwards "Flaxen", and "Solar Wind" to be used on the architectural projections. Dunn Edwards "White" is used for all balustrades, window trim, and cornice trim. "Billiard Table" green is proposed for the metal railings, and green "canvas" awnings are proposed on the upper floor squared windows. The "copper" patina-colored domed roof and gabled-roof parapets will add an attractive accentuation to the proposed building's color schemes. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 12 of 29 The ground floor (storefront) elevations will incorporate horizontal banding with alternating red tones of Dunn Edwards "Arabian Red" and "Revival Rose" in conjunction with "Royal Sable" granite stone veneers on the bulkhead. The roof top trellises will be painted in "White" to match other trim colors. The maximum height of the structures is 45'-6" to the top of the fourth story parapet. The elevator shaft and gabled-roof end on the south side of the building projects ten (10) feet above the fourth story deck. The domed roof tower at the corner of the building will project 22 feet above the fourth story parapet. The colored renderings of the elevations will be available to view at the Planning Commission Meeting. Landscaping and Fencin_g The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan showing a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover. A 6-foot high decorative masonry wall will be constructed along the south and east property lines adjoining residential uses. The proposed wall will be a precision block wall with two rows of split face block along the 2nd and 4th course from the top. A standard block wall cap will be used. The plans submitted show a total of 15 trees with 24-inch box sizing to include "Jacaranda", "California Sycamore", "Golden Trumpet Tree", and "Coral Gum Eucalyptus". Additionally, "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees in 15-gallon sizing are called out for the south perimeter of the on-grade parking areas. Staff has included a condition of approval to require 15-gallon "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees planted at nine feet on center, along the easterly property line planter. All entries into the storefronts and lobby area will have decorative stone/interlocked paving. For aesthetic purposes, the applicant will be required to install inter-locking pavers at both driveway entrances. The front planter along Rosemead Boulevard shows six feet of plantings to include "Japanese Boxwood" and "Rosemary" shrubs. Staff is recommending that the planter areas in front of the storefronts be removed and replaced with an expanded decorative sidewalk in order to enhance the pedestrian friendly environment, and encourage outdoor seating areas for the restaurants. Ornamental 48"-box street trees with appropriate tree wells and decorative grates are recommended in the public right-of-way, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and Parks and Recreation Department. The conceptual landscape plans show a wood railing with vines growing on a raised planter bed for the rooftop gardens. Staff recommends that tubular steel railing be used in lieu of the wood trellis, to provide a more durable material that can withstand the elements, and provide a more decorative appearance. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Department 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 both street frontages, that "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees be used along the east property line planter, and that Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 13 of 29 storefront planting areas be removed in order to enhance the pedestrian and storefront interaction. Neighborhood Character In comparison to the residential and office buildings along Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to the site, development of the proposed project would be greater is scale and massing, but compatible in relation to the street orientation. Although there are single- family homes currently adjacent to the site, the entire area has a General Plan designation of Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay which will result in higher density residential and commercial mixed use developments in the future. The proposed development is sensitive to the surrounding uses and has a modern application of a traditional "new urbanism" concept. The rooftop gardens will provide an added attractive recreational and open space amenity for future residents, including young families. 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 units, including three (3) affordable dwelling units, as well as commercial uses to serve the daily needs of the existing and future residents of Rosemead. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Site Plan The subject site is a corner lot with primary frontage on Rosemead Boulevard, and abutting residential uses to the east and south. There are multiple family residences to the north across Guess Street, and medical offices on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard. There is a six-foot Edison power easement on the south property boundary, and a three-foot Edison power easement along the eastern property boundary. The site will have adequate drainage on site, and a sump pump will be used in order to adequately drain the subterranean parking structure. Southern California Edison has stated that the front yard setback may have to be adjusted to comply with separation requirements for the existing power poles. As such, staff is including a condition of approval requiring the applicant to meet with Edison prior to submittal of construction drawings, in order to adjust the site plan as needed. The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site plan shows one freestanding building with storefront facades oriented towards the sidewalk along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street, and all parking located in the rear and below grade. Access to the residences is through an elevator and staircase at the north and south ends of the building. The residential lobby areas are easily accessible from the parking areas and from the sidewalk. Additionally, there are storage rooms provided in the basement, with individual compartments for use by residential occupants of the building. • 9 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 14 of 29 Light standards are provided in the at-grade parking areas, and all parking lot lighting will be fully shielded to mitigate glare on adjacent properties to the south and east. A detailed lighting plan will be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. The first floor of the proposed buildings will have commercial tenant spaces ranging in size from 1,480 square feet to 2,425 square feet in size. The proposed occupancy frontage of tenant suites will range in width from 30'-2" to 35-6" along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage, and 60'-8" along the Guess Street frontage. One trash enclosure to serve the commercial uses will be provided on the southeastern corner of the parking area. Additionally, two trash enclosures with a "trash chute", accessible at every floor level, will be provided for the condominium residents. The residential trash enclosures would be located within the basement parking areas. All trash enclosures will be designed to comply with City requirements. Elevations The architecture consists of a contemporary vernacular with elements such as smooth stucco, vertical reveals, granite stone veneers, base trim, metal balcony railings, and decorative pop-outs, along with a stepped cornice trim that ties the buildings architecturally. The street-facing elevations provide both vertical and horizontal articulation by employing various parapet wall heights and by pushing the taller portions of the facade back from the street. The focal point of the building is the domed roof tower and cupola with rounded windows nearest the street intersection. This architectural feature will provide unique character and will create an inviting pedestrian entry into the restaurant suite at the ground floor. There are vertical column "pop-outs" proposed along both street frontages that provide variation for the storefront facades and upper floor massing. These columns create shadow lines and add interest to the elevations. Staff is recommending that all window surrounds, and the 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. Sign Pro-gram The elevation drawings show proposed wall sign locations on the front, side and rear elevations of the commercial tenant spaces. The proposed "sign area" consists of a recessed rectangular area measuring 18 inches in height and extending the full width of the storefront windows. As such, the tenants could place channel lettered signs that are 6 inches to 18 inches in height. Additionally, the architectural columns between the tenant spaces could be used for "projecting signs" to animate the streetscape, and provide better business identification for the vehicular traffic along Rosemead Boulevard. Staff is recommending that a comprehensive sign program be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building 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. • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 15 of 29 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 known as 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. While the proposed project is exempt from strict adherence to the Guidelines, the following is a brief discussion of the project's compliance with the Guidelines. The project shows a six-foot wide planter area along Rosemead Boulevard, and a 12- inch planter along Guess Street. The resulting sidewalk width will be less than seven feet on both street frontages, once street trees are installed. In order to provide the seven-foot clear pedestrian passageway encouraged in the Guidelines, staff is recommending that the storefronts not have a front landscaped planter. Ornamental street trees with metal grates will be required in the public right-of-way. As conditioned, the expanded sidewalk areas will provide an enhanced pedestrian environment, and will accommodate outdoor dining areas as encouraged by the Guidelines. The use of canvas awnings, permanent or retractable, will be required for all storefront windows. §2.2 Site Design The project's site layout is substantially in conformance with the intent of the Guidelines to place buildings up against the street frontage with pedestrian-oriented storefronts. The buildings will be placed on the front property line, with a 12-inch setback on Guess Street, and a five-foot setback along Rosemead Boulevard. There is a small usable open space area behind the buildings that can function as an outdoor plaza, as encouraged by the Guidelines. 42.3A-B Building Design The project provides active commercial use for a majority of the commercial building frontage, in the form of retail and restaurant uses. Additionally, all residential uses are located on the upper floors. The fagade treatments are continuous on both street frontages, and the corner of the building facing the intersection provides a strong focal point, as encouraged by the Guidelines. ¢2.3C Building Elements While there is not a formal "modular bay" transition every 25 feet, the proposed building provides substantial architectural variation and wall plane relief due to the use of balconies, and architectural projections. The upper floor windows correlate Planning Commission Meeting' November 5, 2007 Page 16 of 29 proportionally to the storefront windows. There is a strong base, middle and top element to the facades with the use of sign bands, cornice trims, and decorative railing. Building entries are designed to be seen from the street frontages and from the intersection. Additionally, building signage is proposed along a horizontal band above the storefronts. The project proposes a variety of quality building materials including smooth stucco plaster, stone veneer, concrete tile roofing and copper dome structure, pre-cast concrete balustrade, wrought iron railing, and wood trellis structures. §2.4 Buildin_a Height The proposed buildings are three and four stories in height, consistent with the Guidelines. Variations in building height and massing variation has been incorporated into the design of the structures. §2.5 Storefront The proposed storefronts provide large windows and a bulkhead with stone veneer. The corner storefront provides substantial architectural interest that contrasts the more linear storefronts along the street frontage. Staff recommends that commercial public entrances at ground level be recessed two to four feet in depth to provide modulation. Additionally, all doors, including service entries, along Rosemead Boulevard Avenue and Guess Street will be conditioned to be recessed a minimum of two feet. 42.6 Ughtin_g The plans submitted with this application do not show detailed lighting plans. Staff has conditioned the project to provide a detailed lighting plan, and will require all parking lot lighting to be fully shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. §2.7 Common Areas/Open Space The plans submitted show substantial usable open space for the residents in the form of rooftop gardens. Additionally, there is a small usable plaza in the rear of the buildings that can function as usable open space and/or outdoor seating for the restaurant tenants. -42.8 Compatibility with Adjoining Properties The project complies with the variable height restrictions of the City's General Provisions, and as such preserves the light, air, and lateral views of the adjoining residential properties to the east. There is adequate separation of buildings from adjoining properties to protect the aesthetic appeal of the streetscape. 42.9 Parking and -42.10 Access All parking for the project has been designed in the rear of the buildings or in a subterranean structure, and will be screened from view to the street. Pedestrian storefronts will line the street frontages, as encouraged by the Guidelines. The project has a single driveway on each street frontage, adjacent to the interior property lines, in order to maximize the continuity of storefront facades. Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 29 Property Improvements Currently, the site is developed with older multiple family residential land uses that do not comply with the City's current development standards, and have outlived their economic viability, given the rise in property values of the vicinity. The proposed development requires a subterranean parking structure which entails significant excavation for constructing below-grade basement concrete retaining walls with steel reinforcement over most of the site. A construction staging plan, restrictions on hours of construction, and dust mitigation/erosion control best management practices will be required during the construction phase. All off-street parking for the commercial uses will be located to the rear of the proposed buildings at grade. The on-grade parking will be paved and landscaped with shade trees, shrubs, permanent irrigation system and a decorative masonry block wall around all interior property boundaries. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On October 5, 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. During public hearing meeting on October 15, 2007, the Planning Commission announced continuance of the project and directed staff to bring back the project with corrections to Planning Commission at its public hearing meeting on November 5, 2007 for consideration. 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/Mdigation Monitoring Program D. Traffic Study E. Assessor's Parcel Map (8594-009-001,002 &04) F. Zoning Map G. General Plan Map H. Applications 1. Resolution 07-50 G:1Planning\PC Reports\ZC1ZC 05-222, GPA 07-06, CUP 06-1064, PDR 06-04, TTM 069079 9016 Guess-3864 Rosemead MU Proje.doc Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 18 of 29 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69079 Mixed Use Development 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street (APN's: 8594-009-001, 8594-009-002, and 8594-009-004) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 5, 2007 1. General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 69079 are approved for the construction of 10,845 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space, and 32 dwelling units all totaling approximately 48,910 square feet of floor area at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street. The project shall be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B," dated September 25, 2007 and submitted colored elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revision to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 69079 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all of the conditions including mitigation measures as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 3. General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Tentative Tract Map 69079 and Planned Development Review 06-04, are approved for a two-year period from the City Council's approval date. The applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension 30 days prior to expiration date. Completion of the proposed development and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for structures will constitute establishment of the use on site. Otherwise General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Tentative Tract Map 69079 and Planned Development Review 06-04 shall become null and void. 4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 5. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 6. Building Permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 19 of 29 as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 7. Each residential unit and commercial tenant space shall be constructed exactly as approved; no as-built plans will be accepted unless approved by the Planning Division. 8. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto construction 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).The commercial tenant spaces fronting on Rosemead Boulevard shall be occupied only with retail, restaurant, and personal service uses in order to maintain a lively storefront environment. The most east corner retail space along Guess Street (Unit F) shall be used for office uses only. No retail use operating beyond 8:00 pm or any restaurant shall be permitted in Unit F. Second- hand sales, and other non-retail businesses shall be prohibited on the property. 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, equipment, or trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained within a city approved trash enclosure. 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. The 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, 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 20 of 29 rubbish, trash and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. Any new litter and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be reached by calling the City of Rosemead main line at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 13. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of '/4 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 review and approval of the Planning Division. 14.The parking area, including parking spaces for handicapped, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible and orderly manner. 15.A 24-inch wide landscape planter with six inch curbing shall be installed along the western perimeter of the "guard wall" adjacent to driveway leading into subterranean parking structure. Said planter shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Division. 16. The applicant shall not provide more than 17 parking spaces (25% of total required parking spaces) as compact parking. The parking spaces adjacent to the rear of the building shall be increased to standard stall size. The landscaped areas shown adjacent to this parking row may be reduced accordingly to accommodate the required stall dimension of 9 feet wide by 20 feet in depth, double striped. 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 area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Division and maintained on a regular basis. 19.The property shall comply with all appropriate building, fire and health department regulations. 20.All roof top appurtenances and mechanical equipments shall be adequately screened from public view such that they are not visible from adjacent properties. 21. There shall be no accessory mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. 22. Prior to issuance of drainage/grading permit, the applicant shall submit water quality management plan in compliance with the City's storm water ordinance and Los Angeles County's SUSMP requirements with respect to the planning and development of the project 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 21 of 29 23. During site grading, the sites shall be watered at least twice a day to eliminate fugitive dust. 24. Construction vehicle speeds shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive 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 windows. 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. The applicant/developer shall incorporate decorative inter-locking pavers along both proposed driveways via Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street. Such pavers shall cover the entire width of the driveways and shall be a minimum of 35 feet long to complement the proposed building fagade articulations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall submit cut sheets/brochures of such materials to the Planning Division for approval. The planning Division shall make a final decision on what colors and materials to be used before installation of such pavers. 28. Proposed landscape planter areas in front of the storefront shall be minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area in order to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. Decorative inter-locking pavers shall be extended across entire storefront walkway adjacent to the sidewalk along Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street to encourage outdoor dining along the storefronts- 29.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 seen from the public right-of-way. 30. The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to 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, shrubs, and low growing flowers. Ornamental 48"-box street trees shall be planted along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street public right-of- way with tree wells and decorative tree grates. The species of street trees shall 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 22 of 29 be determined by the City Engineer, Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation Department. 31.The perimeter planter along the east side of the on-grade parking lot shall be planted with 15-gallon "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees planted nine feet on center and other ever green shrubs to provide a buffer between the perimeter block wall and the parking lot. 32. The applicant shall install an 8 foot split face block wall along the south and east property lines of the subject site. Such block wall shall be constructed in phase 1 of the proposed project and shall avoid damage to adjacent properties. 33. The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be prepared, submitted to and approved by the City Building Official and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan. 34. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 35. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work done in or adjacent to the public-right-of-way. The applicant shall also install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but not limited to street curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps and storm drains, along the entire street frontage of the development site as required by the City Engineer. 36.All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves and other equipment) shall be screened by screening walls and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 37.All on-site utilities, and distribution facilities and wires for the supply and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, and cable television shall be placed underground. The underground conversion of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 38. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 39. The applicant shall meet with a representative of Southern California Edison's planning staff to finalize the location of all buildings, structures, and future electrical transformers on site prior to submittal of final construction drawings to the City. 40. The Planning Commission and/or City Council hereby authorize the Planning 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 23 of 29 Division to make or approve minor modifications to the approved plans. 41. Prior to submittal of final construction plans to the City, the applicant shall meet with the City's Building Official and Fire Department and submit detailed plans as deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the exiting requirements for the rooftop garden decks above the third floor and fourth floor. 42.The applicant shall re-design the "Plan D" floor plan for the one-bedroom unit, in compliance with the minimum 900 square foot residential floor requirements of Section 17.88.070 of the Zoning Code. Detailed plans showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 43. Prior to recordation of the final map, covenants and restrictions in a form approved by the City Attorney will be recorded against the three (3) affordable condominium units to guarantee that these units are initially sold to persons and families of moderate income. The covenants and restrictions shall provide for an equity-sharing agreement upon the re-sale of the affordable units, consistent with California Government Code Section 65915. 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) must be prepared by the developer and approved by the City Attorney, Planning Division and City Engineer and recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. The CC&R's will cover all aspects of maintenance of the common areas, including but not limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, recreation areas and sewer system maintenance. 45.All window trims shall be precast concrete, painted with Dunn Edwards "white" trim color, as shown on the elevation drawings. The cornice trims along the top of the first story elevations shall be precast concrete. Cornice trims along the top of the second, third and fourth stories may be of stucco/foam construction. All cornice trims shall be painted to match window trims as shown on the elevation drawings in Exhibit B. 46.The roofing material for the domed roof structure shall be mosaic tiles in contrasting colors to complement the proposed building color schemes and the vertical ribs shall match colors elevation drawings shown in Exhibit B. 47.All storefront windows on the ground floor shall be required to install permanent or retractable canvas awnings, in a color to complement the color schemes of the building. 48. All stucco finishes for the building's exterior shall consist of smooth-trowel stucco finish and a painted exterior, in a field color that is consistent with the approved color schemes for the project. 49.All windows shall be recessed a minimum of four (4) inches. Window surrounds Planning Commission Meetin• • November 5, 2007 Page 24 of 29 shall be dimensional pre-cast concrete sections with defined grout lines. 50. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan showing adequate lighting for pedestrian safety, parking lot illumination, and for illuminated wall signs. All lighting shall be fully shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. 51. All commercial public entrances at ground level shall be recessed two to four feet in depth to provide modulation. All doors, including service entries along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street shall be recessed a minimum of four inches. 52. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, the applicant/developer shall install "EXIT ONLY, NO RIGHT TURN SIGN" at the northerly proposed driveway along Guess Street. The applicant shall design this driveway in a safe-angled manner and install the "no righturn sign" at a point where it's clearly visible. The sign shall be installed such that vehicular traffic is prohibited from making a right turn onto Guess Street. 53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant or successor in interest shall meet with the Los Angles County Sanitation Districts to obtain a permit to connect to a public sewer system. 54. 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 (Added by Planning Commission on November 6, 2007) Police Department Conditions 55. The applicant shall install a directory of tenants posted at each common entrance to the proposed building. The directory must contain the residents' name, floor, and unit number. Fire Department Conditions 56. The required fire flow for this development is 5000 gallons per minute for 5 hours. The water mains in the street fronting this property must be capable of delivering • 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 25 of 29 this flow at 20 pounds per square inch of residual pressure. 57. The applicant shall install two (2) Public 6" X 4" X 2 Y2" fire hydrants, conforming to AWWA Standard C503-75 or approved equal. All installations must meet Fire Department specifications. Fire hydrant systems must be installed in accordance with the Utility Manual of Ordinance 7834 and all installations must be inspected and flow tested prior to final approval. 58. The applicant shall submit fire hydrant improvement plans to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for review and approval. The required fire flow may be reduced by Fire Prevention Division as necessary. 59.Access is approved as shown on the site plan dated December 28, 2006 filed in the office of the Fire Department. 60. The applicant shall submit architectural drawings to Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Division for additional Fire Department requirements during the Building Plan Check Phase. Fire protection facilities, including access, must be provided prior to and during construction to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Mitigation Measure Conditions: 61. Prior to approval of final plans, the applicant shall provide dedicated, secured bicycle parking racks to the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre-manufactured or custom racks, cemented in the ground, lockers, or similar bicycle storage device to encourage use of non-motorized means of transport. 62.Adequate watering techniques will be employed to mitigate the impacts resulting from construction-related dust particulates. The project site shall be watered three times a day during earth moving phase and during construction such that a crust is formed on the ground surface and then maintained as part of the construction specifications. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved ways shall be 15 miles per hour. The applicant shall post speed limit notice on all entrances of the job site. All construction access ways and the job site shall be cleaned after each workday. 63. During project phasing, any proposed vegetation and ground cover to be utilized on site shall be planted in phase one to reduce disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion from contributing to dust emission from the project site. Related irrigation system shall also be installed in phase one to minimize soil erosion and ensure reliable water provision needed for maturity of such vegetation. 64. The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. The project will also be required to 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 26 of 29 comply with BMPs per Los Angeles Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 65. Consistent with the construction plans, the applicant shall provide pedestrian walkways; thereby encouraging walking and bicycle use as a mode of transportation between the project site and related facilities on site and adjacent uses to minimize automobile use dependence. 66. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall have a Registered Environmental Assessor conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Study in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards to determine the presence of hazardous materials on the site, and shall prepare a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety and the California DTSC. If hazardous materials are found on site or within the site's existing structures and require DTSC supervision for remediation, then prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall certify to the Department of Building and Safety that all structure-related hazardous materials have been properly disposed off. 67.This project 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 project 68. 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. CITY ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 69 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. 70 Final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, u Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 27 of 29 must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder for recordation. 71 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. 72 Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. 73 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. 74 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code. 75 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. 76 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. 77 Prior to final map recordation, the developer shall submit condominium plan to City for approval. 78 Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. The CC&R's s shall provide for maintenance of the private driveways and parking areas and maintenance of sewer laterals and mainline. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 79 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 easements. 80 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. 81 Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and s • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 28 of 29 directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. 82 Surface water generated from the site shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveway into the gutter on Rosemead Boulevard or Guess Street. A parkway drain(s) is required. 83 Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance and SUSMP requirements. ROAD 84 New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 5' (on Rosemead Boulevard) and 3' (on Guess Street) from any above-ground obstructions in the public right- of-way to the top of 'Y' or the obstruction shall be relocated. 85 Four (4) existing drive approaches on Rosemead Boulevard and one (1) on Guess Street shall be closed with full curb, gutter and sidewalk. 86 Developer shall construct all new full-width sidewalks along the entire frontage of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. 87 Developer shall construct 4'-square tree wells with metal grates on Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The tree wells shall be spaced 30' on center, planted with 24-inch box Australian Willow trees, and furnished with an irrigation system that is consistent with the City's Landscape & Irrigation Plans for Valley Boulevard. The proposed metal tree well grates shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to installation. 88 Developer shall obtain all required permits from Caltrans for work performed on Rosemead Boulevard. SEWER 89 Sewer mainline and laterals shall be privately maintained. 90 Sewers shall be sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. UTILITIES 91 Power, telephone and cable television service shall be underground where feasible. 92 Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 29 of 29 WATER 93 Prior to the filing of the final map, the applicant shall file with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the project complies with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. 0 0 1 MAYOR: JOHN TRAN MAYOP PRO TEM JOHN NUNE: COUNCILMEMBERS MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A TAYLOR E • VQ!~mc ad 8838 E VALLEY BOULEVARD • PO. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-9218 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ORIGINAL FILED AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP 13 2007 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ON OCTOBER 1 5, 2007 will n Commission has NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Rose aead001PM I ag Rosemead City Hall, issued 8838 East IVaI Valley Boulevard, Rosemead: conduct a public hearing on October 15. 200 CASE NO.: CUP 05-1064. PDR 06-04. ZCSS ndTTM s M zed Use ProjectRocatedaat (9016 Guesse5t ee~ and"3862 Agency" has completed an Initial Study (I) of the proposed Rosemead Blvd (South east corner of Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street) in the city of Rosemead Califomia. applicanattachedt submitted an application to the City of Rosemead requesting approval to develop a mixed use project consisting of condominium units and 12,580 square feet of retail space along with subterranean parking. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a cance the ifornia significant effect on the environment. The u Study was prepare and Implementation ot CEQAmOntthe (basis ofrthe InitialiStudy the IC ty of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local guidelines environment Rosemead has concluded that the project at would prepared a addessina ('snpotentiarl s gnificanteeffects and hasltt inceforeorporation the proposed mitigation measures aimed 9 the project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CE 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. Valley Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City ofRosemea nt oPlanning submit suBh eommentsaidn wrAing, n the adequacy of locIS/MNDated at 91770, for public review, Any person wishing to c mme to the City of Rosemead Planning Department, to October George Agaba, Senior Planner. Comments must be received within 2 - calender days from September 13, 2007 The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider project and the public and the public as'tencouragedtolattend0 Icto f t er PIan00g at 7:00pm. The Planning Commission meeting open Commission finds that with the incorporated be adopted and the proposed Mixed Use Project to be approved by the City Council. environment; it may recommend the he M M This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the proposed Mixed Use Project at 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Blvd without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subnotice sequeotl nchallenged in co Bence alllengedma the Cmi eo to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing date. George Agaba Senior Planner EXHIBIT C I I , 0 0 ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE 3862 Rosemead Blvd.; 9016 Guess Street Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 8594-009-001 8594-009-002 and 8594-009-004 Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 626-569-2140 Contact. George Agaba, Senior Planner Project Proponent: Eastern Investment Group. LLC/Owner 3226 North Muscatel Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Initial Study I Mitigated Negative Declaration Zone Change Application 05-222 Conditional Use Permit Application 06-1064 Planned Development Review Application 06-04 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 • Initial St y/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The project purpose is to construct a mixed-use development, residential and commercial project, including thirty-two (32) residential condominium units, approximately 8,420 square feet of retail/office uses and 4,160 square feet of restaurant space as well as 143 subterranean and above ground parking spaces. 1.2 LOCATION The proposed project is located in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California, at 3862 Rosemead Blvd. and 9016 Guess St. The 45,426 square-foot (1.04 acres) site occupies three lots comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8594-009-001, -002 and -004 on the southeast corner of Rosemead Blvd. and Guess St_, extending approximately 232' south from Guess St. property line and approximately 196' east from Rosemead Blvd. property line. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes construction of a four-story. mixed-use structure that includes 32 condominium residential units. 4,160 square feet of restaurant space, and 8,420 square feet of retail/office space. The project also includes two levels of parking, one at ground level. and one below grade level with parking spaces totaling 143 parking spaces. As proposed, the residential units are distributed among the top three floors of the structure, above the restaurant and retail units. The applicant is proposing to reserve ten percent (10%) (3 units) of the proposed residential condominium units for "moderate income" buyers. Retail, office and restaurant spaces are located on the ground floor, with entrances along Rosemead Blvd., Guess Street and from the surface parking lot. The submitted floor plans indicates that there are three proposed retail shops each with a total floor space of approximately 1,735 square feet, two restaurants ranging from 1,735 square feet to 2,425 square feet of floor area, and one office with approximately 1,480 square feet of leasehold space. Rosemead Mixed-Use 2 • 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 For project implementation, the applicant is requesting to demolish two existing single-family residence, three existing multifamily residential units and several accessory buildings as well as excavation and removal of approximately 463,953 cubic feet of soil for basement parking garage construction. ~011-11, Rosemead Mixed-Use 3 Existing Dwelling Units (looking East on Guess Street) • Initial stuff lMitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 1.3.1 Proposed Building Layout and Architecture Layout. The proposed building footprint is designed in an inverted L-shape, with the apex of the "L" oriented towards the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street with its footprint positioned along Rosemead and Guess (see Figure 13, Site,'First Floor Plan). The legs enclose a rear surface parking lot, which will to be screened from Rosemead Blvd frontage view by the building and a landscape planter. The proposed building facades spans approximately 200 feet long. along Rosemead Boulevard and extends approximately 140 feet along Guess Street: the total building footprint occupies approximately 14,064 square feet. Setbacks. The building is set back from Rosemead Blvd (west) property line by eight (8) feet from Guess (north) property line by in average 2 feet and southeast portion to the office unit is approximately 137.5, and from the south property line by 32. The longer leg along Rosemead Blvd is approximately 165 feet long to the Lobby area, the shorter leg alonz Guess Street from the comer of restaurant to the retail unit on the street level is approximately 125 feet long. Height. Along the Rosemead frontage, the proposed four-story facade is an average of 48 feet in height, with a 68-foot tall domed tower at the corner of Rosemead and Guess and a secondary rectilinear tower on the south facade. Along Guess Street frontage, the facade decreases in three broad steps in overall height to approximately 18 feet at its nearest point to the east property line. The 65-foot long facade along the south property line averages 48 feet tall. Architecture. The proposed architectural style is post-modern Italianate, characterized by the multi-story street-facing facade, tall, narrow and arched windows with white painted form trims, plaster balustrades, the corner tower or cupola, predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines, and smooth stucco plaster surface treatment (See Figure 1.4). The proposed colors range from light tans to deep reds, at the street level, glass storefronts punctuate the Rosemead and Guess facades. Proposed visible roof material includes copper sheathing for the corner and secondary towers. Also proposed is a roof garden for the entire rooftop, as detailed on Project Plans. There one arbor-covered trash enclosures proposed at the southeast corners of the site. Finally, a concrete split- faced block wall, six feet in height, is proposed to be constructed on the south and east property lines. The applicant will work with the City of Rosemead to provide decorative landscaping and planters along walkways. The applicant will utilize a combination of split-faced block wall and landscaping buffer between walls and adjacent properties. Rosemead Mixed-Use 4 • initial Stoitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 1.3.2 Access, Circulation and Parking Vehicular access. Two 28-foot wide driveways are proposed to provide access to the subject site. One from northbound via Guess Street and the second at the south-west property line via Rosemead Blvd. Vehicles will be directed around the surface parking lot by an internal 8-foot drive aisle: central ramps provide access to and from the subterranean garage. Parking. The project proposes 143 parking spaces for the combined residential and commercial uses, including 26 compact spaces and eight handicap spaces. According to the City of Rosemead Municipal Code, the project is required to provide 42 parking spaces for the restaurant uses, 34 parking spaces for the retail uses and 128 parking spaces for the residential uses. However, the applicant is proposing to reserve ten percent (10%) (3 units) of the proposed residential condominium units for "moderate income" buyers. Per the State of California density bonus requirement SB 1818)'amthe endedplCal California requested that the number of parking spaces be reduced Government Code Section 65915 to create a sliding scale in which developments with affordable units should be afforded density bonus and be jiven concessions. According to SB 1818, if a project qualifies for a density bonus, the developer may request and the City or County must approve modified parking standards or provide other "incentives" to the developer in order to provide affordable housing. Therefore, to comply with SB 1818 requirements. The City has provided an "incentive" to the developer by reducing the number of parking spaces from four pa king spaces per residential condominium unit to two parking spaces per unit. spaces are provided for the residential units rather than the 128 parking spaces as required by the City Code. This reduction is consistent with the parking parameters established in SB 1818. In addition, this reduction is practical considering the number of ground level parking spaces that will be available for the retail businesses on the site and which can be utilized for guest parking, when needed. The proposed project will have 64 parking spaces in the basement parkin- area that will be designated, exclusively, for the residential units. Since there are 32 residential units, this allows for two parking spaces for each residential unit. Under this provision, the project provides sufficient on-site parking to meet the parking standards set under SB 1818. Pedestrian .Access. Individual storefront doors on both the street-side and the parking lot fagades provide street-ievel pedestrian access to the retail, office and restaurant uses. There are two sets of stairs, on the north and south sides of the proposed building, which Rosemead Mixed-Use • Initial Aitigated Negative Declaration City o` Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-7064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 will provide access to the building's upper levels. Finallyl there are two elevators for residents and guests, one at the southwest corner of the building and another near its northeast corner near adjacent to the lobby. 1.3.3 Conceptual Landscape Design The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape design that depicts 3.163 square feet of landscaped area to be provided in the parking areas as well as adjacent to the proposed structures. A final landscaping plan will be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. 1.3.4 Proposed Demolition and Excavation Implementation of the proposed project will require demolition of several occupied residential structures, including three apartment buildings, two single-family units and other accessory structures on site. There are two existing single story and double story structures on site constructed in 1928. The residence at 3864 Rosemead Blvd. appears to have been a single-family house that was later converted to apartment units. The apartments at 3862 Rosemead are single story and configured around existing central with the apartments located automobile courtyard; those on Guess Street are two-story, above around-floor zarages. Before demolition, the applicant will submit demolition plans to the City and any other applicable agency for review. Demolition of existing units will be supervised by a licensed contractor who will ensure compliance with any applicable regulations including transportation of demolished building materials and debris to a landfill permitted to accept such debris and construction materials. The project also will require excavation of approximately 463,953 cubic feet of dirt /soil during grading phase to pave way for construction of the subterranean-parking garage and structures above it, assuming a building footprint of approximately 450,426 square feet, ten feet basement height plus additional vertical feet for footing and placement of engineered fill. The project will require an off-site grading transport plan and an appropriate site for disposing the excavated material. 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 environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code § § 21000 - 21177, and California Code of Regulations § § 15000 - 15387). Rosemead Mixed-Use 6 0 lniliaf 5ru• itigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 The applicant has requested the following discretionary approvals from the City of Rosemead: • General Plan Amendment to allow 32 dwelling units per acre versus 14 dwelling units per acre. Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential Zone) to PD (Planned Development Zone to allow commercial and residential land uses). Planned Development Review Permit, corresponding to the requested PD zone, to allow the particular design features proposed with the development, including variations in building height, facade articulation, variations on window treatment, and various architectural elements on the facade of the proposed structure and on site such as stamped concrete walkways, decorative patios, decorative landscaping etc. . • Conditional Use Permit to allow a Mixed-Use Development on the subject site • Additionally, after the mixed use development concept is approved, to successfully implement this project, the applicant must later submit an application for a tentative tract map for an individual interest (condominium subdivision ) development, pursuant to California Government Code § 66424 et seq (Subdivision Map Act). Rosemead Municipal Code § 17.112, Conditional Use Permits; does not identify "mixed-use developments" as a use requiring a conditional use permit in any zone. However, the Rosemead General Plan identifies mixed-use overlay districts (and corresponding developments) and indicates that a conditional use permit is required for such deve!orments in specified districts. See Rosemead General Plan. Land Use Element, at LU-25, and the impact di c lion under Land Use and Planning, at Section 3-41 below. Rosemead Mixed-Use 0 initial Stoitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 In compliance with variable height regulation (RMC) Section 17.12.290, which states that all commercial and industrial zones shall have a variable height limitations established when abutting R-1 and R-2 zones, the proposed project complies in the following manner: the project site is bounded to the north by R-3 zone to the east by R-1 zone, to the west by P-0 zone and to the south by R-3 zone. Since this project is not located within commercial or industrial zone. it shall not be required to comply with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.12.290 (variable height requirements). However, since the proposed project is bounded by R-1 to the east, the project proponent established a height of 6 feet above finished grade along north adjacent property line and then a 20-degree incline was projected, the result shows that the maximum height of the proposed building is within that angle, thus complying with the variable height requirement. Although variable height regulations do not apply to P-D zones, it could be used as a policy guideline but it does not formally apply to this project. Additionally, to successfully implement this mixed use project, the applicant must also submit an application for a tentative tract map for a common interest (condominium) development, pursuant to California Government Code § 66424 et seq (Subdivision p Act. Rosemead Mixed-Use On Rosemead and Guess Street 0 0 o d ~a `u m m N m Z > m z x o, ~ m Z Z m m `m `C D1 N C Z N O 7 b O O O ~ "z 0 aE z m _a c`c ~ m m CL m m o m N . ~ m a, > N Ip Q O ^ C ~ t o C R 0 U U 4 C f0 CL 0 O LL N m N M T J LL m N b m x Z m m t d N 0 O U ti d O cp ~ U 61 0: H d~ ~ y _X m b z~ b a v~ is m ~ C A b N ro Q 0 Q ~ ,0 0 0 0 .0 2 C L Z d C m ~ b 4 y m m o m ~ ~ m h m O o ^ C ? b d O L a ^ ti O UUrL (n c O fC d W r d L v LL • 411 awo ~ MIA • 10 Q) j a a _k a m m a~ h O C • initial St dy1mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project site and surrounding property General Plan and Zoning designations, and existing land uses are as follows: General Plan Mixed Use Site commercial/Residential Mixed Use North Residential/Commercial Zoning Existing Land Use One and two-story apartments; R-3 single-family residences and other accessory structures. R-3 Single-family & multi-family R-1 Residences Mixed Use South Residential/Commercial East Mixes Use ResidentiallCommercial West Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial R-3 Multifamily residences Single family& multifamily esidences; sin gle-family R1 r residences begining at mid-block to the east of the site Commercial uses, including medical offices, two-story P-0 D multifamily uses; elementary school district offices northwest of site south south of The 1.04-acre site is located on the east side of Rosemead Boulevard, two blocks Valley Boulevard, between Guess Street on the north and Ralph Street on the Rosemead Blvd is a fully improved north-south arterial street, desi;nated as State and Highway 19 (SR 19); it has four lanes, central landscaped median, wide sidewalks, an street lighting. Guess and Ralph Streets are two-lane residential collector streets with intermittent sidewalks. The immediate neighborhood is developed with single-family asa well lanas mixed d levels of commercial and multifamily residential uses of var} ing het--ht s, maintenance. None of the existing units appears to exceed 25 feet in height. The site itself comprises of three parcels occupying, approximately two-thirds of the Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use 11 0 0 Initia: Stuitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Blvd. street frontage between Guess and Ralph in a north, south direction. The site is presently developed with one and a two-story apartment units, a single-story multifamily residence that apparently was once a single-family residence, and accessory carports storage sheds. All 15 existing units appear to be occupied, and no "vacancy" sign is evident on a site as of August 2007. Immediately south of the site is a single-story four-plex multifamily residence, also with accessory carports. Along the east property boundary are more one- and two-story lines multifamily units which front on Guess and Ralph, respectively. The east property of those properties appear to be the zone boundary between multi- and single-family residences, as the bulk of development mid-block between Rosemead and Rio Hondo to the east is single-family homes. The west side of Rosemead Blvd. is developed with one and two-story commercial and multifamily uses. These buildings appear to have been built in the late offices northwest (1450's and later) except for the Rosemead Elementary School District of the site. Architectural styles vary, from Spanish-mission style, stucco-finished school h offices to stucco- or wood-siding-finished ranch houses, duplexes and four-plexes, contemporary strip commercial buildings. Landscaping includes a mixture of ornamental species, with no evidence of residual native vegetation, such as mature on]camorly trees. All properties show a reasonable level of maintenance. Many of the residences show strong pride-of-ownership, with well-manicured front yards, garden ornamentation, clean and neat facades. Rosemead Mixed-Use 12 • • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 061064 Planned Development Permit No. 0604 SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed mixed-use project wouia not result in a "potentially significant impact'' as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use(Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation[Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 1 find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect 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 analvsis 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 upo a proposed project, nothing further is required. ~ Signed Date 13 Rosemead Mixed-Use • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 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 thev 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 enviromnental 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. Rosemead Mixed-Use initial Study/Mifigated Negative Declaration I Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluatior V Envi-~-,-"c-:B' imcacts 14 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit Nc 06-04 Less Than Potentially Significant W th Less Than Significant No Significant Impact i Mitigation Impact Impact Environmental Issues 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ z - vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, k ❑ but not limited to, trees, roc including ❑ E] , outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® El character or quality of the site and its d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1- AESTHETICS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION) initial Study/Mitiaated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts a) ,tiro impact. The predominant scenic vista is located north of the project site and the environs contains the foothills and high mountains of the San Gabriel Range (Transverse Ranges), encompassed by the Angeles National Forest, north of City of Pasadena. However, boundary, and the mountains the site is approximately 8.5 miles south of the National Foes are primarily visible 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 south of the project site is already built environment even before overhangs, trees over 10 feet high, existing buildings and other construction of the proposed structures. Therefore, the existing uses will not be affected by the one-to-four stories of the proposed building. Public views would be largely unaffected, since mountain views would still be available from Rosemead Blvd facing northerly direction from. (both roadway and public sidewalks). Consequently, the proposed project will not affect scenic vistas. b) No impact. The proposed mixed-use project will not affect any scenic recourses as there is no known scenic recourses within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located on or near a state-designated or eligible scenic highway (see htt:/'w-w'.dot.ca.~ov,ni /Land.4rch/scenic/cahisvs.htm, last accessed June 8, 2006). Furthermore, the site 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. of Rosemead General Plan mead Mixed-Use Project 15 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 c) Less than Significant Impact The proposed project will introduce a 45 to 50-foot high four-story post-modern Italianate facade adjacent to relatively old buildings presumably to have been built in the earl to mid-20`h century. There are various one to two-story commercial and residential buildings in this established neighborhood. The proposed structure will replace 1: existing residential structures. including an apparent converted single-family farmhouse, two mid-century apartment buildings and associated accessory buildings including carports and other accessory structures. These latter structures are in varying states of repair and maintenance (field visit investigation by case Planner August 30, 2007). De, gradation of the existing visual character of a site is typically a subiectjudgment and depends on the aesthetic preferences of the viewer. DISCUSSION ALTER'N'ATIVE A: The proposed building, with a maximum height of 50 feet and average height of approximately 45 feet, is likely to appear disproportional e ot nearby exiting buildings, which do not exceed 25 feet tall. Where portions of th ga are juxtaposed with the adjacent 25-30-foot-tall buildings with varying setbacks and distances between structures, the result may, appear proportional. However, the tallest portions of the facade, the 50-foot-tall corner tower, more than 35 feet taller than the adjacent 12 to 15-feet tall single-story buildings on the south and north, may appear out of proportion and scale, and may be considered to degrade the existing visual character of the surroundings. Additionally, an abrupt introduction of a new architectural style within an established development pattern may be subjectively significant. However, with the use of modern architectural elements on the facade of the proposed structure, use of aesthetically pleasing design techniques, use of dense and different species of landscaping materials incorporated into the design of this residential and commercial development will greatly improve the visual character of the site and its surrounding, thus minimizing the subjective visual impacts that may arise from the proposed project. initial Stomitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The proposed building is about twice the height of many nearby existing buildings, and its b architecture is somewhat modern and unique from the existing uildings in the vicinity. However, the building exhibits substantial attention to architectural detail on all facades, including articulation of wall surfaces, decorative balustrades, various decorative paint colors, copper-clad towers, cut-stone veneer/tile and treated wood trellises to mention but a few. Quality construction and quality finish details will mitigate negative effects that may result from the building's lack of proportion to surrounding uses. The project proponent will be required to build the project according to the proposed plans, the building itself should not objectively degrade the existing visual quality of the site, but rather be perceived to upgrade the visual quality of site and its surroundings, although the building may appear relatively tall Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 16 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 than adjacent structures. The proposed structure's visual impacts will be less than significant simply because of its facade articulation, architectural detail, included amenities, when placed side-by-side with existing buildings that have varying setbacks and distances between them as well as landscaping materials screening. Planning staff will review final color schemes and building plans, and will require strict adherence to the approved plans, which will reduce any residual negative effects to less than a significant level. d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project may create a new source of light and glare, because it is three stories taller than existing buildings and the proposed uses (residential and commercial) will doubtless be illuminated at night. Additionally, exterior lighting is proposed for the building fagades and the exterior parking lot. Furthermore, future residents may be exposed to light and glare from street traffic and commercial buildings along Rosemead Boulevard in the project vicinity. However, incorporating dark or tinted selected window glass, downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior siQnage lighting will effectively minimize residual negative impacts to residents and the surrounding neighborhood. All the above will render produced light to have less than significant impact. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Planning Department review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HPS) out door light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded with landscaping, vines and directed on site, light bulbs will be designed to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light spills on adjacent properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. Although the proposed mixed-use project will introduce some lighting, the impact will be less than significant. initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project valuation o` Environmental Impacts Mixed-Use Project 17 • Decl r n ti i O a a o ve mitigated Negat Initial St City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact - Impact -2. Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are s, agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluat prepared by the California Department of Conservarion as an c impacts on agriculture and farmland Would the project. a) Conver. Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agriculm., al use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existin- environment, which, due to their location or ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? onal model to use in assessing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) a - c) No impact. There are no known existing agricultural resources on or near the project site. The site and environs are currently developed with multifamily residential and commercial uses, accessory structures and paving. Consequently, there are no impacts to agricultural resources from this project. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 18 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 0 Initial Stu itigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation impact Impact 3. Air Quality Rrhere available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. lFould the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute d i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ r a substantially to an existing or projecte quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an licable federal or state ambient air quality a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pp standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? - d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 3. AIR QUALITY (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve the standards. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (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 adopted plan is the 2003 AQMP, adopted on August 1, 2003, available at hrtp://www.agind.Qov/agmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP outlines steps-required to achieve the standards while allowing for Growth projected by the Southern California Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 19 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Association of Governments. This plan is designed to achieve the 5 percent annual reduction goal of the California Clean Air Act. The AQMP accommodates growth based on SCAG's predictions. Future regional levels of vehicular air pollution identified in the AQMP are based on SCAG's growth forecasts in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) coupled with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMP. These forecasts are predicted using local land use plans, particularly zoning and general plan land use designations. The proposed project's residential density, 32 units per acre, is more than twice the current City of Rosemead's General Plan Land Use designation for the site at 14 units per acre for the ResidentiaUCommercial - Mixed Use Overlay designation (City of Rosemead General Plan, Land Use Element pg LU-4). However, the current underlying R-3 zone permits 30 units per acre, which is almost equivalent to the proposed 32 units. Also, fifteen (15) of the proposed units would replace existing units and only 16 units would be new. In addition. the project proposes a mixture of residential and commercial land uses, and is located along a transit corridor that contains a mixture of retail, services, and residential uses in close proximity. Both the project's area setting and the proposed development itself reduces dependency on automobiles - an important air quality management-planning goal. Developing the project at this location will not significantly affect regional air quality plans; because transit is more convenient and local, services will be reachable on foot or on bicycle thus reducing some vehicle trips and their associated emissions. During the project design, it was intended that residential and commercial units be located at this site because the proposed structure will be self-sustaining providng goods and services hence requiring no additional dependency on use of automobiles. Mitigation measures, such as providing bicycle racks in the parking area, can reduce this project's air quality impacts to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES: Initial str7Cy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts 1.0. Prior to approval of final plans, the applicant shall provide dedicated, secured bicycle parking racks to the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre- manufactured or custom racks, cemented or bolted in the ground, lockers, or similar bicycle storage device to encourage use of non-motorized means of transport. 1.1 Adequate watering techniques will be employed to mitigate the impacts resulting from construction-related dust particulates. The project site shall be watered three times a day during earth moving phase and during construction such that a crust is formed on the ground surface and then maintained as part of the construction specifications. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved ways shall be 15 miles per hour. The applicant shall post speed limit notice on all entrances of the job site. All construction access ways and the job site shall be cleaned after each workday. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 20 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Initial StRIMitigated Negative Declaration 4 Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 1.2 During project phasing, any proposed vegetation and ground cover to be utilized on site shall be planted in phase one to reduce disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion from contributing to dust emission from the project site. Related irrigation system shall also be installed in phase one to minimize soil erosion and ensure reliable water provision needed for maturity of such vegetation. 1.3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including rule 403 insuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. The project will also be required to comply with BMPs per Los Angles Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 1.4 Consistent with the construction plans, the applicant shall provide pedestrian walkwavs, thereby encouraging walking and bicycle use as a mode of transportation between the project site and related facilities on site and adjacent uses to minimize automobile use dependence. Mitigation Monitoring: Planning Department Staff shall verify that all mitigation measures have been incorporated, and documented on project plans as conditions of approval. Building inspectors and Public Works inspectors shall verify regulatory compliance before issuing building pen-nits. The Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Departments will perform a final verification for compliance with all mitigation measures upon completion of project, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. b-c) Less than Significant Impact Air quality standards in southern California are set by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CA-AQS). These standards have been established for five pollutants - ozone (03.), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SOz), fine particulate matter (PM1o.), and lead. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds that correspond to these criteria pollutants. These thresholds are described in Chapter 6 of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (1993) and shown in Table 3.1 below. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 21 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permi: No. 06-04 The proposed project may generate short-term air pollutants from construction activities and vehicle emissions and other operations associated with typical restaurant and commercial uses. The Cit)'s consultant calculated the project's potential air pollutant emissions usin, the "URBEMIS 2002 Air Emissions From Land Development', model (URBEMIS),' and applying the following factors: 4,160 square feet of restaurant area, 8,420 square feet of retail and office area, and 32 residential units on a 1.04-acre site. Table 3.1 compares the estimated air quality emissions of the proposed project to the SCAQMD thresholds. None of the project's anticipated emissions exceed these thresholds. Consequently, as long as job-site practices comply with existing controls, the project will not create impacts to air quality that will reach a level of significance. Additionally, SCAQMD encourages mixed-use developments along existing transit corridors to minimize automobile dependence that undermines air quality in the area. Initial Study1mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental lmoacts Table 3.1: Project Air Emissions/SCAQMD Threshold Comparison Matrix Area Plus Operational Project's Area and Daily Construction Project's Maximum on n Emission Threshold Operational Emissions Emission Threshold Emissions (max' lbs/day lbs/day) (max.lbs/day) (max. lbs/day) (max. ) 55 I 8.63 I 75 I 34.64 V 150 u.4 V 0.05 5062B 150 150 43.76 6.91 PMB10B 150 75 30.91 ROG 55 8.63 `ROG (Reactive Organic Gas) through a series of chemical reactions with NO,\ forms ground level ozone. d) No impact Sensitive receptors include hospitals, nursing homes, elementary schools or preschools, and other places where the immune-impaired, the elderly or the very young stay for extended periods of time. None of these facilities exists near the URBEMIS stands for "Urban Emissions Model" and was originally developed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) as a modeling tool to assist local public agencies with estimating air quality impacts from land use projects when preparing a CEQA environmental analysis. The model was developed as a user-friendly computer program that estimates construction, area source, and operational air pollution emissions from a wide variety of land use development projects in California, such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, etc. The model also identifies mitigation measures and emission reductions associated with specific mitigation measures. URBEMIS '_'002 for Windows is the latest revised edition. Source: South Coast AQMD. htto'/'\,\,*',A' aomd 20ViCeaa/urbemis.htmi. Iasi accessed !une 16.:006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project lJ city of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 construction and project site. Table 3.1 indicates that the project's emissions durinQ g operation fall well below pollutant thresholds. Consequently, no substantial pollutant concentrations will be generated, nor sensitive receptors will be exposed. el Less than significant with mitigation. During project construction, objectionable odors, such as those created by diesel emissions, may affect the immediate and will of L 1, multi- and single-family residences. However, these impacts are short-term extend beyond project completion and occupancy or reach a significant level. Less Than Than Potentially Significant Se s ant No Significant With Impact Impac Impact Mitigation Environmental Issues 4. Biological Resources fd.'ould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly i es or through habitat modifications, on any spec sensitive, or special a candidate d , as identifie status species in local or regional plans, policies, ❑ a 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 ional plans, policies, re l ❑ g or identified in loca and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally s defined by Section 404 of d l s a an protected wet the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited El O 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 ❑ a 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 t ❑ El z ree protecting biological resources, such as a - preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted it O y Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Commun Conservation Plan, or other approved local, rpainnal_ or state habitat conservation plan? 40 initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts Mixed-Use Project 23 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permi: Nc. 06-1064 n.,.,_i., Parmit No. 06-04 initial St• itigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation o` cnvironmenta lmca_'s 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) (a-f) !V0 Impact The project site is fully developed in an urban setting. The project site has been disturbed before and is currently developed with residential units. No "natural" conditions exist on the job site. and consequently no biological resources are known to exist, with the exception of exotic ornamental plant material. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any adopted conservation plans nor have significant impact to biological resources. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the d ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of a historical resource as define 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 ue i F7 ❑ ® ❑ q paleontological resource or site or un geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ® ❑ tp~ptl nntcide of formal cemeteries? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) (a-b) Less than significant -The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, define "historic resources" as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, 3 determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission, listed in a local register of historic resourcese, or determined by the local agency to be historically significant because the resource is (a) associated with events that have made a sib ificant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (b) associated with the lives of persons important in our past; S California Public Resources Code § 5024.1 and § 4850 et seq of Title 14. California Code of Regulations- California Public Resources Code § 5020,1(k), S 5024.1(8). Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 24 0 Initial Stu itigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permi., No. o6-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts + ne,.n~nnmon! Permit Nc. 06-04 (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. The project requires demolition of several residential structures on the project site and excavation for a parking garage. At least one of the structures appears to have been constructed more than 50 years ago. Although no state-listed historical or cultural resources exist on the project site,' and the City of Rosemead does not maintain a list of cultural or historic resources, absence from a list does not automatically preclude historical significance.' However, the apparent oldest on-site structure has been divided for multifamily uses, reducing its character-defining integrity and diminishing its historical value. None of the other structures embody distinctive architectural characteristics. (c, d) Less than significant - The project requires excavation of approximately 46,395 cubic feet of earth for construction of a subterranean parking garage. The project site has been developed and used for residential purposes for many years. No known unique geological or paleontological resources exist on the site. However, absence of records is not sufficient to preclude existence of such resources. Because of the extent of development, and Rosemead's agricultural history9, the possibility of discovering information important to prehistory or paleontology is possible but the possibility is relatively low. Examination of the site before and after demolition as well as during excavation should yield information as to whether such resources exist. Consequently, impacts to unique geological or paleontological resources are likely to be less than significant. In the event cultural resources are discovered, during excavation or construction, the project shall immediately stop operation, and the project proponent shall in writing inform an appropriate expert, based upon the finding, to conduct further investigation. A copy of such findings shall be forwarded to the City of Rosemead Planning Department immediately. The operation on the project site shall cease until a cultural resource study is complete and recommendations are received by the City of Rosemead Planning Department. California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California Office of Historic Preservation, at http:f/olip.parks-c-&gov/default,asp?page_id=21427, last accessed June 13, 2006- s Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1; 14 Cal Code Regs § 15064.5(a)(3) (a resource "shall" be considered historically significant if it howe meets the agency for listing discretion the to determine whether the resource murces eetsithe triter a or not, R s. Codea~ 21034 ]v 14 the local agency has the Cal. Code Regs. § 15064.5(a)(4). s See City of Rosemead website, at http://www.citvofroscmcad.org./AboutRosemeadlRosemeadHistory/tabid/93fDefauIt.aspx, last accessed December 11, 2006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 25 CJ City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Environmental issues 6. Geology and Soils TFould the project: 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 around shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less i i la. Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact 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 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' ❑ n D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) No Impact 0 0 0 a)(i) Less than Significant. The project proposes constructing a four-story, mixed-use building with three stories of residential uses over a ground floor of restaurant and commercial uses. at the southeast corner of Rosemead Blvd, and Guess Street in the City of Rosemead. The City of Rosemead's 1957 General Plan, Safety Element, describes the city's generalized exposure to seismic hazards, including those presented by the San Andreas Fault System, the Raymond Hill fault, two miles north of the Cin', and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault, approximately five miles southeast of the City. There are no Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones within project boundaries. There are two inactive fault traces that traverse the City, initial Awitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation o1 _nviron,menta ]r-7---!- Project 26 • initial Stud}/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Evaluatior of Environmental impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 corresponding to the Alhambra and Rubio washes." One of these is near the proposed project, traversing Rosemead Blvd. in a northwest-southeast direction at its intersection with the San Bernardino Freeway. However, since this fault trace is considered inactive, it is not likely to produce a seismic event with substantial impact to substantially impact the project area or residents. In addition, since the project is not within a mapped Alquist-Priolo zone, no impact to residents/occupants of the project resulting from the project's proximm, to an Alquist-Priolo zone is anticipated. Additionally, the City of Rosemead*s Building Code, (incorporating 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. a)(ii) Less than Significant- 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. However, current building codes and contemporary methods of construction, with site-specific design criteria and specifications, as required by building codes, will reduce impacts of seismic shaking to the Greatest extent possible to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. a)(iii) Less than significant- The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site's area as subject to liquefaction." Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to this liquefaction. la However, current building codes and contemporary methods of construction, with site- specific design criteria and specifications, as required by Building Codes, will reduce impacts of seismic related ground failure to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to strong seismic ground failure including liquefaction because the project will be required to comply with the building code before issuance of the building permits. a)(iv) No impact" The project site and surrounding area is flat and not near any slopes, cliffs, or hillsides that are prone to landslides: consequently, no impact from landslide danger is anticipated. 10 Citv of Rosemead. General Plan, Saferv Element, Figure PS-l . lable of state of California. Seismic Hazard Zones. El Monte Quadrangle. March 25a119991 a sa'nuad&] lest accessed June 19. 2006. 26 0 itigated Negative Declaration Initial Stu dy City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 b-e) No impact The project site is already developed at an urban scale and is being proposed for redevelopment at a greater urban density. Additionally, the surrounding area is no longer dependent on a=riculture and retention of topsoil is not an issue for the project 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 impact from soil erosion or loss of topsoil is expected. Additionally, the project proponent will be required to install ground cover and other landscaping to mitigate loss of top soil. 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 is expected. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than t No Significant With Significan Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Environmental Issues 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the se Q , environment through the routine transport, u or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable Z El upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, ❑ waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit d O ❑ 11 Z ous or hazardous emissions or handle hazar 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 O release a hazardous substance as identified by O 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, erials so as to O ❑ ❑ sufficiently free of hazardous mat be suitable for development and use as a school? Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 27 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 g) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted. blic ❑ within two miles of a public airport or pu 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 ❑ n 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? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, t ❑ ❑ o including where wildlands are adjacent 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 d ❑ ❑ easement of an above ground or undergroun pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the proposed school? initial Study ttigated Negative Declaratior, 4 Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact Although the proposed project will involve development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above approximately 12,580 square feet of commercial, retail and restaurant uses for lease. The proposed project is not anticipated to routinely store, use, generate, or transport substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and would have no associated significant impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact- The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease on a currently multi-family residential occupied site. The proposed project does not propose to use hazardous materials. Operation of proposed residential, retail, and restaurants land uses would not involve use of a substantial amount of hazardous materials, and thus, hazardous material release because of these uses is not anticipated. For the most part, construction of the proposed project is not expected to release hazardous materials. The project site will be excavated to medium dense native soils and partially filled with clean and compacted engineered fill prior to pouring concrete for the subterranean Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 28 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06.7064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 garage and building footings. Depositing engineered fill is a reasonably safe activity because engineered fill must be free of contaminated debris and hazardous materials. Therefore, construction of the proposed proiect 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. However, construction will involve demolition of structures built prior to 1977, which might contain lead-based paint or asbestos-based constructions air thatareacould be released ndic ates that there the environment. Furthermore, Rosemead's history as a g might be residual pesticides in the site's surface. or underground soil. If toxic material exist on site, whether on existing buildings or as particulates in the soil, it must be Control removed a and the site cleaned according to California Department of Toxic Substance Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department regulations. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall obtain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Study by a DSTC registered environmental assessor to determine if ant toxics exist. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall identify if toxics are present on site and indicate whether further analysis will be required as well as identifying particular remediation measures. With proper remediation, lead asbestos. and pesticide residuals can be adequately removed and disposed off in a safe manner if any is found on site. c) No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Muscatel Intermediate School, which is located approximately one-third of a mile northwest of the project site, two blocks north of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue, followed by Rosemead High School, located approximately one-half mile northeast of the projear site fromethintersection e project shoe more Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. Both locations than one-quarter mile. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, and no impact to either school is anticipated, d) No Impact The proposed project site is not located with one-quarter mile of industrial- near a ity that be zoned land or an existing industrial use, and thus is not locemat rials,asubstancesnor waste. anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous Therefore the project will not be subject to industry -related impacts. e} Less than Significant Impact witl:.~liri;ation. The project site has been developed with residential uses for many years and is not anticipated to have been a site of on the DTSC's hazardous disposal or hazardous substance releases. It does not appear Reuse Program list'-) nor on the DTSC "Cortese List" of hazardous waste and substances See hnl)://www envirostor. disc ca.sovinublic/, lost accessed November 30. 2006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project initial Study itigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts 29 7 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation o'cnvironmenra sites.Therefore, there is no anticipated significant impact with respect to release of significant quantities of hazardous substances. However, as discussed in (b) above, there is a reasonable probability that hazardous substances may be released into the environment during. demolition due to the age of the existing residential structures demolition of structures which were built prior to 1977, which might contain lead-based paint or asbestos-based construction materials that could be released into the environment. The probability that significant amounts of hazardous materials would be released is low; however, mitigation measures are listed below to reduce possible impacts to less than a significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 1., Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall have a Registered Environmental Assessor conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Study in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards to determine the presence of hazardous materials on the site, and shall prepare a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety and the California DTSC. If hazardous materials are found on site or within the site's existing structures and require DTSC supervision for remediation, then prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall certify to the Department of Building and Safety that all structure-related hazardous materials have been properly disposed off. Mitigation Monitoring: Planning Department Staff shall verify that all mitigation measures have been incorporated, and documented on project plans as conditions of approval. Building inspectors shall verify regulatory compliance before issuing building permits. The Planning Department and the Building Department will perform a final verification for compliance with all mitigation measures upon completion of project, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. f) No Impact. The proposed project is not a school. Nonetheless, were a school proposed for the site, and the investigations discussed in (b) above performed, the property could likely be rendered free of hazardous materials so as to be suitable for development as a school. There is no present impact to school development on the site. c, No Impact- The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor v,-ithlri two miles of an adopted plan, nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public 13 See last occessed November 30. 2006. Mixed-Use Project 30 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 D.r it No. 06-04 Initial Studitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts use airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on or near the project site, and would have no related significant impacts. h) No Impact. The project site is more than two (2) miles from the closest private airstrip. 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 project comprises of re-development of properties located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street in the City of Rosemead. Rosemead Boulevard, between the San Bernardino Freeway to the south and Mission Drive to the north, is part of the City of Rosemead Evacuation Route.'' The project is not anticipated to interfere with this evacuation route or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans because it is not proposed to block Rosemead Blvd. or to add additional driveways providing access to Rosemead Blvd that may impede emergency services. Therefore, the project presents no significant impact to Rosemead's emergency response or evacuation plans, j) No Impact. The project area is in a completely urbanized area of the City of Rosemead. The site is not adjacent to any undeveloped natural areas and is removed from any wildland fire risk areas. In addition, the project site is not within a specific fire hazard zone.'s Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and the project would have no associated impacts. k) No Impact The proposed project site is not within 1500 feet of an above ground water or fuel storage tank, nor is it located within a pipeline easement. Furthermore, as discussed in (f) above, the proposed project does not involve the development of a school, thus no impacts to a proposed school are anticipated. 11 City of Rosemead General Plan. Pui,icc Sgfery Element. Fig. PS-2. 1 id.. Table P-i Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 31 W City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-0-d Environmental issues 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Fould the project: 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. welthe ls would oa ting nearby drop to rate of pre-exis o level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ,ranted? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant No Significant impact. Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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? 9) 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? Initial 5tudY mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project evaiuatio o` environmental Impacts ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ u ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 32 City V. Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 g. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact The project proposes constructing a four-story, mixed-use building with three stories of residential uses over a ground floor of restaurant and commercial uses, at 3862 and 3864 Rosemead Blvd, and at 9016 Guess Street., in the City of Rosemead. 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 in 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 use to "prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stone water", and BMPs must be developed "with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters." 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 4 01-182) from the LARWQCB in 2001. The permit establishes a countywide 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 BNIPs, Best h as Management Practices (BMPs), such as sediment traps, and non-structural operation and maintenance practices. As a co-pennittee, the City of Rosemead has adopted an ordinance16 to implement the countywide permit and corresponding SUSMP. The countywide permit and the City's corresponding ordinance require certain types of development projects to develop and implement project-specific SUSMP compliance plans. Initial St• itigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 33 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Since the project involves more than 10 residential units. .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 S WPPP. and implement a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan before issuance of the building permit. Complying with these requirements would ensure the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not have any related significant impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact The proposed project involves d directly above development of a mixed- use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units locate approximately 12,580 square feet of retail and restaurant uses currently known as Assessors Parcel Numbers (APN) 8594009-001, 8594009-002, 8594009-003 in the City of Rosemead. The proposed structures and associated driveways and parking ec easeahe groundwatere couldldecreased surfaces on the project site. These impermeable surfaces recharge potential of the project site. However, the project that drains into the City's storm regional groundwater recharge. The site is in an urban drain system. Thus, as existing, only minimal rainwater on the site reaches groundwater. In addition, the proposed less than 1 acre of impermeable space is 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 have a sil n ficant ompactotoal groundwater table level, and the proposed project would not groundwater recharge. • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts c) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is include discernable drainaQepcourses. family residences. The site is virtually flat and does not The site plan indicates that runoff from the site flows from north to south. The proposed project does not involve grading that would alter drainage patterns. The proposed project would involve minor changes in the site's runoff patterns due to the placement of structures and impermeable surfaces. Additionally, the proposed project includes excavation for a subterranean parking Baran affect the volume and velocity of runoff can velocity of the site's stormwater runoff. Increases i result in an increase in erosion and siltation. However, since the project site is currently the site's runoff closely resembles the covered with structures and impermeable surfaces, runoff of a paved surface, and the proposed development would negligibly change surface water volume and velocity on the project site. Therefore. the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would 16 r;- ,.f tt ncemead Municipal Code, a 13.16 et seq.. Stormwater Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 34 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 result in substantial erosion or siltation, and the proposed project would not have any associated 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 potential to cause flooding would be eliminated through required compliance with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates tc not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 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 flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause flooding and would have no associated significant impacts. e) Less Than Significant Inipact. As discussed in Sections 8. a, b, c, and d above, the proposed project would have a negligible affect 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 ensure that the proposed project will 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, which result to significant environmental impacts. f) Less Than Significant IntpacL As discussed above, the proposed project involves the development of a site that has been excavated, filled, and graded with engineered soil. Because of the site's current condition, the proposed project will require only minor grading and infrastructure development. Consequently, the project will not result in substantial temporary modifications to drainage patterns. In addition, during construction, runoff from the project will be governed by a SWPPP. This plan will eliminate 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 storm water impacts that may affect the environment. Operation and use of the proposed residential, retail, and restaurant uses are not anticipated to degrade water quality. The proposed residential, retail and restaurants could generate typical urban water pollutants, such as trash, sediment, metals; and vehicle byproducts/fluids. . 1_2 d , 1 and imnIP.Ment a SUSMP compliance However, the land use is to e\ e op Rosemead Mixed-Use rroleci 35 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts plan that identifies the project-specific BMPs that will be utilized onsite to prevent/reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants. Overall, the proposed project is not expected to otherwise substantially degrade water quality and would have no associated significant impacts. g) No Impact The City of Rosemead does not include any FEMA-designated flood prone area, and the project site is in an unmapped area of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regional map No. 060153. 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. Therefore, 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 in a designated or otherwise known flood hazard area. Consequently, the project's proposed structures would not impede nor redirect flood flows, so no corresponding significant impact to surrounding or proposed structures is anticipated. i) No Impact The proposed project site is not in the vicinity of a man-made lake or flood control facility, such as a levee or dam. The project site is within built on an urban scale therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of lass, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam since there is no existing dam within the project site area. No corresponding significant impacts are anticipated. j) No Impact The City of Rosemead is approximately 29 miles from the Pacific Ocean at 281 feet above mean sea level, farther than any anticipated tsunami would reach. 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. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 36 • laration tive D ~ ec itigated Nega initial 5t City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. . 06-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Environmental Issues 9. Land Use and Planning Would the project: i ? ❑ ❑ ❑ ty a) Physically divide an established commun b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan or regulation of an agency with policy , jurisdiction over the project (including, but not l l ® ❑ ❑ ❑ oca limited to the General plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat s iti ❑ ❑ e conservation plan or natural commun conservation plan? AND PLANNING (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) 9. LAND USE 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 replace existing residential uses with mixed-use, residential and commercial uses, but will not divide the community by creating a physical or visual barrier, and existing public rights-of-way will remain unimpeded by the project. Consequently, no significant impact is anticipated. b) Less than significant impact with initioation. The project is located in Planning Area 3 of the Rosemead General Plan, and Mixed Use Overlay District C." The General Plan designation for the site is Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial, and site zoning is R-3, Multi- Family Residential. District C indicates that the intended site zoning is Planned Development/High-Density Residential (PD,tR-3)." The Mixed-Use designation of the General Plan currently limits residential density to 14 units per acre and commercial floor area ratio to 1:1 for residential/commercial mixed uses at this location.19 District C permits residential development by right, but requires a conditional use permit for any commercial or office development.20 The General Plan sets forth broad standards for mixed-use development, requiring scrutiny of the particular proposal for compatibility of the project with the site and environs, whether the proposed uses are allowed in the underlying zoning 11 City of Rosemead General Plan. Lund Use Element, Figure LU-9. 1e Id.. Table LU-3. 191d. at LU-4. Id., Tabie Rosemead N Project 37 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06=04 designations, and the specific development standards identified in the District's Implementation Plan.~l 3 zoning designation of this site is R-3, Medium Multiple Residential Zone. The R The - zoning designation would allow up to 32 dwelling units per acre with no entitlement permits needed prior to submitting architectural plans. The project proponent has applied for a Zone Change from R-3 to PD (Planned Development Zone), a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development Review to enable construction of a four-story, mixed-use structure that includes 32 condominium residential units. 4,160 square feet of restaurant space, and 6,685 square feet of retail space on a 1.04-acre site. This represents a residential density of 29.8 units per acre and floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.11. The proposed residential density is almost the same allowable number of units i.e. 30 units per acre pursuant to the City's General Plan high- density residential designation. Additionally, the project site is currently occupied by 15 residential units, with 32 proposed units, the developer will only be adding 17 units. The City is in the process of amending its General Plan to allow 30 units per acre for mixed- use projects. The proposed General Plan text amendment, permitting greater residential density in the mixed-use overlay districts, will make this project comply with the General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. C) N0 impact. The project site is not located within a habitat or natural communities conservation plan, and has been developed at an urban scale for many years. Consequently, no impact to conservation plans will result. Environmental issues 10. Mineral Resources ff'ould the project: a) Result in the loss of availability, of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ....a .1- -;ApnTC of 'he state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan _ i-A „cP nlan? Rosemead Mixed-Use 0 Initial Stu itigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-lise %-roiec' Evaluation of Environme-,ra Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No lmoact Mitigation Impact Impact 38 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 10. MINERAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) a) Less Titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve excavation and grading to build the subterranean parking garage and residential, retail, restaurant development. This grading will be minor since the site has been excavated, filled with engineered soils, and previously graded. Consequently, the proposed project is not likely to encounter any mineral deposits that may exist in subsurface materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not es of value to the region and the residents of the ignificant impact to mineral resourc have a s 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 will not affect locally important mineral resources as identified in local plans. 11. Noise would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise cess of standards established in the i l l ❑ ❑ ® ❑ n ex eve s local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of e db ❑ ❑ ® ❑ orn excessive groundbome vibration or groun noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient l ❑ ❑ ® ❑ s noise levels in the project vicinity above leve existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in it i i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ y c n ambient noise levels in the project v 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? ❑ ❑ • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental lmoacis Rosemead Mixed-Use erojecc 39 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-9064 Planned Development Permit No. 0( 11. NOISE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate noise that would result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Rosemead's General Plan or Municipal Code. Noise generated by the project would be produced as the result of additional traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above retail and restaurant uses for lease. Due to the amount of trips generated by the project and the existing volume of traffic on the surrounding roadways, the project-induced vehicle noise would not cause a perceptible change in the ambient noise levels. The activity/operational noise generated by the project would consist primarily of retail activity along the proposed storefronts and parking lot operational noise. Storefronts are proposed along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage and extending partially onto the Guess Street frontage. Exterior noise generated by commercial activities would be minimal in comparison to the existing street noise, and would be compatible with the surrounding uses along Rosemead Boulevard and at the Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street intersection. Parking lot operations would occur in the rear of the proposed structure, which would be surrounded by a decorative block wall, six feet in height, along the property line. Tress and a variety of landscaping materials are proposed to screen off residual noise levels. With the proposed property perimeter block wall fence, potential residual parking lot noise would not significantly impact the adjacent residential uses to the level of significance. The proposed residences on site would be exposed to the street noise along Rosemead Boulevard. Title 24 of the Code of California Regulations (CCR) requires new structures to be constructed such that the interior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in all habitable rooms does not exceed 45 decibels (dB). Noise insulation techniques that can be utilized to achieve acceptable interior noise levels include dual-glazed windows, use of sound-rated building materials, and conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning. Compliance with Title 24 requirements would ensure the proposed residences would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Rosemead's General Plan or Municipal Code. b) Less than Sianiftcant Impact. Construction activities would be the only possible source for ground-borne noise or vibration. Construction of the project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or excessive ground-borne noise levels. Ground-borne vibration is measured in terms of velocity of the vibration oscillations. When these vibrations exceed 0.01 in/sec, it is usually perceived as annoying by building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon the land use, the degree of sensitivity of the occupant and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 0.1 in/sec. before building • Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Project 40 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-9064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-0d damage occurs. in connection with construction activities, large bulldozers are the most likely source of vibration. Typical bulldozer usage will generate an approximate vibration event of 0.02 in%sec at a distance of 25 feet. This is below the threshold of significance and. therefore, the project would not result in significant groundborne noise or vibration impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant ground-borne noise or vibration impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to produce substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As discussed above in Section 11(a), the proposed project could generate noise by both increase traffic volumes and increased activity on the site. However, the potential increased activity onsite would not likely result in a measurable increase in ambient noise levels at any surrounding sensitive receptors. Similarly' the traffic the namb enby the proposed project is minimal and would not cause a perceptible Increase level of any of the adjacent roadways. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, and the project would have no related significant impacts. • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmenra Impacts d) Less than Significant Impact. With the exception of construction noise, the project will not produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site above existing levels without the project. The City's Municipal Code, § 8.36.060 sets forth noise level standards for sites adjacent to residential areas at 60 dBA between 7:00 A.M. and 10 p.m., and 45 dBA between 10:p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; § 86.36.030 limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturdav, and excludes Sunday and Federal holidays. During construction and implementation of this project, the applicant will be required to comply with City noise standards. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code will reduces any construction impacts to less than significant. e) No Impact. The proposed project is not be located near a public airport. and the project would have no airport related noise impacts. fl Less Titan Significant Impact. The proposed project is located approximately three miles from a private airstrip in the City of El Monte. However, the airport does not Qenerate air traffic with the associated noise on a large commercial scale to result into significant noise levels. Additionally, the project is at a sufficient distance from the existing airport. As discussed above in Section 11(a), the proposed project is required to comply with building standards, ensuring adequate noise insulation for residential dwellings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant noise impacts. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 41 • • City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project a Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Environmental impacts Evaluation Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 12.- Population and Housing 6T,'ould the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, w homes i ❑ ng ne either directly (e.g., by propos ❑ ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing f ❑ ❑ ❑ 7E housing. necessitating the construction o replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people t ❑ ® ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacemen housing elsewhere? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING (NO IMPACT) a) No Impact The proposed project will not i nduce substantial new population growth, because it is introducing only 17 new units and replacing 15 existing units (see also discussion of density issues in Land Use and Planning, above), in a General Plan-designated area for multi-family uses. b) No Impact The proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing units - it will displace 15 existing units, but will provide, if permitted, 32 new units. Consequently, the displaced units would be replaced by new units, without necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Less than significant impact. The proposed project may displace some existing residents on the project site who might not be able to afford the new units. However, substantial numbers of people will not be displaced and the sitting tenants will be given adequate time to vacate the units before construction. This will provide them with ample time to look for rentals else where in Rosemead without being significantly affected. The project would not result in the need to construct new housing elsewhere to accommodate the displaced residents because there is sufficient housing stock in san Gabriel valley. Consequently, although there may be some impact to existing residents, this impact does not reach to a level of significance Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 42 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 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 objectives for any of thpublic services: 1) 11 - a) Fire Protection. ° ° ° b) Police Protection? o ° ® ° c) Schools? ~ ° ® ° d) Parks? ® ° e) other public facilities? C SERVICES (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) 13. PUBLI a) Less Than Signiftcant Impact: The proposed project will slightly increase the residential dwellings in the project area from 15 units to 32 units thus may result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services. However, the proposed project will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The nearest fire station is the Los Angeles County Fire Station 42 located at 9319 East Valley Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. Required compliance with the uniform Fire Code, the California Fire Code, and the Los Angeles County Code, will ensure the proposed project would not significantly affect the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the City of Rosemead. Jnitia( StudylMitioated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project =vaiuafion of Environmental lmoacts b) No Impact: The proposed project would not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The nearest police station is Los Angeles County Sheriff Temple Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive, in Temple City. The proposed project would not significantly impact the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department in the City of Rosemead. c) Less Than Signiftcant Impact: The construction of the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above retail and restaurant uses for lease may result in minor indirect and direct increases in the local and regional population by attracting new residents. The retail and commercial portion on this project is not of a significant size to increase the local or regional population. Additionally, the residential portion of the project will replace the existing 15 units and increase dwelling units by 17 units. The project is, therefore, not expected to significantly impact the City's schools. Payment of school development fees will offset an potential demand for increased services regarding schools and the project would not significantly affect the level of service provided by the Rosemead School District. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 43 0 0 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 d) Less Than Si;nificant Impact: As stated earlier. the construction of the proposed mixed- use proiect may result in minor increases in the local and regional population. However, these minor increases are not anticipated to significantly impact population and housing demand nor create a demand for new park space. e) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated earlier, the construction of the proposed mixed- use proiect may result in a minor increase in the local and regional population by attracting new residents, as well as new residents seeking employment in the new commercial space. However, the project is not expected to significantly impact the City's existing public facilities, such as libraries. 14. Recreation 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 ED require the construction or expansion of El ❑ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. RECREATION (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development involves the construction of mixed-use project consisting of 31 condominium apartment units located directly above commercial, retail and restaurant uses. They could slightly increase the demand for recreational facilities. However, 15 dwelling units would be replaced by the project and only 17 dwelling units would actually be added. The increase in park use resulting from the addition of 17 residential units to the City would be negligible. The construction of this mixed-use project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities in a manner that would result in substantial physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact exiting parks and recreational facilities. b) No Impact: The project does include private recreational facilities, a roof garden, and would not require the expansion of public recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed development will minimally increase the residential units on the project site, and the project provides on site recreation that so there is no need to provide recreational facilities or expand recreational facilities elsewhere. Thus, the proposed mixed-use project would not result in the development of new recreational facilities and would have no related impacts. Initial St~/Mitigated Negative Declaration Y Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 44 0 0 • • 3861 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact 5tudt, Citv of Rosemead Eustern Investments Group. LLC INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study is for a proposed mixed-use project consisting of 33 condominium apartment units located immediately above approximately 13.600 square feet of leasable space to be utilized for commercial, retail and restaurant uses. The project site is located along Rosemead Boulevard, north of the 1-10 Freeway, in the City of Rosemead. This analysis evaluates the operation of three selected intersections. agreed to by City of Rosemead staff, as potentially being significantly impacted by the proposed project. The following report provides key traffic information regarding existing traffic volumes, an analysis of impacts at study intersections and a determination of Levels of Service (LOS) using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. Mitigation measures are recommended where appropriate. Proiect Description The proposed project would be constructed on an approximately one-acre parcel located on the eastern side of Rosemead Boulevard, between Guess Street to the north and Ralph Street to the south. The project would consist of 33 residential condominium units (6 three bedroom units and 27 two bedroom units), approximately 13,600 square feet of retail and restaurant space and a single-level subterranean parking structure with a capacity of 128 spaces. Figure I shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the surrounding street network. Proiect Analvsis In conjunction with City of Rosemead staff. a total of three intersections, two signalized and one unsignalized, were selected for level of service (LOS) analysis. The three intersections represent locations that may potentially be impacted by traffic due to the proposed project. The study intersections are: 1. Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard; 2. Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. and 3. Rosemead Boulevard and Marshall Street. Traffic counts were conducted at the three study intersections on Wednesday, October 5, 2005. The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location. EXISTING CONDITIONS MMA conducted a site visit in order to assess existing conditions at the project site and within the study area. The field inventory included review of intersection geometric layout, traffic control, lane configurations, posted speed limits, transit service, land use, and parking. A7ever. A16huddes Associates 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mired-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Cin, of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I - PROJECT SITE LOCATION 2 FIGURE'-) - EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS 4 FIGURE 3 - EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 FIGURE 4 - RELATED PROJECTS LOCATIONS 10 FIGURE 5 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION RELATED PROJECTS I. 2. AND 3 12 FIGURE 6 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION RELATED PROJECTS 4 & 5 13 FIGURE 7 - TOTAL RELATED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 8 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 15 FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED TRIP DISTRIBUTION 18 FIGURE 10 - PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 19 FIGURE 11 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 20 FIGURE 12 - PROJECT SITE PLAN 22 FIGURE 12 - PROJECT DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS .23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I - LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 6 TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 7 TABLE 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 TABLE 4 - RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION 11 TABLE 5 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT CONDITIONS 11 TABLE 6 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 16 TABLE 7 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS 17 Mohaddes Associates ii • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I PROJECT DESCRJPTIO\ .....................1 PROJECT ANALYSIS .....................1 EXISTING CONDITIONS I DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INTERSECTIONS .....................3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROAD NETWORK .....................3 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES .....................5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS .....................6 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD CRITERIA .....................7 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 7 TRAFFIC VOLUMES .....................8 FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS 8 CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS 16 TRIP GENERATION ...................16 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENI . ...................17 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 21 Alohaddes.4 ssociates Ll FINAL REPORT 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Prepared for Eastern Investments Group, LLC. Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4810 Los Angeles, CA 90017 October 31, 2007 305-1672 9 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial StudylMitigatlogative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ei.,....oa nP,.Plnnment Permit No. 06-04 California history or prehistory. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources. b) Less than Significant: The proposed project will not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, population, public services, traffic, and utility impacts. However, the the proposed project does project's contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) No Impact: As discussed in Sections 8 and 15 of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Section 6 of this document explains that occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The earth and geology conditions of the site would be alleviated by the required compliance adverse effects on human Building Code and, thus, the proposed project would not result beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 53 0 0 0 Initial 5tudy/MitigAgative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental impacts oo--i novPl❑❑ment Permit No. 06-04 The proposed project would not affect the handling of solid waste on the regional scale and would not generate solid waste in excess of the landfill capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. g) No Impact. The project will comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project site is located in an area that is served by Consolidated Disposal Services Inc and a landfill able to accept the solid waste material that complies with federal, state and local statues regulating to the disposal of solid waste. Environmental issues 17. Mandatory Findings of Signif a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or orehistory? T 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 ti ill cause substantial adverse effects on h„man hein2s. either directly or indirectly? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant: As discussed in Section 4 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed 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. Similarly, as discussed in Section 5 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological. or paleontological resources, and thus, would not eliminate any important examples of Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation 13 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 11 z ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Rosemead Mixed-use eroleci 52 0 0 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 No. 06-04 initial Study/MitigAgative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluafior o' _,nvi-ronrnenial impacts b) No Impact. The project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus causing significant environmental effects. The carrying capacities of the current water and wastewater systems are adequate to support the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium units and the associated commercial units to be utilized as, retail, restaurant and office uses. c) 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 to not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. 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. d) No Impact. The project would have sufficient water supplies available to service the project from existing entitlements and resources, so new or expanded entitlements will not be required. The California American 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 from the California American Water Company 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. These existing water supplies are adequate to serve most of the proposed project, this particular one inclusive. e) No Impact. The proposed project would develop condominium apartment uses would not directly above commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease. proposed significantly increase the population or the need for wastewater services in Rosemead. Wastewater in the City of Rosemead is serviced by LACCSMD, and the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider serving the project that it has an inadequate capacity to serve the project. Thus, the proposed project will not have a significant impact. fl Less Than Significant 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 46 in Los Angeles County, Scholl Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Los Angeles Countv, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF in Orange County, Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in Orange County. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 51 0 0 • • City Rosemead Negative Declaration Initial StudylMitiaat Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-0d Evaluation of Environmental Impacts d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ~ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve ❑ ❑ ❑ roject that it has adequate capacity to serve the p the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid ❑ waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 11 ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact. Domestic sewage typically meets wastewater treatment requirements because wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage. 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 ston-n drains. The storm drain system was designed to prevent flooding by camling excess rainwater away from the City streets out to the ocean. Because the system contains no filters, it now serves the unintended function of carrying urban pollution straight 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. The Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSMD) treats wastewater from the City of Rosemead. Rosemead facilities are operated and maintained by LACCSMD. which has adopted policies and programs that have been approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The LARWQCB requires Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be adhered too, to ensure a cleaner Water Sources and cleaner environment. Due the proposed project scale, it is not anticipated to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of LARWQCB. Further more, 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. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 50 • • c: City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06.9064 .,___...f., nr,_nd initial Study/Mitigated lgative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project d) No Impact: The project will not result in increased hazards due to a design feature. There are no sham curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses proposed as an activity related to the construction of this project. e) No Impact: 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. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the Fire Department's standards during permit review period. Final project plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Traffic Engineer and the City's Fire Marshall to ensure that the site's access complies with all emergency access standards. With the required compliance with all City's Traffic Engineer and Fire Marshall's standards, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, the proposed project will develop a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above office, retail, and restaurant uses for lease. Accordingly, the project would need adequate parking to accommodate the parking needs of future retail clients and residents of proposed condominiums. As such, based upon the City of Rosemead parking requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 138 on-site parking spaces including handicap van accessible parking spaces. The total number of available parking spaces proposed in the ground level parking lot and the subterranean parking garage is 143 with 8 handicap accessible spaces located immediately ground level and in the basement of the project. The proposed project will be provided with adequate parking and will not result to inadequate parking capacity 16. Utilities and Service Systems 1=Gould the project: 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? Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 49 0 0 city of Rosemead conditional Use Permit No. 06-9064 ...,____r n,..,..t.......ont Gprmit No. 06-04 0 Initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration Rosemead rilXeb_JSe ~roreC,' Evaluation of Environrrrcr;r 1:1 cs size of the retail component the Specialty Retail Center (Land Use Code 814) trips rates were selected to be used in calculating project-related trips; ITE has not developed AM peak hour trips rates for this land use. Additionally, The City of Rosemead and MMA determined that the small trips rates for a Shopping Center (Land Use Code 220) were to be utilized in the AM peak hour to ensure that any potential impacts that may occur as the result of project- related traffic were identified. A summary of these calculations is shown in Table 15 - 4. Furthermore, the proposed project site is along a Los Angeles County Congestion Management Procgram (CMP) Highway or Roadway, State Route 19, Rosemead Boulevard. This segment of Rosemead Boulevard operated at a LOS level F in 1992, the base year established by the MTA, and the LOS has experienced no change between 1992 and 2003. Furthermore, the proposed project would not noticeably affect any CMP Highways or Roadways. As such, the proposed project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the project would have less than significant impacts to designated Roads or Highways. Table 15 - 4 Trips Ends Generated Weekda I Land Use SizFUUn Y AM Weekday PM Daily Fl out Total In I Out Total - 5nopping Center (AM 13.6 1,000 Sq. ft 29 1g I 47 - I onl i Specialty Retail (PM 13.5 1,000 Sq. ft - _ 24 30 54 620 only) 349 Apartments 33 Dwelling Unit 4 16 20 23 13 36 I 969 Total 33 36 67 47 43 90 c) Less than Significant Impact: The project may have temporary impacts to the sidewalk and Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street during construction. However, once completed, the project would maintain adequate pedestrian-friendly access along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street and during project design process, the applicant will be required to provide required bicycle racks. The proposed project would not otherwise impact alternative transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and the project would have no related si,-ml ficant impacts. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 48 0 0 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 os...,ir Nn 06-04 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaiuatior o` ~nvironme_ cacts Table 1 - 3 identifies the criteria followed by the City of Rosemead and the County of Los Angeles to evaluate the significance of a project's impacts to intersections. Table 15 - 3 Level of Service Threshold Criteria As defined by the 2004 congestion Management Program for 10s angies County, the City of Rosemead considers a project to have a significant impact on a roadway's Level of Service it • The proposed protect causes an increase in traffic demand on a intersections of two percent of capacity N/C > 0.02) or greater, causing the facility to operate at LOS F (VIC > 1.00); or • The facility is already at LOS F and the proposed project increases traffic demand on an intersections by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02). Peak hour impacts. Table 15 - 2 illustrates that three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hours. While the overall demand on these intersections does increase with the addition of the proposed project, the incremental increase associated with project-related traffic is less than two percent. Therefore, the proposed project does not significantly impact traffic operations at any of the study intersections. Short-term construction impacts. The project will result in temporary street or lane closures as the result of construction activities. Along Rosemead Boulevard, while this proposed improvement is being constructed, traffic operations may be briefly interrupted. However, these impacts will be short-term and temporary in nature thus will cause a less than significant impact to local traffic circulation and street capacity load. b) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above in this report, the project would develop a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units, generating 969 daily trips including 67 trips during the AM peak hour and 90 trips during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the condominiums would be located directly above approximately 12,580 969 square feet to be utilized as commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease, generating daily trips. MMA analyzed the effects of project-related traffic growth when added to the Future Base plus Related projects conditions. The future conditions with the proposed project were analyzed based on an estimate of the number of new trips generated by the project. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were calculated based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7''' Edition. Due to the small Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 47 0 0 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Permit No. 06-04 Table 15 -1 Study Area Intersections Control §2Rosemead ead BoulevardNaliey Boulevard Signal Boulevard/Guess Street - North Leg (U) No Signal ead Boulevard/Guess Street - South Leg (U) No Signal I Signal 3 1 Rosemead Boulevard/Marshall Street Jurisdiction City of Rosemead City of Rosemead City of Rosemead City of Rosemead intersections were obtained through Existing traffic volumes for these three combination of traffic counts conducted by the City of Rosemead _Transportation Research on the existing traffic volumes, and using TRAFFIX software Board Critical Movement Analysis Circular 212 Planning Method (for signalized intersections), and the Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 method (for unsignalized intersections), MMA determined the levels of service (LOS) and volume/capacity ratio (V/C) for the following scenarios: • Existing conditions (2005) • Future conditions (2006) without Project • Future conditions (2006) with Project Table 15 - 2 shows the LOS and V/C ratios of the 3 analyzed intersections during each of these three scenarios. Table 15 - 2 Volume Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service for the Analyzed Intersections Existing Conditions V/C I LOS Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - South leg (U) AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street AM PM (U) This intersection is non-signaliz Future Conditions (2006) without Project V/C LOS Future Conumons (2006) with Project Vic LOS 1.013 0.970 F E 1.038 1.004 F F 1.043 1.013 F F 19.8 19.6 C C 20.6 20.7 C C 22.2 22.9 C C 49.0 41.6 E E 26.8 19.1 D C 27.5 20.3 D C 0.923 E 0.885 D 0.915 E 1 I 1.049 F 1.006 E 1.039 F and the LOS result is shown in seconds of delay rather than V/C Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 46 9 0 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Environmental Issues 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 bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With impact mitigation 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? C D Less Than Significant No .Impact Impact Z ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ Result in inadequate parxtng uapa~iL 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 residential condominium units located directly o Rosemeadnon the restaurant uses on an approximately one-acre parcel located in the City Ralph Street on the east side of Rosemead Boulevard, between Guess Street on the north, and south. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (MMA) prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project dated April 06, 2007. This study determined the proposed project would generate 969 daily trips, including 67 trips during the AM peak hour and 90 trips during the PM peak hour.'' MMA examined the existing, future, and proposed conditions of the following three (3) intersections to determine the potential traffic impacts: assumes a pass-by trip reduction and a initial Study/Mitiaated Yvegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts reduction 45 0 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic, Impact Stud_v City of Rosemc ad Eastern Investments Group, LLC W e d9 EE > NOT TO SCALE H CO O lr Valley Blvd Guess St Guess St y o a Ralph St Marshall Street 1-10 WB Ramps r.r■ Meyer, Mohaddes Associates business unif of hem, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 1 City of Rosemead Project Site Location G u5Ek5lO:s Ax Axx%.CkA RMemrx Un CA'v ,,(9k OE 1745 Mohaddes Associates • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group. LLC Description of Existing Intersections Figure 2 illustrates the existing intersection lane configurations for the four analyzed intersections. A brief description of each study intersection follows. Rosemead Boulevard at Valler Boulevard is controlled by an eight-phase traffic signal with permitted phasing for all left-turn movements. All four approaches are striped as a one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. Rosemead Boulevard at North Guess Street is an unsignalized T -intersection that is stop-controlled in the westbound approach. The northbound approach is striped as one through lane and one shared through-right lane. The southbound approach is striped as two through lanes. The westbound approach is striped as one right-turn lane. A raised median prohibits westbound traffic from turning left onto Rosemead Boulevard. Rosemead Boulevard at South Guess Street is an unsignalized T -intersection that is stop-controlled in the eastbound approach. The northbound approach is striped as one left-turn lane and two through lanes. The southbound approach is striped as one through lane and one shared through/right lane. The eastbound approach is striped as one left-tum/right-turn lane. Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street is controlled by an eight-phase traffic signal with protected phasing for all left-turn movements. The northbound approach is stripped as one left-tum lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. The remaining approaches are striped as one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right lane. Description of Existing Road Netm-ork The following describes existing conditions at the major roadways within the study area Rosemead Boulevard is a north-south major arterial that is designated as State Route 19 (SR-19). This facility provides a linkage between the Foothill Freeway (SR-210), the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10), the Pomona Freeway (SR-60). and the Golden State Freeway (1-5). This facility is located immediately adjacent to the western edge of the project and provides access to the parking area associated with the project. The existing lane configuration of this facility consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a raised landscaped median and exclusive left-turn pockets at all intersections with the exception of the northern intersection with Guess Street. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street in mid-block segments during non-peak hours but is completely restricted near study intersections. Valleti• Boulevard is an east-west major arterial, located north of the project, that parallels the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) from San Gabriel Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue to through the City of Rosemead. This roadway consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a striped median and exclusive left-turn pockets at all intersections. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street in mid-block segments but is restricted near study intersections. Guess Street is an east-west local street that west of Walnut Grove Avenue and extends east intermittently to Rosemead Boulevard where it travels through an offset intersection and continues eastward to Baldwin Avenue. This facility consists of one unstriped travel lane in each direction. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street. Nfohaddes Associates • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC ma E > mm NOT TO SCALE m 0 ~un` r Valley Blvd tl u Guess St Guess St Ralph St r l~ r Marshall Street lip, 1-10 WB Ramps Meyer, Mohaddes Associates i wsiftss Unit of kdis, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 2 City of Rosemead Existing Lane Configurations u,,- ".'...d%rv,,,xC ,R,- dT yDn.nbuW~CDR 0.17 OS Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 4 • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citi, of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC Marshall Street is a collector street, located south of the project, which parallels the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) from San Gabriel Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue through the City of Rosemead. In the immediate area of Rosemead Boulevard. this roadway consists of two travel lanes in each direction then narrows to one travel lane in each direction. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street but is restricted near study intersections. Existing Public Transit Services Existing transit service operating in close proximity to the project site is operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). The City of Rosemead also operates a local circulator route that travels through the study area. The METRO transit routes passing through the study area include three local routes, one limited-stop route and one express bus route. Brief descriptions of these routes are provided below: Route 76 is an east-west line that travels between Downtown Los Angeles and the El Monte Busway Station. This line utilizes Valley Boulevard when traveling through the study area. This route operates 24-hours daily, seven days a week and on holidays with 10 to 20 minute headways from early morning to mid-evening. Headways then lengthen to 30 to 45 minutes before reaching one hour for "night owl service." Route 176 is an east-west line that operates between Glassell Park and the El Monte Busway Station, utilizing Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This route operates on weekdays only with 30 to 60 minute headways from early morning to mid-evening. Route 266 is a north-south line that travels from the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station to the Lakewood Center Mall. This line utilizes Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates weekdays and Saturdays from 5:OOAM to 11:00PM with 25 minute headways and Sundays and major holidays from 5:30AM to 10:00PM with 40 to 50 minute headways. Route 376 is an east-west peak period limited-stop route that operates between Downtown Los Angeles and the El Monte Busway Station. utilizing Valley Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates weekdays only from 7:00 to 9:OOAM and 3:00 to 6:OOPM with 15 minute headways. Route 489 is an east-west express line that travels between Downtown Los Angeles and Temple City, utilizing Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates during the weekday peak periods from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM with buses traveling south along Rosemead Boulevard and west along Valley Boulevard in the mornings. During the evening peak period, from 4:20 PM to 6:20 PM, the buses travel in the opposite direction. Headways are generally between 20 and 40 minutes. The City of Rosemead operates the following local circulator route through the study area: Rosemead Shopping Express is a local circulator that consists of two shuttles traveling in opposite directions along a fixed route throughout the City of Rosemead. This route uses the Rosemead Square shopping center as a transit hub and travels along Garvey Avenue at it passes through the study area. This service operates on weekdays from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM and on weekends from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM with 50-55 minute headways. Afohaddes Associates • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group. LLC TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Traffic operations in the project vicinity were analyzed, as discussed with the City of Rosemead staff. using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. as defined in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis. The ICU methodology was used to determine volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and service level characteristics for each of the three signalized study intersections. The one unsignalized intersection level of service was calculated based on the average delays-based methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Level of Service Definitions Table 1 describes the level of service (LOS) concept and the operating conditions expected under each level of service for signalized intersections. Table 2 describes the level of service concept and operating conditions expected under each level of service for unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level VtC of Description Ratio Service A Uncongested operations. all queues clear in a single signal cycle. < 0.600 Very light congestion: an occasional approach phase is fully 699 --0 600 to 0 B utilized. . . C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. >0.700 to 0.799 Significant congestion on critical approaches. but intersection D functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle >0.800 to 0.899 during short peaks. No long-standing queues formed. Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on critical approaches. Blockage if intersection may occur if traffic signal >0 999 900 to 0 F does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue . . may block nearby intersections upstream of critical approaches. F Total breakdown, slop-and-go operation. > 1.000 Source. Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular 212. Interim Materials on liighwa) CapacitY. 1980 ,er, Mohaddes Associates • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stop-Controlled Level Intersection Description Delay (seconds Service per vehicle) Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite A open. turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find < 10 freedom of operation. Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted B within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach >10 and < 15 to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues - stall to form. Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 C seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most >15 and < 25 drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 < ,5 >25 and seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. _ Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on E critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several >35 and < 50 minutes. Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of > 50 F vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore. volumes carried arc not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source Nig"a), Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, "transportation Research Board, Washington, D C_ 2000 Level of Service Threshold Criteria The significant impact definitions provided in the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County were utilized in this study. These definitions are generally applied to all CMP facilities within the County. but the City of Rosemead has adopted these standards and they are to be applied to all study intersections. The definitions state that a significant impact is deemed to have occurred if the proposed project causes the following conditions: • An increase in traffic demand on a facility of two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02) or greater, causing the facility to operate at LOS F (V/C > 1.00); or ■ The facility is already at LOS F and the proposed project increases traffic demand on a facility by two percent of capacity. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS The morning and evening peak hour level of service analyses were conducted at the three existing study intersections based on the existing traffic volume counts and the methodologies described previously. The level of service analysis was performed using TRAFFIX software, version 7.7. Mohaddes Associates 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC Traffic Volumes New traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday. October 5. 2005 at the three study intersections. The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location. Figure 3 illustrates the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes at the existing study intersections. Traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 summarizes the level of service calculations for the study intersections under existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. TARITF. - EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS V/C LOS NYC 1 Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard F 1,013 E 0.970 2 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) C 19.8 C 19.6 7 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - South Leg (U) E 49.0 E 41.6 4 Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street D 0.885 F 1.006 (U) This intersection is unsignalized and the LOS result is shown in seconds of delay rather man vi,- The results indicate three of the four study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service in both the AM and PM peak hours. In the AM peak hour, the Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection operates at LOS F and the Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection operates at LOS F in the PM peak hour. As defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program.for Los Angeles County, these intersections are considered to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS Traffic forecasts for Future Base plus Related Projects conditions are calculated through a two step process. The first step consists of the application of an ambient growth factor to existing traffic volumes. Ambient growth is the traffic growth that will occur in the study area due to general growth in employment, housing and regional trips in the region. Based on consultation with City of Rosemead, an ambient growth rate of one percent per year was used in the analysis. The horizon year for this project has been assumed to be 2007 and will be used as the timeframe for future conditions since full occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur during that time. In the second step, traffic growth due to specific, planned or approved development projects in the study area were then added to the existing plus ambient growth traffic volumes. The list of related projects included in this study was compiled by MMA in conjunction with the City of Rosemead staff. It was determined that five planned proiects are located within close proximity of the proposed project site. The location of these related projects are shown in Figure 4. Mohaddes Associates • 3861 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Tra is Impact Study Citv of Rosemead 11 Eastern Investments Group. LLC v m > NOT TO SCALE co to O It ~n ` N N - ~ ~ `14197 w.535/4tE ,t ,s7noz Valley Blvd 171 rss-4 t r 3641677 - 8 7091,971 a ?f N O j t56r7 Guess St t r r _ 04 i7i Guess St 1 a 213 J . 69140-,% m e Ralph St a L97ntt -313/169 J j +x,441,67 Marshall Street W75.1 `y 1 r OW48 LEGEND XXX/XXX AM7PM 1-10 WB Ramps _ a.rr Mohaddes Associates 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 3 Citv of Rosemead Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Mohaddes.4ssociates 9 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Croy of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC m > NOT To SCALE t0 m O Valley Blvd Guess St Guess St m m o ca a LEGEND Levitz Store Renovation Target Back Office ® Rosemead Square Vacancies Ralph St ED 8930 Mission Dr S 3824 Rosemead Blvd Marshall Street 1-10 WB Ramps A, A Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a bushms unu of Aerls, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 4 City of Rosemead Related Project Locations "SER-N] JaX xxMGFL1Acv+, 3Tp E>W-mi COP 0!•170! .Mohaddes Associates 10 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Trajftc Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC These projects consist of the following developments: I . Revitalization of a Levitz Furniture store containing approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space. 2. Development of approximately 80,000 square feet of back-office space at an existing Target store; 3. Renovation of approximately 10.000 square feet of restaurant and retail space in the Rosemead Square shopping center; 4. A mixed-use project containing 16 condominium units and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail, office and restaurant use: and 5. An eight-unit apartment building currently under construction. The total number of vehicle trips generated by these projects is given in Table 4. Based on discussions with City of Rosemead staff, the trip distribution assumptions utilized in assigning the vehicle trips associated with Related Projects 1 through 3 to the regional roadway network are shown in Figure 5 and the vehicle trips associated with Related Projects 4 and 5 are shown in Figure 6. TARi.F A- RF.I.ATF.D PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Trips Ends Generated Land Use Size Units Weekday AM Weekday PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total 1 Levitz Store Retail '0 KSF 2 I 3 4 5 9 101 Revitalization 2 Target Store Back- 80 _ KSF 109 15 124 20 99 119 881 office Development 3 Rosemead Square 10 KSF 6 4 10 18 20 38 429 Renovation 8930 Mission Drive 201 KSF! 24 9 33 22 32 54 527 4 Mixed Use Project 16 DU 3824 Rosemead g DU I 3 4 3 2 5 $ _ Blvd Total 142 32 174 67 158 225 1,991 Source. Institute of Transportation Engineers, I rip (ieneranon, r uaition. Note KSF = 1.000 square feet, DU = Dwelling Unit The related projects trip assignment, shown in Figure 7, was then added to the existing plus ambient growth traffic volumes. The resulting traffic volumes were utilized in calculating the levels of service for the study intersections for the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions for the AM and PM peak hours as summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 8. TABLE 5: FUTURE BASE PLUS 12171 ATFT) PRO.IFCTS CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour I'M Peak Hour LOS V/C Los VIC 1 Rosemead Boulevard at Vallee Boulevard F 1.038 F 1.004 Z Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) C 20.6 C 20.7 3 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - South Leg (U) D 26.8 C 19.1 4 Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street 1' 0.915 F 1.039 (U) This intersection is unsignalized and the LOS result is shown in seconds of aeiay rather than rn. Mever. Afohaddes Associates • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Afixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Studv City of Rosemead 1H Guess St • Eustern Investments Group. LLC m -0. 0 e E z nOT TO SCALE m O Valley Blvd qtr o~oo ~o Guess St LEGEND ®7 Levitz Store Renovation Target Back Office ® Rosemead Square Vacancies Ralph St Marshall Street ~2%_* ~tr N t0 N !'7 I-10 wB aE 2*--, . Ramps NI z~ o°ia~ 'ever, Mohaddes Associates a WSMess MOt of Reds, tnc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 5 City of Rosemead Trip Distribution Related Projects 1, 2, and 3 i i n ~.i ~ a [_i[ C.R.'~Rr. •.m.r:i~ 1,.r. ;~,.e~~ i' LS Mohaddes Associates 12 • 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-L'se Project Traffic Impact Studv Cit1- of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC E> r ~m R O Guess St LEGEND ® 8930 Mission Dr 4 • • •.XX Related Project 4 Trip Distribution ® 3824 Rosemead Blvd. r--xx Related Project 5 Trip Distribution O N N tom 1 1 ~ ono N C) v) N ~ !a I • N o n N t0 I • ~R 1-10 WB Ramps Mohaddes Associates 0 NOT TO SCA-L E Valley Blvd Guess St Ralph St Marshall Street - CT a business unN of heris, loc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project City of Rosemead FIGURE 6 Trip Distribution Related Projects 4 and 5 Alohaddes Associates 13 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Studv City of*Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC v ~o m y E > NOT TO SCALE mm N 0 a N j rim Valley Blvd ~b Guess St Guess St t m m a oL9 CL Ralph St p-210 Marshall Street 2m-% 1 1 Jr N : N a~a LEGEND XXX/XXX AM/PM 1-10 WB Ramps Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a business W dl of Hens, kw. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 7 Citv of Rosemead Total Related Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes C us,i%'-- rnoam cCOR UK 17.05, Alohaddes Associates 14 0 0 3867 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC V m~ E > N07 70 SCALE mm 0 sY oN h R 1O C X147194 N ^ e +-54&426 J ,r162r211 Valley Blvd 1741301 J 1 f r 3921640 - m 2242007 A ~o h h N m 4 %`59122 Guess St S tr ( - ~,S Rb I u m Guess St J j o o 213 a 70W,~ 1 1 a Ralph St m A N ~ a -31WI72 `149119, Marshall Street s9n7~1t! 91ns3~ Qm A l: LEGEND XXXIXXX AM/PM 1-10 WB Ramps Meyer, Mohaddes Associates e business unit of hens, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Bh-d Mixed Use Project FIGURE 8 Cih' of Rosemead Future Base + Related Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alohaddes Associates 15 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citv of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group. LLC As can be seen in Table 5, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection are expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. As defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, these intersections are considered to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS The Cumulative Project scenario analyzes the effects of project-related traffic growth when added to the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions. The number of new trips generated by the proposed project was calculated and added to the Future Base plus Related Projects traffic volumes. Levels of service for each of the studv intersections were then calculated for these new volumes and compared against those calculated under the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions to determine if the proposed project would create any significant traffic impacts. Trip Generation The future conditions with the proposed project were analyzed based on an estimate of the number of new trips generated by the project. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were calculated based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE), Trip Generation, 7`h Edition. The land uses were identified as 13.600 square feet of retail space (Land Use Code 814 and 820) and 33 residential dwelling units (Land Use Code 220). Due to the small size of the retail component, the Specialty Retail Center (Land Use Code 814) trips rates were selected to be used in calculating project-related trips. Unfortunately. ITE has not developed AM peak hour trip rates for this land use. Based on discussions with City of Rosemead staff, it was detennined that the trips rates for a Shopping Center (Land Use Code 220) were to be utilized in the AM peak hour to ensure that any potential impacts that may occur as the result of project-related traffic were identified. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trips Ends Generated Land Use Size Units Weekday AM weekday PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 13.6 (AM only) KSF 29 18 47 Specialh Retail Center 13.6 KSF (PM onh) I i _ 24 3() 54 620 Apartments 33 DU 4 16 20 23 13 36 349 Total I 33 34 67 47 43 90 969 Note KSF = 1,000 square feet DU = Dwelling unit Source Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7°i Edition Mever, Mohaddes Associates 16 i • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Cron of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group. LLC Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the project. The geographic distribution of project trips is based on the locations of local activity centers, street system that serves the site, and recent traffic data collected in the project study area. The trip distribution utilized for the Cumulative Project conditions analysis was developed in conjunction with City of Rosemead staff and is shown in Figure 9. Trips generated by the project, as shown in Table 6. were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the distribution patterns, shown in Figure 9, to estimate the project related peak-hour traffic at each of the study intersections. Figure 10 illustrates the project trip assignment onto the future roadway network for the AM and PM peak hours. The project trip assignment was then added to the Future Base plus Related Projects traffic volumes. The resulting Cumulative Project traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figure 11. These traffic volumes were then utilized to calculate levels of service for the study intersections for Cumulative Project conditions. Table 9 summarizes the results of the Cumulative Project traffic analysis. TARIT 9- CUM1?LATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS Future Without Project Future With Project i AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AN1 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour if t Si Intersect on ican gn L LOS NX LOS V/C A V/C• LOS V/c A V/C• Impact? I Rosemead Boulevard at Valley F 1.038 F 1.004 F 1.043 0.005 F 1.013 0.009 N N Boulevard 2 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess C 20.6 C 20.7 C 22.2 1.6 C 22.9 2.2 N N Street-North Leg (U) 3 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess D 26.8 C 19.1 D 27.5 0.7 C 20.3 1.2 N N Street - South Leg (U) 4 Rosemead Boulevard at E 0.915 F 1.039 E 0.923 0.008 F 1.049 0.010 N N Marshall Street A V/C represents the difference in the volume to capacity ratio between the 1-uture Base with rroject ano the ruture base anaivsm ytxnanm As can be seen in Table 9, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection are expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. Significant impact criteria thresholds, as defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles Countj% state that a significant impact is deemed to occur when a proposed project increases the demand on an intersection that operates at LOS F in the Future No Project scenario by two percent or more of overall capacity (V/C > 0.020). While the overall demand on both of these intersections does increase with the additional of the proposed project, the incremental increase associated with project-related traffic is less than two percent. Therefore, the proposed project does not significantly impact traffic operations at any of the study intersections. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. Mohaddes Associate's 17 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments Group, LLC 9 t0 E . ~ m O NOT 10 SCALE M m r 10 Valley Blvd Tom ? r M O m 0 Nevada St f ~a X58 r 1o Guess St m t r ~d Guess St T ' m _y N IL g ao g r 22 Ralph St S N if N y-5 Marshall Street SJ t 2 1-10 WB Ramps rr ,f'VF, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a b"in"s unit Of trans, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 9 City of Rosemead Proposed Trip Distribution Mohaddes Associates 18 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC dM 8 E > NOT TO SCALE m N co O w m e j or era Valley Blvd W5 Nevada St f ro az V vs Guess St ,7 ~ y o I Guess St m • I? ~ r N 4 n n ~ a,ra rT~ Ralph St W N Nis j L 212 Marshall Street za t a N LEGEND XXXIXXX AWRM 1-10 WB Ramps Mohaddes Associates a Dus#mn unit of It m, Me. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 10 City of Rosemead Project Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Mever. Mohaddes associates 19 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Studi, Cih' of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC Guess St a a sS Guess St J Z!3 ~ ~ t 70!41 -'k 4 m d %-wa Project t r Driveway ~a m LEGEND XXX/XXX AMIPM V d9 E_> mm 0 Qo r 54fi1{26 J ~ t rlestt,e /74/501 t r 3921540-. m m - 22712ob-, N m 2r P lk 56tH i Qu 0 ~ 1011115 r 3191172 J j ~ r-145751 51791 1 1 r 91 r253 + + o 119157 A ° C 1-10 WB Ramps B NOT 70 SCALE Valley Blvd Guess St Ralph St Marshall Street G) Mohaddes Associates 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 11 City of Rosemead Cumulative Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Alohaddes Associates 20 • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffc Impact Study Citv of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group. LLC SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS Site Access The project site plan, as shown in Figure 12, with provide access into the proposed project via two driveway locations, one along Rosemead Boulevard and the second along Guess Street. The proximity of these driveway locations to the existing roadway network is shown in Figure 13. Driveway "A" will be located approximately 250 feet south of Guess Street along Rosemead Boulevard. This facility will form a T-intersection with Rosemead Boulevard. This intersection will be stop-controlled in the westbound approach and consist of two travel lanes. one entry lane and one exit lane. Traffic movements at this intersection will be limited to a northbound right-turn from Rosemead Boulevard into the project and a westbound right-turn from Driveway "A" to northbound Rosemead Boulevard. Driveway "B" will be located approximately 175 feet east of Rosemead Boulevard along Guess Street. This driveway will form a T-intersection with Guess Street and will be stop-controlled in the northbound approach. Traffic movements at this intersection will include an eastbound right-turn and a westbound left-turn from Guess Street into the project and northbound left and right turns from Driveway "A" onto Guess Street. A landscaped median currently extends along the center of Rosemead Boulevard in the proximity of the project. A break in the median is provided at the Rosemead Boulevard at Westbound Guess Street intersection, which is located directly west of the proposed project. Southbound left-turns at this intersection are prohibited. Residents and patrons wishing to enter the site must travel south to Ralph Street, and make either a U-turn and continue north on Rosemead Boulevard to Driveway "A" or turn left onto Ralph Street and continue east to Hart Avenue. At Hart Avenue, drivers would turn left and continue north to Guess Street where they would turn left again and travel west to Driveway "B". These access routes are not expected to impact traffic operations along either Rosemead Boulevard or Ralph Street due to the small number of vehicles expected to make this movement. Traffic exiting the proposed project and wishing to travel south along Rosemead Boulevard would have the choice three options: Exit using Driveway `'A" and make a U-turn at Westbound Guess Street; Exit using Driveway "A" and continue north to Nevada Avenue before making a U-turn: and Exit using Driveway "B" and turn right onto Guess Street and travel around the block before accessing Rosemead Boulevard by making a left-turn from Ralph Street. Due to the limited distance between Driveway "A" and Westbound Guess Street, the initial traffic impact analysis assumed that Option 1 was not feasible and therefore was not included. A supplemental analysis was conducted for Option 1 and it was determined that this movement would not impact traffic operations at the Rosemead Boulevard at Westbound Guess Street intersection. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 21 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of'Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC 9 CUSSS ST. NOT 70 SCALE i W I I I , I , ~ I I - N ! I 1 l 1 I I I I II - I . ALIPS =ri ~ I ~ I tt I r~i r - 9 DRIV EWAY A - a - Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a business uM of Herm inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 12 ON of Rosemead Project Site Plan r..rrslusxx•.ulx.x%xM'.GIU•llerarnarae 1-Onr,r'.4<~(:lkt ^e'~•G5 Mohaddes Associates 22 0 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Studv City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC 23 9 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Studi, City qI Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC On-Site Circulation Analvsis Based on an analysis of the site plan provided in Appendix C. no significant on-site traffic circulation issues were identified. Parking lot aisles and garage ramps have been designed to meet City of Rosemead Municipal Code requirements. Both driveway locations provide adequate vehicle storage with only Driveway "B" expected to experience temporary queuing when vehicles are vacating parking spaces. PARKING ANALYSIS Based upon City of Rosemead parking Requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 133 on- site parking spaces and 6 handicap accessible spaces. The total number of available parking spaces proposed in the ground level parking lot and the subterranean parking garage is 143 with 8 handicap accessible spaces located immediately adjacent to the project. CONCLUSIONS The results of this report show that the proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections in either the AM or PM peak hour. This evaluation was conducted as if each use was a free- standing separate facility, and there were no non-auto trips between adjacent uses. This provides a conservative analvsis, since a mixed-use project like this would incorporate trips between the residential, retail and restaurant uses made as pedestrians and not by autos (i.e. internal trips). Were this taken into account, the estimated auto-related impacts would be reduced to a measurable extent. Since this analysis defines no significant traffic impacts, incorporation of the internal trip reductions would even lessen the non- significant impacts. ,er, Afohaddes.4ssociates 24 0 0 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 11ohaddes Associates • • TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd. Malley Blvd. Project 05-2389-001 Valley Blvd. Valley Blvd. COUNT PERIODS 71 AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 0 AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM 26 • • TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd. /Guess St. Project 05-2389-002 a v v 0 n rn z Ln APPROACH LANES m 0 2 o N M o N E v o a Ln I i °s o 0 0 I N O Guess St < ono Guess St. TOTAL AM MD PM AM MD PM TOTAI. S 0 5 2 0 3 5B 0 22 80 0 u _ t 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 w 0- 65 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 a 01 m v m m E IV 0 err v a N 1~ N Z -11 O O u-I 'n 0 ~ m APPROACH LANES 001 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT RoseineadBNd :/'Gt~ess_5t+>` (Intersection Name) Wednesday 1075105 Day Date COUNTPERtoos am 7:00 AM 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM m 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 0 AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM 27 • TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd. /Guess St. Project#: 05-2389-002 APPROACH LANES r_ ::Guess SG`;c',-,, ~v v O z z N p (A O ~ N ~ p O ~ ~O a p L O ° o o p s N O O AM MD PM 2 0 3 mmol- IF 0 0 65 0 40 mmv N h Co ° •O O O E Ln n N O m n rn i t Guess-Sk N w AM MD PM TOTAL Z 5 58 0 22 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pi 1~5~ n L n f I Lq 2 APPROACH LANES ~ tSaL lYi~ z4 'IV 001 TURNING, MOVEMENT COUNT 'RuseTfil►ad 411. ME ME (Intersection Name) Day Date COUrtT PERIODS am 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM 6:00 PM m 4:00 PM 6:00 PM AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR O AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM • t TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd. /Marshaff St Project 05-2389-003 v' E m . N Marshall St rn rn N APPROACH LANES 1 2~0 goo O M N a to r~ Ch s rn R O O O O O Q n ~ 4, mm 4970 AM MD PM 58 0 75 89 0 248 MM* 114 v m d E d APPROACH LANES Marshall St. • W PM TOTAL to 001 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT Rosemead Blvd. / Marshall St. (Intersection name) Wednesday 1015105,-. Day Date COUNT PERIODS I am 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Dm 4:00 PM 6:00 PM AM PEAK HOUR 715 AM NOON PEAK HOUR O AM PM PEAK HOUR 415 PM to W N N 0 O O O 0 ~ M N 4 tl'I R n w m O M N 29 APPENDIX B TRAFFIX ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Afohaddes.4ssociates • • EXAM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:1.7 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection Base Del/ V/ LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.013 # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 19.8 0.000 # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou E 49.0 0.000 # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St D xxxxx 0.885 Future Change Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C F xxxxx 1.013 + O.ODO V/C C 19.8 0.000 + 0.000 D/V E 49.0 0.000 + 0.000 D/V D xxxxx 0.885 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 0 0 EXPIM Mo. Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Nixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) +kRrxrx+rt****++*k*kk*fkwx+r*+r+xxR*x*rxx+xyr}wRR+}*+***xxrxr++**r}}rxr}+++++r** Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at valley Blvd ***}}*ark++}}}**.x}r+rwraxwkwkfwwR*r+rr+xr*rxr**kt}fk}kr}}R}r+}xxr+*****:*x*w*+* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.013 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXx74XC Optimal Cycle: 100 Level of Service: F rt};wRRRR+f}}}rtrtwr}}**}}R*i*+rr*f*+*k}*r}*R}fff#xr+rx**+***f}*}*r++wRwRtt+*4r**+ Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I----`---------- II II II Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I--------------- II II ~I---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << AN, Peak Base Vol: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 180 404 220 176 563 152 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 180 404 220 176 563 152 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 180 404 220 176 563 152 I--------------- II II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- 11--------------- II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.46 0.07 0.03 0.48 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.18 0.09 Crit Moves: }rr+ kxkf k}*xk*}4rrrk*}f*r}**rkk#kk*r*+rrfR*Rwrrrf*r*kr+kkr**Rrf rR+xk+*r**w*+Rfrxrt*r*kwfR Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to 12M, LOS ANGELES, CA 32 i • EXAM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 9-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service -Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) xa**##**}R#i**f♦ifxfiff***f}f**#Yaa*YY+fifi+a**kYYa*xxY*fiixYYi*a#k+#***#xa}#}#Y#xa* Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) *#*+*f*##Yfifi**x#***x***k****a*****}}fY}}}}Yffiaa*Y*Y*fiYYxfifiaa*+*+++*+++*#f*++**kY Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 worst Case Level Of Service: C( 19.8) +Y}}*iY+#fixxfi#fia+fi aaafat##♦}►a}+++##**x*xfirx#fx*xx***kf}x+**f*******ri###}A***** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 user Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1713 8 0 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1713 8 0 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 II--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 861 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 303 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 303 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx)x xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx =OCK xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.8 LOS by Move : * * x * * * + f * + # C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * Y ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.8 ApproachLOS: * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 33 • • Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwfi rrx**rxr**•f*}t*4«ik•t+••+tfr**rrk*f•kktx+wk+tf*44***«*+attt4+rf+44***#+*+#+* Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) **}4tfit*#***}******444*ifi*fitfi*44*+**4*+4r4444**rfif*******4r*+*}**fi***fi4***t*fi+* Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 49.01 ***}•4wf 44r+4r*•#44#kakkf4f}#rkr##*#}+i+4#*#wttrR***f+f}*}*#+}*++#kiw}!*i****+** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 « AM Peak Base Vol: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 60 1719 0 0 1941 16 2 0 68 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 60 1719 0 0 1941 16 2 0 68 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 11--------------- 11---------------~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1957 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2928 xxxx 978 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 302 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 12 xxxx 253 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 302 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 10 xxxx 253 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.20 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 xxxx 0.27 xxxx xxxx xxxx I--------------- 11---------------~ Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 19.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move : C + 4 4 Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 149 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx >o= xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 49.0 xxxxx xxxxx x:>= xxxxx Shared LOS: • * # t ' 4 4 E ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 49.0 xx>ocxx ApproachLOS: w * E # Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 34 0 Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) *Y}iwxw}*•wxfiitiiwx}ixw*+***YY++*satr+r}rfi*rw}*}t*w***i*w**x}w*ii*iwwxiw*iiiw*ww Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St *+***i*4w#wfi ifi wfiiifi}i**i***}****Yiix*fi*}*xfi*}*}}}f}***fi t*wYwt}***Yfifi*iiiYii**Yww Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.885 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optimal Cycle: 100 Level of Service: D }*i***Y*t!}}fi***}*tY**}*i}}}*Yt}4*i}w♦}Yitt}***}w*wY}wxf**}w***t}t*iitY*}wt***R} Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------11---------------11---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------I---------------11---------------11---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 « AM Peak Base Vol: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 54 1505 79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 1505 79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 1505 79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- Ii---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 0.47 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3113 87 1600 1600 1600 1600 2443 757 I--------------- 11---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.47 0.05 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: }}wi ****}tx*x**t*YrY****+*ti++Ytt***i**xw*,*}}*}i}tYxitfixi**iw*******+Y}**r4}}i}}i*w} Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 35 • • ExPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd E xxxxx 0.970 E xxxxx 0.970 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 19.6 0.000 C 19.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou E 41.6 0.000 E 41.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.006 F xxxxx 1.006 + 0.000 VIC Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 36 lJ • EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) ###x##w+x+#xxx#xx+#++wr:xxxxxrx#x#www++xx+rwxw:e#xxxwwx+wrwtwrw*+rrw#+#+w+w+#++♦ Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd ###r##wwx+ww4xwlwwwwwww++w*ir**#wx#xxxx**+wi+++r*xx+xw***#+#w+#xr#xxwxxxw+xxwrxx Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.970 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level of Service: E wwwx##+xw#w#txx#rxrww#ww+#twwxwwrrww+xrw•www:xxrxrwrxr*++xxwwrwwwrxxxxxxxx##wx#+ Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I--------------- 1I--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 418 92 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 416 92 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 418 92 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.49 0.12 0.04 0.40 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves: wx## w#x# ##x##i#k+x*+wx#*#xx######wx###x**+**#wxx#~xx#*x##**x#*#*#rx*xxxx+x###+xxxx#xxx*# Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 37 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ++****k***+***kxfif**++•a+++*a**A+k*f**+aaAa+*****A*+**+*t*+#+**+a*+A+AA*r*#r*t*# Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) **ak+****A##*#****#***kk**k*AA****+*k*#***kk***fit+#***f+***+++*k*4***+*+A***►*## Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.61 k++##Ar***k**+**#*+***+**+A+*kt*+#t*+****r*A+AAtt++**+#*+#k+*t#t*rk*f#*++t#.*k+A Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II--------------- II--------------- ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include include include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 « PM Peak Base Vol: 0 1754 28 0 1602 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1754 28 0 1602 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1754 28 0 1602 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 user Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1846 29 0 1686 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1846 29 0 1686 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 938 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 269 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 269 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.09 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: x3o= xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.3 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 LOS by Move: * * * * * # * a * k a C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Can.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xx.-xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * ' * * k ' ` ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.6 ApproachLOS: * * C Traffix 7.7.D715 (c) 2D04 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 38 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) **i*Yt#*kkkk.**Yi#YrfwwYr**tt*#+*rrr+w+ww++r*++Y*#+Y****++i**fY**w*#*t.*w*##*r++ Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) **#rtti+#f#f+###****#**#*********i**+*f*t**fl+iff!***f*ft+f ttf lf+#iik+*R*YY**!*Y Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 Worst Case Level of service: E[ 41.61 *****t*++f+f tYf+rfY#wiY***t**trrii##*i#***********+#ff***►***##t*******R*i+***** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I--------------- I~--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 28 1876 0 0 1680 6 3 0 42 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 1876 0 0 1680 6 3 0 42 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowvpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------I--------------- II--------------- 11---------------II---------------► Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxrx xxxxx 2678 xxxx 843 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap_: 384 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 18 xxxx 311 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 384 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 17 xxxx 311 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx I II II--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 15.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C ' ' * * * + * Y * " k Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 143 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 41.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * + + + + # E * * * + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 41.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * E ' Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to YY1A, LOS ANGELES, CA 39 0 0 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) #a*Y**RR}RRkktt*+faix#R1r*R**R}**tt####at**RRtt*t*****+tYt*fRt+♦+++*aRtw}#ti+*itw Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St +*++*ta*ata*t+wa****tR+a*tia*#a*t*+a***art**waiairaat*+*wR}at}}+#w*a+aaatYr}*RRa Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.006 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F t+k4##*wka Rw+it**w##+k*a*w*+wkat#**k****##**#a+akkt+t**t***#twf t*taaR+******R*** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1--------------- II---------------II--------------- II---------------~ Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------~I---------------I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 78 1798 223 178 1574 39 79 261 89 197 178 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 78 1798 223 178 1574 39 79 261 89 197 178 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 78 1798 223 178 1574 39 79 261 89 197 178 117 ---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.21 0.79 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3123 77 1600 2383 817 1600 1931 1269 I I~--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.56 0.14 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves #*w# kw** .at*ti*+wtww:aa*trakaw*#t+:twwaai++wr#ttitatritarRw*}+a**#t*#a .a#atar*+*++xRyRtR Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 40 9 • FutNoProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Del/ V/ LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.038 # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 20.6 0.000 # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou D 26.8 0.000 # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St E xxxxx 0.915 Future Change Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C F xxxxx 1.038 + 0.000 V/C C 20.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V D 26.8 0.000 + 0.000 D/V E xxxxx 0.915 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 41 0 0 FutNoProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) #*R*********w**w*t##RRR**RR***k*RR*RkRRRt**R**kfifiY#***RR*♦Rt*kit**#**********RkR Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd t*♦tti*t*YRiR*Y***!r*****tt*4**#*****wR**t#Y#*tt*ii*t***t**#**ktt#*t*tttkttkt**k* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.038 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F *#R*R*Rkik#*i*Yt******R*R#k#****RkR**R#***fiR**#*tt*t3***************Y*****t:Y*k* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------II---------------I1---------------11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes., 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 413 236 192 575 155 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 413 236 192 575 155 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 413 236 192 575 155 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 i--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.47 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.10 Crit Moves Rk** Rktt ****Y#*!#t*##*ttR***RRR*fi****R**iR#*tRk*****t*lfiRRY*#***R*R**#tY*Rt***tRk**RfR** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 42 • • FutNoProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 worst Case Level-Of Service: C( 20.6) *ar+++++a+#++##*fi#*#+*****+rr>w♦w>*++++*w***rw#fi**#>++*>***#**#*#we w:*+##+*****# Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------I~--------------- ---------------~I---------------~ Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include include include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1761 8 0 2041 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1761 8 0 2041 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FolloWUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 I--------------- 11--------------- Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 885 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 Move Cap.: xxxx xxXX xxx]LX xxxx xxxX xxxxx xxxx 3oocx xxxxx xxxx XXXX 292 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.21 I--------------- 11--------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.8 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 20.6 LOS by Move: ` > * * ` * * * * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * # > * * * # * * # ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xXcxxx 20.6 ApproachLOS: * • * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 43 0 s FutNoProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) +#*++++++YYYiY~***#*++#+++*i*i4Y+##***+**+*+**k*k*+++Yfi+#**+++#*+Yk4i*R*#+++++++ Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) +#********#**+f#***R**+**+*+*#*+i+Yfi+++iYY+Y++Y**#**##+**Yf#4#+++**++*kk*i*f#*+# Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 26.8) +i+Y**Y+****+*♦*k4**++i*+k++i+Y+*R#kk*#k#*#**+Y*+RR++ifi********++++++**+fR+li++* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: include Include Include Include Lanes : 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 61 1767 0 0 2025 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 61 1767 0 0 2025 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2041 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1021 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 280 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 238 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 280 xxxx x3=x xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 236 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.31 xxxx xxxx xxxx I--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 21.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 26.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C * * ` * D * ` + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * t + P_pproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 26.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * + D + Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 44 0 0 FutNoProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) }}**********#}*****#*a}}}*##}~1*ta#aa#a*1*}1a♦*t}#}a}!ar*}f #}}ra#i***}*f#******* Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St aaa#a###*##ai#}}A}}}}i!*tit**}4}##}a}}a*}#}#a*R}##*}*}*#*#f*}*a**a*Ra}a#}a*t#f it Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.915 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level of Service: E *}a}a#*#a}**#}aa#*****}*}****#*}#**}xzzz}*z#*}x*zzzrzzz:**a#}a.}a#a}aaa#**}a*}** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 D 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I--------------- Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 1549 81 102 1683 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 1549 81 102 1883 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 55 1549 81 102 1883 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 0.47 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3115 85 1600 1600 1600 1600 2442 758 I--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.48 0.05 0.06 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: **}z #z*z aw#:#}*z*z}#**#}z****z**###***#,tzrr**#*+zzz##*#*}ra*zz*z*#**z**er+a*a*#****t#**#z Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 45 • i FutNoProjPM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.004 F xxxxx 1.004 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 20.7 0.000 C 20.7 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou C 19.1 0.000 C 19.1 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.039 F xxxxx 1.039 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 46 FutNoProjPM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***++**f+ww*♦****f+fR**wa*++x#wxR♦t+faaR++++*wa**laai*laawii**fxRiaxaaw+aa*x*RRf Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd ffwaff xff*xxx+x*Rfwfx*fw*+f rffxf a+faafawfa+f afax*•+xi*aa#ai**RafffrR*****wwa**R* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.004 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xXXXXX optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F as*xw*xixw*waawfit*wwf of xfaff****wafafafiafR**a**aa*w*ax**fxawxf a+***##xx**afaaf* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------1I---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 223 1619 207 69 1328 276 317 674 211 222 448 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 223 1619 207 69 1328 276 317 674 211 222 448 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 223 1619 207 69 1328 276 317 674 211 222 448 99 II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I---------------I)---------------~I--------------- 11---------------~ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves xRwf x**waiwf}xx*wx****x*iii***xw xf aRaf**of ww}w+Ywii*4axa****+*}}*a+#*aii*i*ai*x*xR** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 47 0 0 FutNoProjPM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) fttY}+a}YrR*Yaa}aaY*R*YAt*aaa**a;;;taa;4*!*;**fi****4Y:fi*+*#***tYY4t**#*#t;t4!#*} Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) *#***a4r**4ttttt*tt4#ttkkttkk***aattttrttrr*kr*a*}aatakrakr}a4}aar}}k+A+*+*4#aYY Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.11 #*att}tita4aa*4k4kY4+4AAk*k+*4Y4*Aa}Y*+tYaYaY*4*****Ya*#iYk**;***#******tt4**;** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 1867 0 0 1651 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 1867 0 0 1651 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 1867 0 0 1651 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 29 1965 0 0 1738 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 29 1965 0 0 1738 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx =ocx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 1I--------------- ---------------i Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1744 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 872 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 298 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 298 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx I--------------- II--------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 15.7 xxxx x:)~ xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C * • * * ' * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx. Shared LOS: * * " ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 49 0 0 FutNoProjPM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) **}}***}}f+Y4*i**R**}}**4*YYt*RR}}R}ti4Y+}*Mf**R}t*##*#******+*#**##ff4}Y***k*** Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St *}*+i***k***f#*Y}k*t****fi##}}}*}******##f4**ARRlY*#*#*Y*4fifi#*+*4YY*#Yfi*****+*}tt cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.039 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of service: ? **#t}*Yt}!*#**RR+4ff#}•*t*****f}*}t*Y*Yt*Y**fi**t>tt+if Y}4}**4}***f!!}i****fir*#k* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I II--------------- ~I--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.21 0.79 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3123 77 1600 2381 819 1600 1931 1269 I II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.59 0.14 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: * " * Y*#} *#*+*i}***4fiY*k***tk+*Y}*}}**R*}4t****Y**fi#*t}4#*}}Y*1Y*tt}}***+►}}tff4Y#**}4fi** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 50 9 • FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection Base Del/ V/ LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.043 # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 22.2 0.000 # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou D 27.5 0.000 # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St E xxxxx 0.923 Future Change Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C F xxxxx 1.043 + 0.000 V/C C 22.2 0.000 + 0.000 D/V D 27.5 O.ODO + 0.000 D/V E xxxxx 0.923 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 51 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length B) Method (Future Volume Alternative) «#w+*x«rw#aw**r*rxx«wxrrarrx*x*wwwaa*r*##+wwxa*r#r+xx+«.#*««rrrrrrrarr##«wrrrrr# Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd #arrrw#rrra«rr#araaw#r«r##*aaaraa#+«a+a#+fifi*##r**++#*«*#r**rrrrr:ar*##+#+#*+««*x Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.043 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F **««*«««##*fi##fi**•r««#++#*a++rfi**w#rfi**xrfi#rr*«rxx##**#*««««wwx«««ar«#«r##**#*rr Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- 11--------------- II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I--------------- Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 228 1430 110 52 1517 252 174 392 227 185 546 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 228 1430 110 52 1517 252 174 392 227 185 546 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 228 1430 110 52 1517 252 174 392 227 185 546 147 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 240 1505 116 55 1597 265 183 413 239 195 575 155 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 240 1505 116 55 1597 265 183 413 239 195 575 155 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ELF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 240 1505 116 55 1597 265 183 413 239 195 575 155 I--------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2,00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.47 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.10 Crit Moves: ##*a*#****###t*a*#**#*«#*#r#«**ra*rar#**#*#«#+###a4***«***R**xr**a**fi####*#fi *fifi* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGEI-ES, CA 52 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) +##+rrrrwrrrrrrr#r+r+rrr+rwrrr##+#r#+#rwr#r#+rwrrrrr#rwr+rrrr.r++r#r+r++#++rrrrr Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) rr+#i#r**rrwrtrt#wrt#+#rrrr+r+#r4rr♦+rirrr■+rw#+}##+rtrr#rtr#+rrirrrr###wrrrrrirwwwwr Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 22.21 rwrrrrrrwrwwwr+rr:rrrrrr:++rw++#rt##wr:wrrrrrrrr+rrr:r:r+rr+rrrrr+rrrr++++#+rrrr+ Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include include include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 { Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1767 8 0 2067 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1767 8 0 2067 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx root 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 {---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 888 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 291 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx x-3ooc xxxx xxxXoc xxxx xxxx 291 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.28 I--------------- { Level of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.1 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 22.2 LOS by Move : * * * * # * * * * * r C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * r ApproachDel: xx_Xocxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.2 ApproachLOS: * * * C Traffix 7.7.C715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MKA, LOS ANGELES, CA 53 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***ff*r#*+}*:***+*+rr*****#r}*#*f#******a***+ff#r.+*#**a**#*a+ar r++*+**a*r#***rf Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.5) Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Initial Bse: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 61 1767 33 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 61 1767 33 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 6 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 x xxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 x xxxx xxxx 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2067 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1034 xxxx xxxx 900 Potent Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx 285 Move Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xacxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx 285 Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 ---------------~I xxxx xxxx 0.02 I------------ Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 x xxxx xxxx 0.1 Stopped Del: 21.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 27.5 x xxxx xxxx 17.9 LOS by Move: C * * * * # a D * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * # * * * * * * # ApproachDel: xxx~= xxxxxx 27.5 17.9 ApproachLOS: * * D C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to N,MA, LOS ANGELES, CA 54 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) fi*i*fifiw*i*fiiwiww*a*****i**Rrr#rw#rfi**r*wrrrwr#ii******rwi*****r*a**irr*ar***:r** Intersection #}4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St arra#i*aiaarr*****a#ira4iawia*t****#*raawrraiat**#*itiaawifiitr*a**r****R*i*iwi** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.923 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E ******fi}**}wi****fi iita#ar*r**i**##*iii*at}a****:************rrfi****ia*aw*r:*:*** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- 11---------------{i---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1--------------- 11--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj.- 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 1566 81 104 1900 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 1566 81 104 1900 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 55 1566 81 104 1900 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 11--------------- 11---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.52 0.48 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3112 88 1600 1600 1600 1600 2430 770 ------------1---------------II---------------11---------------11---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.49 0.05 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: as** *aa* ***r ***ri*******#*#r**#*##**}*******!***#}r}r}}#R**}*fir**afi r***i******#*a}**#a*a**r* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 55 • FutProjPM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead impact Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.013 F xxxxx 1.013 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 22.9 0.000 C 22.9 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou C 20.3 0.000 C 20.3 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.049 F xxxxx 1.049 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 56 FutProjPM wed Nov 30, 2D05 10:28:42 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) r***r4f****4#4itrr4*4+*444**+******+44**4+*#444+*4♦+***+*R4*+444*:rtt+t+t*44t+rr Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd #*****#i***i#4##***#4*#*##444*4**i+*f*#*44*r#44i4#44***##4+ifR44*!*****#r44444r# Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.013 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F #i#*#r4+:ft44*444r4*rr**#r4r**444*44r#*44r*4444rr****4******+#t**4******#4*##+*r Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I---------------I1---------------11---------------I1---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I---------------II--------------- 11---------------I~---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216 426 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216 426 94 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216" 426 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol -t 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 11---------------~I--------------- 11---------------~ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------I~---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves **R4 *#*4****#**4*i*4******4*4**444*+*444#**i*+*tr##r4**rr4#*r#4*4r4444*44*44r444*444 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 57 • • FutProjPM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study city of Rosemead Level of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ##*k*##*fi++*xt**#tffik**k***t+*kkfi*t*ixit#!***i++k*#+ttkitti*fi*fi *fiki***fik+#kk**#t Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) kt*t#t*fikfi***♦*tti#*i***R*tt*tti**xktk#i*#iikk*t*fifi+ttXfi tfi#k*+****kit+ttfi*fikk#kfi Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 22.91 ###fi*tf+*ti*tf ttfi*t*tfi**i•*tt+*+k*t##ifi*i**ti##k**it*tfifi*++k*ttiiii+++#fiitttxk+* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------i Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign stop sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes : 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1 Volume module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1943 31 0 1780 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1943 31 0 1780 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 I--------------- ---------------~I---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 987 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 250 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 250 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 I II--------------- )I--------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx )o= xxxxx xxxxx )D= 22.9 LOS by Move: * * * " * * * * i * # C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx >o= xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * + ` * * * + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.9 ApproachLOS: * * * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 58 • • FutProjPM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) **ww+w+rwwww+w++:www+ww+wwww+w+wrww+w+www*+w+w♦+r+++w++w++ww+++*+*:**+w++***:w++ Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) w++ww+w+w++,t+++*:++++r++*w+**++++r**+++++*ww++++::ww*+ww+wfr++*+++ww++w++*w*+►*w+ Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 Worst Case Level of Service: C[ 20.3] x+ww*ww:ww+++wwwwwwwww+wwwww++++w+wwww+w+www+++ww+++w++++**++***+**+***+wwww+:w+ Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- ff---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include include Include Include Lanes : 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- ~I---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 8 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 8 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 8 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 29 1965 44 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 29 1965 44 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 8 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1780 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 890 xxxx xxxx 1005 Potent Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx-ooc xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx x.3 x 243 Move Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx 243 Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx 0.03 ------------I---------------fl---------------II---------------11---------------f Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx 0.1 Stopped Del: 16.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 xxxxx xxxx 20.3 LOS by Move: C * * w * * * * C * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x:;-x xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.6 20.3 ApproachLOS: + * C C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 59 • • FutProjPM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) **Y*4Y4YY44*44tttr4#**44rA+}##a#44}#f++*r#*4+4ai#+*#}#*#+a+#4#4}*4+*4rtt44*#R*## Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St #*+++*4#*a##+r.ttr#+*4+44*44*rfirkr**444#trrtt4Y#**+#+#}ax##+:#tr}*+aart}rr#4}4** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 1.049 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level of Service: F }#**+}*a**#*##tiff}4R4+#4#r}*#*#+4+**4rYr*Y4r*rR*f•*#r##*+*##**r+**#*a*#r*##**** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------I--------------- I1---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I--------------- II--------------- ~I--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 77 1814 218 174 1569 40 79 253 87 191 172 115 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 1814 218 174 1569 40 79 253 87 191 172 115 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 77 1814 218 174 1569 40 79 253 87 191 172 115 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PH? Volume: 81 1909 229 183 1652 42 83 266 92 201 181 121 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 1909 229 183 1652 42 83 266 92 201 181 121 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 81 1909 229 183 1652 42 83 266 92 201 181 121 I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I~---------------( Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.20 0.80 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3120 80 1600 2381 819 1600 1918 1282 I II--------------- II--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.60 0.14 0.11 0.53 0.53 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: rtY*#*##*4#4444*if44++itr*rfi********R*#444**4*++Orr+#*#*+*++rY#**}f#++4YAa4*rr}# Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 60 • • APPENDIX C PROJECT SITE PLAN Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 61 11 ale CY3 3MU am NYN Mood !Bt! ME 1}w{g seam sm ILI GUESS ST. T L O O W h O C a6L ~9as 7i a S ~I p R A7 RR$ qr R ydp3~ S 8 ~ 9aa°~ Y Jill 0 0 a is arm nw J. . pro woe am cam STS _I~ _ I I I; ~ I I _ I I ~ I I A I I i I I I ~ I i I I' I I x I I I ~ , r c I ~ I I r Y~ I I I I ®M I ~zl I~ ~_J L_J I f I _ - I I II - - J - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - _:L lax b, A It a a d 6z i s hip; 4 jiil { 3~t j-1 f ¢~p! lg. jp ="j M p 3 Me. j!h t :~a 5 ~ ~ 7C I! hTi~$3S3E Z~ A 8 ➢ ~ 63 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS Meyer, Alohaddes Associates 0 • PutProjAM Thu Mar 1, 2007 15:04:55 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Ursignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) *#W*W*#a*+w*rt*+rtrW*iW***rt**#Wrrrtaaar**wwW+*+xrarrtart++rrt+arr4Wrt***awa+aa++++#*aW+ Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) +*+#W+W*k++a**W*WWWf*WWrtwWWWWrtWWWrtrWWrt**#W*rtrtW#**::++*++w**WWwWWW#*W+iW#W*+rtW*W+ Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: Df 27.51 W##*W#***i#**W+rt*WWWW#a+rt*********+WWW+WWWiW*rt*x*x***+*i****++++WW**#*#*****i#+# Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ------------I---------------II---------------11---------------II---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 70 1679 0 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 1679 0 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 1679 0 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 74 1767 0 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final vol.: 14 1767 0 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Critical Gap, Module: Critical Go: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxr.x xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I--------------- II II II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2067 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1034 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.. 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.27 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 xxxx xxxx xxxx I II I---------------- II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 1.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 22.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 27.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C * w * + W * " D * # Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx C SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * + # ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * D Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to M.MA, LOS ANGELES, CA 65 0 0 FutProjPM Thu Mar 1, 2007 15:07:20 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Fluture Volume Alternative) x*A!r**+~*f**++*x++k+1.►++*Rfr+*+x+exxf+++*!*fxx+xc+*xxxYt f'.*s1+>x***+t+t*xt*x+*f**+x Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) ***+*+++++x+*****+x+++++++x .+xxxx++++++rx.+x++++++.+++t*.+.*+*.++++x+.x+x+*x.+xx Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.61 ****++******+++}*+xt+►*++*xxx*.+***+*+++*x+.*x++*xxxx+*#xxx+.*x*x.****+xx++t.*+x Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include include include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 I-------------- II--------------- II--------------- II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 45 1965 0 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 45 1965 0 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------i Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1780 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 890 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx xxxx I II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 16.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C + + . + C * + + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * x + x x x ' ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CP. 66 0 0 George, Attached is the revised report for 3862 Rosemead Blvd. As you requested, we reviewed the previous traffic impact analysis, originally showing project-related traffic traveling down Guess Street, to determine if any significant impacts occur at study intersections if the project driveway located on Guess Street were to be restricted to a left-turn only exit. Our review determined that this restriction would not result in any significant impacts at either of the Guess Street at Rosemead Boulevard intersections. Matthew Simons, T.E. Senior Traffic Engineer Iteris, Inc, 707 Wilshire Boulevard I Suite 4810 Los Angeles i CA 90017 tel 213.488.0345 1 fax 213.488.9440 email: mis@iteris.com <<Final Rosemead Mixed Use Report 3rd Rev. 10-29-07 67 0 0 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 1 of 27 0 0 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 resident, stated he is all in favor of mixed use projects. He said several elements should be incorporated and a lot is ignored in the developments in Rosemead. He would like to inquire the developer on how they are Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 27 0 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 0 0 10 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 NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Condition al 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 • • 0 0 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 0 0 • • 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. 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). 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 Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 27 0 0 • • 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 0 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 0 9 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 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 9 0 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'h 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 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 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 0 0 0 0 Chairman Lopez wants to make sure dust and noise is controlled from start to finish. Ms. Elizabeth Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident said she is directly adjacent to the actual construction and would like to know what the space is from her mobile home is from the wall. She also questioned why is the Commission discussing about Phase II, if Phase I should only be discussed tonight. City Planner Everling stated it's his duty to inform the Commission of the overall project. Ms. Ramirez stated it hasn't been submitted. City Planner Everling said correct. He said it's his duty to make the Commission aware of the overall project, so they can take into consideration all the impacts. Ms. Ramirez questioned if there are any plans for residents of the 7433 mobile home park in regards to Hawaii Supermarket submitting plans for their future. She said she would like to know what the plans are. She said it wasn't until 7 days ago, when she found out this was the plan. She also said if one of the residents did not walk by the sign, they wouldn't have known. She questioned what responsibility does the city has to let the surrounding community know of these hearings and what to take place. City Planner Everling stated under state law, the city is required 10 days prior to the hearing to notify all property owners within a 300 foot radius. Planning Administrative Assistant Lily Trinh stated we sent out 600 foot for this hearing. Ms. Ramirez stated they did not get one. City Planner Everling questioned if they are the property owner or a tenant. Ms. Ramirez said they own the mobile home. City Planner Everling stated he's not sure if the actual mobile home spaces received the notice. He said state law requires ownership. Ms. Ramirez questioned what state law requires for owners to inform their tenants. City Planner Everling said he wouldn't know. Attorney Yin stated he doesn't know at the top of his head either. City Planner Everling questioned if a sign was posted on the property. Ms. Ramirez stated yes, about a block over and very small. She said it's on the Mc Donald's side. Senior Planner Agaba stated as an additional noticing measure, staff handed notices to the park manager for distribution. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 27 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 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 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 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 ll. 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 City Planner Everling said if the Commission zone change tonight is for both phases. He Phase I only. • decides to change it. He said the request for also said the Commission can change it to 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 9 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 0 0 0 0 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, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE 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 & 9 0 0 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 0 9