Loading...
CC - Item 4I - Gen Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221a 0 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2007 SUBJECT: 2ND READING 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 LOCATED AT 3212-3232 DEL MAR AVENUE 1 SUMMARY On November 20, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed mixed use project at the first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. The project is now before the Council at the required second reading. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 858, thereby 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, subject to the attached conditions. Prepared by: /4_4/ Matt Everling City Planner by: City Manager ment A: Ordinance 858 lent B: Planning Commission Application Package (Planning Commission Staff Report of October 15, 2007, Amended Conditions of Approval, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Traffic Study, and Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2007) COUNCIL AGENDA: O' 0 0 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER --Gt`~ DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2007 SUBJECT: 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 LOCATED AT 3212-3232 DEL MAR AVENUE SUMMARY Mr. Patrick Yang has submitted applications to develop a new four-story mixed use development consisting of 36 residential condominium units above 11,505 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on four vacant parcels totaling 1.28 acres. The subject site is located on the east side of Del Mar Avenue between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. The General Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial/Residential. Three of the four parcels are zoned C-3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay), while the most southerly parcel is zoned C-3 (Medium Commercial). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 858, thereby 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, subject to the attached conditions. ANALYSIS A General Plan Amendment is required to allow for an increase in project density greater than 14 units per acre for mixed use projects. The General Plan Update will allow for up to 30 units per acre. The project's proposed density is 28.12 dwelling units per acre. The Zone Change request is to change the current zoning designation from C-3D and C-3 (Medium Commercial with Design overlay and General Commercial) to a PD (Planned Development) zone to allow a mixed use project on the site. In addition, the General Plan also requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to develop a mixed-use development. A Zoning Variance has been requested to allow deviation from the variable height requirement in the PD zone when adjacent to existing residentially zoned property. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: O 0 0 City Council Meeting November 20, 2007 Paoe 2 of 2 Both Building A (south building) and Building B (north building) encroach into the 20- degree plane restriction along the rear (east) building elevations that lie adjacent to the R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zoned properties to the east. Government Code Section 65915 mandates that a City must grant up to 35% density bonus and up to three incentives in order to minimize stringent development requirements that restrict projects with affordable housing units. This project qualifies for the incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent, or four (4) units for sale to persons and/or families of moderate income. In addition, the applicant proposes to reduce the parking stall width dimensions for the residential condominium parking stalls. The Zoning Code requires a minimum parking stall dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet for condominium projects. The proposed parking plan shows 9 feet by 20 feet for all parking stalls. Section 65915 of the Government Code allows the City to consider granting this concession in order to make the affordable component more feasible for the developer. On October 15, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant and the public, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Prepared bv. -Matt Everling City Planner City Manager Attachment A: Ordinance 858 Attachment B: Planning Commission Application Package (Planning Commission Staff Report of October 15, 2007, Amended Conditions of Approval, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Traffic Study, and Planning Commission Minutes of October 15, 2007) 0 9 • Ordinance No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tracr Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 Page 1 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 858 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-221, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM C-31) AND C-3 (MEDIUM COMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY AND MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-01 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. ORDINANCE 858 IS ALSO FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061336 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, ZONE VARIANCE 04-325 TO ALLOW A DEVIATION FROM THE VARIABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-02 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-960 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 36 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 11,505 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3212-3232 DEL MAR AVENUE COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 5287-020-033,034,036 & 038) WHEREAS, Jenny Yam of 421 N. Pine Street San Gabriel, CA, 91775 filed an application to the City of Rosemead requesting a Zone Change from C-3D and C-3 "Medium Commercial with Design Overly and Medium Commercial" to PD "Planned Development zone" together with a General Plan Amendment application requesting to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre in the General Plan Mixed-Use designation, a Variance application requesting to deviate from the variable height requirement, Planned Development Review and Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project on a property located at 3212- 3232 Del Mar Avenue (APN: 5287-020-033-034-036 & 038); 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 05-221 would designate the subject property as P-D "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 and Title 17, Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead ATTACHMENT A Ordinance .No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 Page 2 of 6 0 Municipal Code authorize and set standards for approval of zone change applications and governs development of private properties; and 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 October 15, 2007, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221. Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336, Zone Variance 04-325 and Conditional Use Permit 04-960 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 October 15, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimorrv, and after hearing all testimonies from the public and the applicant, the Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336, Zone Variance 04-325 and Conditional Use Permit 04-960; and WHEREAS, on November 5. 2007 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-49, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221. Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336. Zone Variance 04-325 and Conditional Use Permit 04-960 ; and 9 0 Ordinance No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone 1'ariance 04-325 Page 3 of 6 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to General PlanAmendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336, Zone Variance 04-325 and Conditional Use Permit 04- 960: and 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 located at 3212-3232 Del Mar Avenue. 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 Cih' 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. 0 0 Ordinance No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 Page 4 of 6 Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that General Plan Amendment 05-01 and Zone Change 05-221 meet the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The proposed mixed use project consists of a Zone Change from C-31) and C-3 "Medium Commercial with Design Overly and Medium Commercial" to PD "Planned Development zone". 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 Variance application requesting approval to deviate from the variable height requirement, a Tentative Tract Map for a condominium subdivision, a Planned Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 that encourages revitalization of major corridors through mixed use developments to promote the infill of strip commercial districts with higher density multi- family uses. Therefore, this zone change and General Plan Amendment will allow for commercial/residential development on the subject site that is compatible with existing commercial and multi-fancily land uses along Del Mar Avenue. B. Circulation: This development is located on Del Mar Avenue. Primary access to the proposed mixed use project site will be via Del Mar Avenue and will revitalize the site. 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 does not impede free flow of vehicular traffic on site or on adjacent roadways. C. Housing: In addition to increasing homeownership opportunities for Cite of Rosemead residents, the applicant will be providing at least 4 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 Management: The proposed mixed use development will provide high quality landscaping with a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and plants. thereby minimizing water consumption. The proposed mixed use project is designed with natural resources conservation in mind, and therefore will not affect any natural resources in the area. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding area beyond City's permitted noise levels. Additionally, the site will be provided with a new Ordinance No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 Page 5 of 6 6-foot tall decorative perimeter CMU block wall that should mitigate residual commercial noise impacts. F. Public Safetv: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans for the mixed use project. The proposed project will not impede or interfere with the City's emergency or evacuation plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. G. CEQA Compliance: The City as a "Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will 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 Zone Change 05-221, General Plan Amendment 07-01, Zone Variance 04-325, Plarined Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336, and Conditional Use Permit 04-960 for development of a mixed-use project located at 3212-3232 Del Mar Avenue. Section 5. If an), 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. 858 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 certifiv to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 20th day of November, 2007. JOHN TRAN, Mayor ATTEST: Kairial Bhate. Acting City Clerk • • Ordinance No. 858 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Planned Development Review 05-02 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 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. 858 being: AN ORDINACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-221, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM C-31) AND C-3 "MEDIUM COMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY AND MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" TO P-D "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT"AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-01 ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED-USE DESIGNATION, ZONE VARIANCE 04-325 TO DEVIATE FROM VARIABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061336 FOR CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION PURPOSES, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 05-02 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-960 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE PROJECT ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3212-3232 DEL MAR AVENUE. Ordinance 858 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 20th day of November, 2007. and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JOHN TRAN, JOAN NUNEZ, MARGARET CLARK, POLLY LOW, GARY TAYLOR. NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Kamal Bhate, Acting City Clerk 0 0 0 0 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-01, ZONE CHANGE 05-221, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-960, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061336, AND ZONE VARIANCE 04-325 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3212, 3220, 3224 & 3232 DEL MAR AVENUE. Summary Mr. Patrick Yang has submitted entitlement applications requesting for approval to develop a new mixed use development consisting of 36 attached residential units (totaling 42,288 square feet) above 11,505 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on four existing parcels totaling 1.28 acres, currently designated Mixed Use/Commercial/residential by the City's General Plan. The property is located on the east side of Del Mar Avenue, between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. Three of the four parcels currently known as APN 5287-0200-33, 36 & 38 are zoned C-31D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay), while the most southerly parcel known as APN 5287-0200-34 is zoned C-3 (Medium Commercial). All four parcels are within the Residential / Commercial Mixed -Use Overlay designation of the City's General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is requested in order to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre for mixed use developments. Based on the size of the subject property (1.28 acres), the applicant would be allowed up to 28 units. For the proposed project to be economically feasible, the project proponent is requesting to amend the General Plan in order to allow construction of 36 residential units above retail/restaurant space. Zone Change 05-221 application is requesting to change the current zoning designation from C-3D and C-3 (Medium Commercial with Design overlay and General Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) zone to allow residential and commercial uses on the subject property. Conditional Use Permit 04-960 is submitted requesting approval to develop a mixed-use development in the Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Overlay designation of the City's General Plan. ATTACHMENT B 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 2 of 29 A Zoning Variance has been requested to allow deviation from the variable height requirement in the PD zone, when adjacent to existing residentially-zoned property. Both Building A (south building) and Building B (north building) encroach into the 20- degree plane restriction along the rear (east) building elevations overlooking R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zoned properties to the east. Additionally, the applicant has requested a development incentive to reduce the required parking stall and dimensions. The applicant's request is consistent with Section 65915d (2) A of the California Government Code, which requires Cities and counties to grant development incentives, and parking space reductions, to affordable housing developments. Government Code Section 65915 mandates that whenever an applicant is proposing a development with affordable housing component, the City or County must grant up to 35% density bonus and up to three incentives in order to minimize stringent development requirements that restrict housing projects with affordable housing units. Therefore, this project qualifies for the incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent or four (4) units for sale to persons and families of moderate income. The applicant has also submitted Tentative Tract Map (TTM 61336) application for condominium purposes as part of the entitlement request which would allow development of 36-residential units on the upper floors to be sold for individual ownership. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial study has found that there are potential significant environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed mixed use is implemented. The environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the project include Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Noise. However, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, which the applicant has agreed upon; the identified significant environmental effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant as determined by the Lead Agency. 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 CEQA guidelines, is contained in this staff report for your convenience. 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 recommending to the City Council to adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. General Plan Amendment The subject site is currently located within the Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan, which allows mixed-use projects at a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre and a maximum "commercial" Floor Area Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 3 of 29 • Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 (total floor area in relation to total land area). The proposed project has 11,505 square feet of commercial which equals a FAR of 0.26:1 in compliance with the General Plan (basement is exempt from FAR). However, the project exceeds the maximum allowable residential density of 14 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to construct up to 36 residential units on the subject site. It is recognized that contemporary mixed use developments is the current trend in San Gabriel Valley and throughout the State of California. Mixed use developments are typically characterized by high-density residential uses (30 dwelling units per acre or higher) in order to be financially feasible, and to facilitate density bonus incentives encouraged by the State and local regulations. 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-General Plan designations. This City initiated General Plan/Zoning Code update and corresponding environmental review will separate conflicting land uses, provide the mechanism to allow for high density-mixed use orderly developments that meet the current housing market trends, and provide for attainment of targeted growth throughout the City. However, until such time that the General Plan update is completed and adopted, applicants for mixed use projects must process individual General Plan amendment applications for developments that exceed 14 dwelling units per acre in the Mixed Use Overlay designations. Municipal Code Requirements Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public necessity, safety, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices is justified. Additionally, a zone change must be found consistent with the General Plan. 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 permitted land use and development requirements. Rosemead Municipal Code 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 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paqe 4 of 29 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 City's General Plan. Tentative Tract Map - Section 66474 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds under which a City may approve or deny a Tentative Tract Map. In addition, Chapter 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides subdivision regulations, which adopts Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a Tentative Tract Map: • The proposed 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; • 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. Zone Variance -Section 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code describes the required findings to justify approval of a variance. • The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Panning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Page 5 of 29 • That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located. • That because of special circumstances applicable to such property, including, size, shape, topography, or location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications; • That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings and recommend to the City Council to ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND for APPROVAL to the City Council, General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 04-960, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 61336, and Zone Variance 04-325 subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A". PROJECT ANALYSIS Existing environmental setting: Currently, the entire site is vacant and unimproved without any structures. The frontage has existing curb and gutter along Del Mar Avenue, which will be removed and replaced, as needed, to accommodate the new development and sidewalk which will comply with ADA requirements. Existing power poles along the right-of-way will remain, as the cost to underground the existing 66 KV power lines is prohibitive. The applicant has the option of under-grounding the existing distribution lines for a cost of $200,000- $400,000 according to Southern California Edison estimates. Project site Description: The subject site is vacant and is located on the east side of Del Mar Avenue between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. The site has previously been used for single family residential. multiple family residential, and daycare facility. A prior approval to construct a mini-mall was granted in 1989 on this property, however, the development was never pursued, and this approval has since lapsed. The subject site has varying lot depth and abuts a variety of residential uses, office use, and a public school use. There is a 10-foot storm drain easement along the northern property boundary, and 80-foot high power poles with overhead (66KV) power lines that abut the front property line along Del Mar Avenue. The storm drain easement and the power poles create a development constraint on the property. 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 and the proposed buildings. As such, staff is including a condition of approval requiring the applicant to meet with Southern California Edison prior to submittal of construction drawings, in order to adjust building footprint and the site plan as needed. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 PaQe 6 of 29 The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site plan shows two freestanding buildings with storefront facades oriented towards the sidewalk along Del Mar Avenue, and all parking spaces are located in the rear and below grade. Access to the proposed residences is through an elevator and two staircases for each building. The main driveway into the parking area will serve the site from Del Mar Avenue, and alley access will be used for secondary (emergency) gated access. Free standing light poles are provided at-grade parking areas, and all parking lot lighting will be fully shielded to mitigate glare on adjacent properties to the south and east. The first floor of the proposed buildings will have commercial tenant spaces ranging in size from 1,285 square feet to 2,230 square feet in size. The street frontage dimensions of proposed commercial tenant suites range in width from 24'-3" to 48'-11" along Del Mar Avenue. One trash enclosure to serve the commercial uses will be provided on the south side 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. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of four 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: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Residential Duplex on Del Mar Ave, Public School on Dorothy St. South: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Office/Retail on Del Mar Ave, Single Family Residence at 7815 Emerson Place (east of Del Mar Ave.) East: General Plan: Public Facilities and Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) Duff Elementary School and Multiple Family Residential Land Use: West: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: Land Use: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Commercial/Office, Single Family and Multiple Family Residential The applicant proposes to combine four (4) lots for the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project, consisting of two (2) separate multi-tenant buildings. The applicant has agreed to allocate ten percent (10%) or four of the residential units for Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paqe 7 of 29 sale to moderate income families. Moderate-income families have incomes ranging from 80 to 120 percent of the County median income. The Cou my 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 reviewing agencies such Fire Department, Southern California Edison and Water Companies for their review. No special condition has been received from the reviewing agencies. The City Engineer has checked the parcel for its accuracy, and appropriate conditions of approval have been incorporated into Exhibit A. Development Standards The developer has incorporated all Planned Development standards for the proposed mixed-use project. The Planned Development designation allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant approval of a specific planned development with diversification in the development standards of conventional zones such as residential or commercial zones while insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Proposed Setbacks - The project proposes a front yard setback of five-feet (5'-0") along Del Mar Avenue street frontage. The project proposes a side setback of 10 feet along the south property line and 11'-11" on the north property line to provide buffer with adjoining properties. A rear yard setback of 24 feet (Building A) and 83'-6" (Building B) is provided due to the lot configuration and placement of off-street parking areas in the rear. Figure 1 shows a summary of the proposed setbacks for the two buildings. FIGURE T ; SIDE SIDE BUILDING FRONT REAR NORTH SOUTH A 5'-0" 24'-0" N/A 111-0" B 5'-0" 55'-7" to 83'-6" 11'-11" NIA The PD zoning district does not impose any minimum setbacks for new projects. However, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposed Planned Development is compatible with existing and future development in surrounding areas, per Section 17.76.010 of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City's adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines encourage 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. 0 01 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 8 of 29 Staff finds that the proposed setbacks are compatible with the surrounding properties in that there are existing structures on the same side of the street (between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place) that have a zero front yard setback. There is a minimum "building separation" requirement for condominium development consisting of 20 feet between structures 17.88.090-D).The project provides a 35 foot separation between Buildings A and B, in compliance with the Zoning regulations. The proposed project will comply with the seven-foot clear sidewalk passageway requirement in the City's recently adopted Mixed Use Development Guidelines. Building Height - The project is governed by the City's variable height requirement pursuant to 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 applicant is requesting a Zone Variance from the variable height requirement for the east elevations of the proposed buildings which abut an R-2 zone. As currently proposed, the rear 70 feet of the third story, and the rear 45 feet of the second story of Building "A" encroach into the variable height. Similarly, but to a lesser degree, the rear 42 feet of the fourth story, and the rear 20 feet of the third story of Building "B" encroach into the variable height. In response to this request, a comprehensive viewshed analysis was required of the applicant, and the study concludes that views from the adjacent residences along the project's east property line will not be significantly impacted by the proposed 3-story massing of Building "A", because it is set back 24 feet from the rear and will be screened with an 8-foot high masonry wall and evergreen trees. Additionally, Building "B" has a substantial setback from the rear property line abutting Duff Elementary School, and while the current zoning of the school is R-2, there are no residential uses affected by the proposed development. However, as State law requires, the Commission must make all four findings to justify the variance request. Proposed Floor Plans Commercial - Building A has two tenant suites totaling approximately 3,410 square feet which will be utilized for sit-down restaurant uses. Building B proposes five tenant spaces totaling approximately 8,000 square feet, including one 2,230 square foot sit- down restaurant and four retail spaces for the remainder tenant spaces. Residential - A total of thirty-six (36) condominium units are proposed within this development. All units will be located on the second, third and fourth floors of the proposed Buildings A and B. The unit floor plans range in size from 760 - 1,330 square feet of living area. The applicant is proposing two, 2-bedroom, 760 square-foot units at the southeast corner of Building A (Plan D). The condominium regulations of the Zoning Ordinance require a minimum of 1,100 square feet for a 2-bedroom unit. While the PD zone allows flexibility in setting the standards for individual projects, the applicant has agreed to re-design these units to be a one-bedroom unit with 900 square feet, and staff has included a condition of approval requiring these units to be 900 Sq ft. Planning commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 9 of 29 Each unit will be provided two (2) covered parking spaces located in a subterranean parking garage, which is to be accessed from the rear of Building A. There are four different residential floor plans detailed by the following: Plan A: A total of 26 units have this two-bedroom plan which range in size from 1,114 to 1,435 square feet of living area. These are interior and end units within Buildings A and B, and they include a living room, dining are, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, and bedroom #2 with common bathroom. Bedroom #2 has access to the common bathroom, and both bedrooms have access to a balcony that varies in size from 50 to 138 square feet in size. Plan B: A total of four (4) units have this two-bedroom plan, which has 1,218 square feet of living area. These are all end units within Building A, and 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 both bedrooms have access to a balcony measuring approximately 80 square feet. Plan C: A total of four (4) units have this three-bedroom plan, which has 1,330 square feet of living area, These are all end units within Building B, and they include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, Bedroom #2, Bedroom #3 and common bathroom. Bedroom b#2 has access to alcony measuring bathroom, and square each bedroom has access to a priva Y measu feet, respectively. Plan D: A total of two (2) units have this two-bedroom plan, which shows two bedrooms and 760 square feet of living area. These are end units within Building A, and they include a living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry area, two bedrooms, and common bathroom. A 42 square foot balcony is accessible via one of the bedrooms. These units fehas do not comply with the unit size requinunit and a minimum sizenoft900 applicant et agreed to modify these to a one-bedroom Staff has conditioned the project accordingly, and does not anticipate any major problem in making this adjustment to the floor plans once the project is approved. Proposed open space: Pursuant to Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.88.130, a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of private and/or common open space per unit, or any combination thereof exclusive of front yard setback, side yard setback, vehicular access ways and off-street parking areas is required. The required amount of open space is 14,400 square feet for the 36 units. The plans submitted arden show a the deck abovertheethird common open space area in the form of roof g story dwelling of both buildings. Additionally 5,552 square feet of open space (roof garden) is shown on the deck above the fourth story of Building B. The third-floor open space amenities include a combination of open trellises, grass/garden areas, walking/jogging trail, benches as well as barbeque pits for outdoor entertainment for the home owners' use. Building A would have an elevator and one staircase accessing the rooftop garden. Building B shows two separate garden areas • Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Pace 10 of 29 E on the north and south side of the fourth floor. The south garden would have a staircase access, and the north garden would have an elevator and staircase access. Additionally there is one staircase from the north garden shown for access to the garden deck above the fourth story. The City's Building Department and Fire Department have conceptually reviewed the proposed rooftop garden plans, and there are concerns with the project's compliance with exiting requirements of the Building and Fire Codes. As such, there may be a need for additional stairways or a re-design of the fourth-story dwellings prior to approval by the Building and Fire Departments. Accordingly, staff has included a condition of approval requiring the applicant to obtain approval from the Building and Fire Departments for exiting prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Minor modifications to the project's exterior appearance resulting from the exiting compliance will be handled administratively by the Planning Services Administrator or his designee. Proposed Landscaping: The commercial parking lot will have 3,847 square feet of landscaped area (21.2% of parking area), which exceeds the City's policy requiring a minimum of 3% overall landscaping for commercial developments. The plans submitted show conceptual landscaping for the perimeter planting areas, parking lot plantings, and rooftop deck plantings. The plantings callout 48-inch box evergreen mature trees to be planted along the rear property boundary abutting residential property. The entries into the residential lobby areas are accessible from the street through a walkway with trellis cover. All entries into the storefronts and lobby area will have decorative stone paving. Additionally, there is "stamped concrete" decorative paving proposed at the driveway entrance and at two parking aisle locations within the parking lot. The front planter along Del Mar Avenue shows five feet of plantings to include trees and small shrubs in front of the commercial tenant spaces. As such, the storefronts discourage "window shopping" and do not allow for outdoor seating, as envisioned in the City's draft guidelines for mixed use developments. In an effort to address this concern, staff recommends that the front planters be minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area. Ornamental 48"-box street trees with appropriate tree wells and decorative grates are recommended, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and Parks and Recreation Department. As part of the agency comments received from the Garvey School District, it was recommended that a lattice railing with espalier vines be installed along the rear portion of the roof decks to discourage persons from throwing objects from the roof decks into the school play areas. The conceptual plans show a wood railing with vines growing on a raised planter bed. 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 • Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Page 11 of 29 • Commission approve the conceptual landscape plans as presented, with the conditions of approval which require that street trees be planted along Del Mar Avenue, and that storefront planting areas be removed in order to enhance the pedestrian and storefront interaction. Proposed Fencing A 6-foot high decorative masonry wall will be constructed along the north and south property lines, and an 8-foot high block wall will be installed along the east property line to prevent students from adjacent school jumping over to the project site. The proposed block wall will be split face throughout on the east, north and south property lines. A standard block wall cap will be used to add visual quality character to the wall. Parking 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. Section 17.84.020 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum parking spaces for residential projects. Residential Dwelling units that contain three bedrooms or less must provide two (2) parking spaces and one (1) guest parking space per two dwelling units. As such, a minimum of 169 parking spaces is required by Code, as shown on the following matrix (Figure 2). FIGURE 2 (Required Parking Spaces) Land Use Area I No. of units Parkin Ratio TOTAL Retail 5865 sf 1 space/250 sf 23.46 Restaurant 5640 sf 1 space/100 sf 56.4 Residential 36 units 2 covered spaces per unit 72 1 space per two Guest Parking 36 units units 18 TOTAL 169 There are 152 total parking spaces proposed, which results in a deficit of 17 parking spaces. However, the applicant has requested a development incentive pursuant to Section 65915d(2)A of the California Government Code, which requires Cities and Counties to grant up to three incentives including reductions in development standards and design requirements that restrict housing projects with an affordable component. This project qualifies for the incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent of the dwelling units for sale to persons and families of moderate income. The applicant proposes to have reduced parking stall width dimensions for the residential condominium parking stalls. Section 17.88.110 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum parking stall dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet for condominium projects. The proposed 0 0 Panning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paae 12 of 29 parking plan shows 9 feet by 20 feet for all parking stalls. The development incentive of Section 65915 of the Government Code allows the City to consider granting this relaxation of the Code-requirement for required parking spaces and dimension, in order to make the affordable component more feasible for the developer. 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 or county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: (A) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space. (B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. Based on the above, the developer has requested to apply the above parking ratios for the proposed development, in order to facilitate the housing affordability component. The applicant will be selling 10% of the condominiums to moderate income households. The proposed project meets the parking ratios established by Government Code Section 65915(p). The 80 parking spaces for the commercial component will be provided at grade (71 spaces) and in the southern portion of the subterranean parking structure (9 spaces), outside of the gated parking. Parking for employees will be encouraged in the non-gated portion of the subterranean parking garage. The gated subterranean parking will only be used exclusively by residents and their guests. Two guest parking spaces are provided in the non-gated portion of the subterranean structure. Access to the parking areas of the project will be provided via one 29'-9" driveway on Del Mar Avenue, with secondary (emergency) gated access from an alley that accesses Dorothy Street at the northeast corner of the property. A red-curb "no parking" area will be required for the first 40 feet of driveway entrance at Del Mar Avenue to provide enhanced line-of-sight visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the development. The proposed parking structure entails significant excavation for constructing below- grade basement concrete retaining walls with steel reinforcement. A construction staging plan, restrictions on hours of construction, and dust mitigation/erosion control best management practices will be used as part of 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 Traffic: Mohaddes A traffic impact study was prepared on August 1, 2007 by Meyer Associates. The study details the current levels of service and the projected levels of service for the main intersections in the vicinity of the project site. It studied four (4) Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paae 13 of 29 • intersections: Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue, Del Mar Avenue/Dorothy Street, Del Mar Avenue/Emerson Place, and Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue. 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, a LOS change from "B" to "C" is noted for the PM peak hour traffic at the Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue. Similarly, the intersection at Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue will change from LOS "C" to LOS "D" for the PM peak hour traffic. Since a LOS "C" to LOS "D" indicates a change from "light congestion" to "significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional", this change does not warrant traffic mitigation measures and is considered to be acceptable. The change from LOS "B" to "C" is also considered acceptable as it represents a condition of "very light congestion" going to "light congestion". These changes 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% and changing from E to F. These thresholds are not met with the proposed development, as outlined in the traffic study- According to Table S-3 of the traffic study, the cumulative project conditions of future development "with or without the project" indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the City's LOS threshold criteria, no significant impacts are created for future impacts at any of the study intersections, as a result of the construction of the proposed project. The LOS for the intersections at Del Mar Avenue/Hellman Avenue will remain at LOS "D" and "C" for AM and PM peak hour, respectively. The intersection at Del Mar Avenue/Dorothy Street will remain at LOS "C" and "D" for AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Del Mar Avenue at Emerson Place will remain at LOS "B" for both AM and PM peak hour traffic. And the intersection at Del Mar Avenue/Garvey Avenue will remain at LOS "D" for both AM and PM peak hour traffic. Based on the traffic study, staff finds that the proposed development will not create any significant environmental effects upon the traffic and circulation systems. Additionally, the reduced parking request will not create any hardship on the commercial tenants because residential uses and the variety of commercial uses designed into the project 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: Both buildings have 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, corner towers with cupolas, predominately flat roofs 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 PaQe 14 of 29 with parapets at the rooflines, and smooth stucco plaster. There is substantial variation in the front wall plane facing Del Mar Avenue due to the private balconies that provide fenestration along the expanse of multi-story structure especially along street frontage. Additionally the roof line has a varying height due to detailed architectural elements such as towers, fourth-story penthouse unit cluster, and the landscaping features of the roof decks including trees and trellis covers. Both Building A and B will have the same color schemes and use the same exterior materials. The exterior facades consist of smooth stucco plaster in a combination of Sherwin- Williams colors, including "Emjoy Yellow", "Chaste White" and "Mocha". The accent/trim colors include Sherman-Williams "Twinkle", and "Renwick Rose Beige" to be used on window trim, cornice trim, and horizontal banding above the storefront windows. Black metal railings will be used. The colors complement the "terra cota" tile roof and reddish blend granite tiles on the sides of the buildings. The roof top trellises will be painted in "Twinkle" to match other trim colors. The scored plaster walls are accented with painted metal railings in "Black Magic", which are on the second and third story windows and balconies of Building "B". The mitigation measures require replacing the white foam trim with precast concrete window trims. Staff is further recommending that all cornice trims be precast concrete in lieu of textured foam. The proposed roofing material for the domed-roof tower is a sprayed urethane foam material. Staff is recommending that a pre-fabricated copper or aluminum ribbed roofing material with factory high-gloss paint be used, in a color to complement the proposed color schemes of the buildings. Both Building "A" and "B" are designed with three floors and a fourth-story penthouse structure that occupies a small portion of the building footprint. The maximum height of the structures is 48'-6" to the top of the fourth story parapet. The cupola structure and elevator shaft project five (5) feet, and .13 feet above the fourth story parapet, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed architecture consists of a contemporary vernacular with elements such as smooth stucco, vertical reveals, granite stone veneers, wainscot trims, 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 buildings is the two cupola structures on either side of the primary entrance. These towering architectural features provide unique character, and balance the massing of the fourth story penthouse areas when viewed from the street. The protruding vertical columns along the front elevation provide a recess to the storefront windows and entry doors for street-level retail suites. The columns also create shadow lines and add interest to the elevations. Additionally, the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures that require a 2-foot to 4-foot recess for all storefront entries, and a four-inch recess for all windows, to mitigate the aesthetic 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Pace 15 of 29 impacts of the proposed project. Window surrounds will be required to be pre-cast concrete, in lieu of the stucco trim that is shown on the plans. The colored renderings of the elevations are available with the Planning Division upon request and will be available for public view at the Planning Commission Meeting on October 15, 2007. Neighborhood Character: In comparison to the residential uses within the project vicinity and office buildings along Del Mar Avenue adjacent to the site, development of the proposed project would be greater in 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 Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial which will result in higher density residential and commercial mixed use developments in the future. There are existing multiple family developments in the immediate vicinity of the site on Del Mar Avenue, including a new 15-unit condominium complex under construction to the north. The proposed development is complementary to the surrounding uses and has a modern application of a traditional "new urbanism" concept. The rooftop gardens will provide an added 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, including four (4) affordable dwelling units, as well as commercial uses to serve the daily needs of the existing and future residents of Rosemead. Siqn Program 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 Del Mar Avenue. Staff is recommending that a comprehensive sign program, requiring this type of signage, be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any sign permits. The sign program would restrict wall signs to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum lettering height of 12 inches, and maximum logo size of 18 inches. Mixed Use Design Guidelines On September 25, 2007 the Rosemead City Council adopted the Mixed Use Design Guidelines for the City, prepared by design firm 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 • • Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 16 of 29 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. 2.1 Public Realm and the Pedestrian Environment The project shows a five-foot wide planter area along Del Mar Avenue. The resulting sidewalk width will be less than seven feet, once street trees are installed. In order to provide the seven-foot clear pedestrian passageway, staff is recommending that the storefronts not have a front landscaped planter. Ornamental street trees (Australian Willow) with metal grates will be required in the public right-of-way, per the City Engineer's conditions. The expanded sidewalk areas will provide an enhanced pedestrian environment, and will accommodate outdoor dining areas as encouraged by the Guidelines. §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 5-foot setback on Del Mar Avenue which will provide opportunities for outdoor dining, as encouraged by the Guidelines. $2 3A-B Building Design The project provides active commercial use for the entire 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 all elevations and the two tower elements at the driveway entrance provide a strong focal point, as encouraged by the Guidelines. §2,3 C Building Elements While there is not a formal "moduuavanation nand walleveryplane relief due to the use of provides substantial architectural balconies, and architectural projections. The upper floor windows correlate proportionally to the storefront windows, See of strong accentuation cornice ltrimsf badecoratse, and top element to the facades with the sign bands, metal railing. All building entries are oriented towards the street frontage to provide human scale for the streetscape. 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. • • Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 17 of 29 X2.4 Building 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. 52.5 Storefront The proposed storefronts provide large windows and a bulkhead with stone veneer. The corner storefront provides substantial architectural interest that contracts 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. 52.6 Lighting The plans submitted with this application do not show detailed lighting, although wall- mounted lighting and freestanding light standards for the parking areas in the rear are called out on the site plan. 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. q2.7 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 portion of the buildings near the southern residential lobby area that can function as usable open space and/or outdoor seating for the restaurant tenants. §2.8 Compatibility with Adjoining Properties The project is compatible with the established zero setback and two story office buildings in the vicinity of the site. The project will have limited encroachment into the variable height restrictions of the City's General Provisions, and as such will negligibly impact lateral views of the adjoining residential properties to the east. _§2.9 Parking and $2.10 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 frontage, as encouraged by the Guidelines. The project has a single driveway in the central portion of the site, in order to maximize the continuity of storefront facades. Conclusion: Staff believes that the proposed mixed use project will complement the existing uses and contribute greatly to the aesthetic value of the existing neighborhood. Approval of the proposed project will result in no significant environmental impacts to the subject site and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential land use is consistent with the surrounding mix of commercial and residential land uses. • • Planning Commission Meeting October 15, 2007 Paoe 18 of 29 site and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential land use is consistent with the surrounding mix of commercial and residential land uses. 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. Prepare by: r gabs Senior Planner Submitted by: AL Matt Everli Planning Services Administrator Attachments: A. Conditions o` Approval B. C. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program D. E. Traffic Study Assessor's Parcel Map 5287-020-033, 034, 036, & 038) F. Zoning Map G. General Plan Map H. Applications G 1Planning4PC Repor1slZC1ZC 05-22-,, GPA 05-01, CUP 04-960, DR 07-146, Commercial office bldg doc 0 0 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-01, ZONE CHANGE 05-221, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-960, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 61336, AND ZONE VARIANCE 04-325 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 15, 2007 General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 04- 960, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 61336 and Zone Variance 04-325 are approved for the construction of 11,505 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space, and 36 attached dwelling units totaling 42,288 square feet of floor area to be located at 3212-3232 Del Mar Avenue. The project shall be developed in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "B," dated September 25, 2007 along with the submitted colored elevations and color material. Any revision to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 04-960, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 61336 and Zone Variance 04-325 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. General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 04- 960, Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 61336 and Zone Variance 04-325 is approved to develop a mixed use project within two-years from the City Council's approval date. The Applicant shall make progress towards initiation of the proposed use or request an extension within 30-calender days prior to expiration of the initial two year approval period. Otherwise General Plan Amendment 05-01, Zone Change 05-221, Conditional Use Permit 04-960, Tentative Tract Map 61336 and Zone Variance 04-325 shall become null and void. 4. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved project including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. The City Staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress and after construction to monitor compliance. 6. The Planning Commission and/or City Council hereby authorize the Planning Division to make or approve necessary minor modification to the approved plans related to this project. • 7. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, all school fees and other applicable fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of payment of such fees. 8. 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 9. 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. 10. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 11.Occupancywill not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). Store front commercial tenant spaces shall ONLY be occupied by retail, restaurant, and personal service uses in order to maintain a lively storefront environment as recommended by the City's mixed use design guidelines goal 2.0 (4). Office uses, second-hand sales, and other non-retail businesses shall be prohibited on the store front spaces. 12. 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. 13.There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipments, debris or travel trailers.. All trash and debris shall be contained within City approved trash enclosures. All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. The proposed trash enclosure structure shall be built with solid roof and provided with the same architectural elements as the main building including decorative cornices, decorative trims and contrasting fagade color. 14. The project site shall be maintained in a clean, weed/litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, rubbish, trash and debris. It shall be the responsibility of the subject property owner to remove any new litter and graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 15.The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of '/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 the approval of the Planning Division. 16.The parking space markers, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re- striped including periodical re-double-striping to meet ADA and City standards as determined by the Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 17. The applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 18. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically stated in the CC&Rs prior to issuance of any building permit. 19.All roof top appurtenances and mechanical equipments shall adequately be screened from public view such that they are not visible from adjacent properties. There shall be no mechanical equipment attached to the sides of the buildings. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the developer/applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 21. During site grading, the sites shall be watered at least twice a day to eliminate fugitive dust. 0 0 22. Construction vehicle speeds shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour in construction zones. 23. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, review and approval. sign program shall Program to the Planning Division 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. 24. 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. 25.All areas shown as stamped concrete on the project plans dated September 25, 2007 shall be replaced with decorative inter-locking pavers to enhance pedestrian walkways and to add esthetic value to the subject site. 26.The developer/applicant shall extend decorative interlocked pavers along the primary entrance between buildings A and B, 75 feet from the street property line towards the ramp to complement the proposed building facade articulations. Prior to issuance of building permit the applicant/developer shall submit cut sheets/brochures to the Planning Division showing colors and materials for approval. The planning Division shall make a final decision on what colors and materials to be used before installation of such pavers. 27.All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be visible from the public right-of-way. 28.The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. Ornamental 48"-Box Street trees shall be planted along Del Mar Avenue with tree wells and decorative tree grates. The species of street trees shall be determined by the Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation Department. Landscaped planter areas in front of the storefront windows shall be minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area in order to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment along the storefronts. 29.The developer/applicant shall install a six foot high split face block wall on the north and south property lines. The developer/applicant shall install an eight foot high split face block wall along the east property line. 0 0 30.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 Building Official and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan. 31. Developer/applicant shall obtain a public works permit for any work done within or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 32.Applicant shall 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. 33. 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 or at a safe distance from the proposed buildings as determined by the City or Rosemead and the applicable service provider. 34. Violation of any/or all conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 35. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall meet with the City's Building Official and the 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. Proof of compliance with the Building and Fire Code regulations for exiting shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to final plan check approval. 36. The applicant shall re-design the two "Plan D" floor plans as one-bedroom units, in compliance with the minimum 900 square foot 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 of the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City Attorney, will be recorded against the four (4) 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. 38.All cornice trims along the top of the first story of the buildings shall be precast concrete, painted to match the window trims. 39. The roofing material for the domed roof structures with cupola shall be a fabricated copper or aluminum material with "high gloss" factory paint in a color to complement the proposed building color schemes. Vertical reveals to match the elevation • • drawings on Exhibit B shall be used. 40. The applicant or successor in interest shall meet with the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County to obtain a permit or permits to connect to a public sewer system prior to issuance of a building permit. Payment of applicable connection fees will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued as determined by the Los Angles County Sanitation District. Fire Department Conditions 41.Access shall comply with Section 902 of the Fire Code, which requires all-weather access. All-weather access may require paving. 42. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any exterior portion of all structures. 43. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. 44. Private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "Private Driveway and Fire lane" with the widths clearly depicted and shall be maintained in accordance with the Fire Code. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 45. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. 46. The applicant shall provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior to occupancy. 47. The applicant shall provide water mains, fire hydrants and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, for all land shown on Tentative Tract Map 61336, which shall be recorded. 48.The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 4000 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of four (4) hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Three (3) hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the require fire flow. 49. Fire hydrant requirements shall include the installation of one (1) public fire hydrant. 50.All hydrants shall measure 6" X 4" X 2-112" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All on-site hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. 0 0 The applicant shall install the fire hydrant in the location that is shown on the map on file with the Los Angeles County Fire Department office, described to be "east of Del Mar Avenue by the proposed driveway". 51. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior to Final Map approval. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. 52.Additional water system requirements will be required when this land is further subdivided and/or during the building permit process. 53. This project is subject to Section 904.2.9 of the Building Code, which will require fire sprinklers to be installed. The applicant shall submit four (4) sets of water plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Evidence shall be provided on Los Angeles County Fire Department fire flow form, Form 195, that the hydrant and available flow rate meets Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. Mitigation Measure Conditions: 54. Applicant shall install dense landscaping, which includes 48" box evergreen trees and shrubs, and a decorative perimeter block wall to reduce view impacts of the site from the residential area, making the impact less than significant. 55. Only non-specular building materials shall be used on exterior of structures to significantly reduce potential light reflection and glare to a less than significant impact. Windows shall have an anti-glare coating. 56.A photometric survey shall be prepared that limits, to the maximum extent possible the impact of glare against off-site locations. 57.All windows shall be recessed a minimum of four (4) inches. Window surrounds shall be dimensional pre-cast concrete sections with defined grout lines. 58.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 Del Mar Avenue shall be recessed a minimum of two feet. 59. To reduce the appearance of mass of the building, the upper floors and roof forms shall be designed to vary in setback and height. 60.The site shall be watered at when wind speed minimize S miles lper hour. exceeds grading. Grading shall cease peed 61.0n-site construction vehicle speeds shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour. 62.To the maximum extent feasible, architectural coatings shall be applied using paint materials with zero-VOC content. A list of manufacturers supplying zero-VOC • emission paint materials can be provided by the SCAQMD upon request. 63. Prior to approval of final plans, the applicant shall add dedicated, secured bicycle parking racks to the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre- manufactured or custom racks, cemented or bolted in ground, lockers, or similar bicycle storage device to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 64. 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. 65.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 BMP's per the City's Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 66. The applicant shall provide decorative 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. 67.The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. 68. The developer shall require by contract specifications that the following constructing best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels. • Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards. All power construction equipment shall utilize noise shielding and muffling devices. • Locate construction staging areas and noise-generating equipment away from the school and residential uses, where feasible. Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. Where feasible, high noise- producing activities should be scheduled between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. to minimize noise impacts to the adjacent school. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which generates high noise levels. 0a rior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit nd, when acceptable. the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation 0 0 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. City Engineer's Conditions: General 70. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 71. A final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 72.A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 73. Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. 74. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be refunded upon receipt of the mylar copy of the filed map. 75. The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code. 76.Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 77. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees • approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. 78. The developer shall submit the condominium final map plans to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 79. 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&Rs shall provide for maintenance of private driveway, parking areas, and maintenance of sewer laterals and mainline. Drainage and Grading 80. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easements. 81.A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. 82. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. 83. Surface water generated from the site shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveway into the gutter on Del Mar Avenue. A parkway drain is required. 84. Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance and SUSMP requirements. Road 85. New drive approach shall be constructed at least 5' from any above-ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. 86. Three (3) existing drive approaches on Del Mar Avenue shall be closed with full curb, gutter and sidewalk. 87. Developer shall construct 4'-square tree wells with metal grates on Del Mar Avenue. 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 relocate existing storm drain catch basin on Del Mar Avenue. Developer shall obtain plan approval and the necessary permits from the Los • Angeles County Department of Public Works for the catch basin relocation. 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 undergrounded where feasible, as approved by the City Engineer and Planning Division. 92.Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. Water 93. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. Planning Commission Added Conditions on October 15, 2007: 94. A minimum 8-foot high decorative masonry wall shall be constructed along the eastern and southern property lines as part of the first phase of construction. The applicant or successor in interest shall avoid damage to the existing improvements on the neighboring properties, resulting from construction of the subterranean parking structure. 95. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans showing a workstation and handicapped-accessible half-bathroom within the main residential lobby area for use by a parking monitor/security guard. Said workstation and half-bathroom shall be constructed as part of the proposed mixed use project. 96. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a comprehensive Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Director or designee. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC & R's and shall be enforced by the property owners association. Said Parking Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: a. Assigned parking for each residence. b. Designated parking for customers and employees. c. Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking. d. Funding mechanism for a 24-hour parking monitor/security guard. e. Funding mechanism for maintenance of a workstation with half-bath for the parking monitor/security guard. 0 0 Every homeowner shall be allowed to park a maximum of two (2) vehicles on site. The parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Employee parking shall be restricted to the subterranean parking structure. 0 0 MAYOR JOHN TRAN MAYOR PRO TEM; JOHN IJUNE2 CDUIJCILMEMBERS. MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A TAYLOR • Pose ad BE3E E VALLEN' BOULEVARD • F.O BO>; 300 ROSEMEAD GALIFORNIL.9'770 TELEPHONE (626) 569.2100 FAX (626) 307.921E NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ORIGINAL FILED AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP 13 2007 BEFORE THTHE PLANNING E CITY OF OSEMEAIDSION 0 LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK ON OCTOBER 15, 2007 sion NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Rosemead Planning Coemead City Hall issued East1Val ey BNegative ou evard. Rcsemeadand will conduct a public hearing on October 15. 2007 at 7 00 PM, at Res Y ocated at Rosemead (hereafter CASE NO.: GPA 05-01. ZC 05-221 PDR 05-02. TTM 061336. ZS 04-325. fPro& CUP posed M 9xed Use Project lo referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an Initial Study ) o application requesting approval to develop a Mired Use Project 3224, & 3232 Del Mar Avenue The applicant has submitted an app consisting of 36 attached condominium units, 5,865 square feet of retail and 5,640 square feet of restaurant space, along with subterranean parking. may have a ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the proposed project Y ficant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California L.-ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local guidelines for Implen snttationaof mpQA.oOn t ebasis of to Initithe Study, toe City of therefore, red a has Rosemead has concluded that the project would have a less a icant effe the proposed mitigation measures aimed at addressing efthe lectsrthe independentjudgfinent of the Cay as a lead aoencyppe?CEQA e section not Draft Mitigated The Declaration ( The guidelines. The project site is not on a a list list compiled pursuant to Go and woulddnot affect h g hways oh of e pfac (d~itie ~unde the considered a project of statewide, regional or area wide significance jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Department 20- of the I sated m 8B38 E. it lley Bomm ots mn wr, C subm such 91770, for public review. Any person wishing to comment on the adequacy to the City of Rosemead Planning Department, Attn. Mat Everling, Senior Planner. Comments must be received within calender days from September 13, 2007 to October 3, 200 meet The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the public as its re encou lax raged tolatte dO t b er 15, 20078 If th Plan ro ect will not have a significant effect on the at 7:ODpm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public Commission finds that with the incorporated mitigation measures, theprop ixed use1projed to be approved by the City Council. environment; it may recommend the MIND to be adopted and the proposed This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the proposed mixed use project at 3212, 3220, 3224, & 3232 Del Mar Avenue without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subsequenrlychallenge cdrrespa t. the allllenged ayt be lima ed or written oence dr to he City of to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing date. `t Everling ,,or Planner Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE 3212, 3220, 3224 and 3232 Del Mar Avenue Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5287-020-036, 033, 038, 034 Lead Agyencv: City of Rosemead S838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 626-569-2144 Contact: PJlatt Everllna, Senior Planner Project Proponent Jenny Yam, Property Owner 421 North Pine Street San Gabriel. CA 91777 5 Project Architect JVVDA 529 E. Valley Boulevard, Suite 225-A San Gabriel, California 91776 General Plan Amendment 05-01 Zone Change 05-221 Tentative Tract Map 061336 Planned Development Review 05-02 Conditional Use Permit 04-960 Zone Variance 04-325 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 0 0 "~i~ Del M,a Avenue. Rosemeac. Pesemeac Nixec _ s- init;a~ SECTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE the purpose of identifi~inR and evaluating the The Cin' of Rosemead has prepared this Initial Study for potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of ne Reviexv. poseConditional Use Amendment. Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map; Planned Deg e opm Permit and Zone Variance for the subdivision of land and the develo timer s dentiallxcondompr ect. The proposed mixed-use development is coabove 105 thirty-six feet of leasable commercial totaling 42,288 square feet of living area, located space, \vhich includes 5.865 square feet of retail and 5,640 square feet of restaurant space. 1.2 LOCATION The pro posed project is located in the City of Rosemead^ Los Angeles °na are situated in the C3 D, Th p '?2;23_ Del Mar Avenue, 32-32 Del Mar Avenue. The parcels- located at ?__0--- edium Commercial zone in a Design Uverlav. The parcel located at 32ri tDeeasas~delocated M Del Mar C-;; Medium Commercial zone. The entire project area is located o Avenue, south of the I-10 Freeway, between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. (See Location Map) , P.csemead. Posemeac Mixed Use - ~~"2•3~^~'"2 De! Mar Avenue lnrtiat 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION map Planned Zone Change G:~Tentative Tract 061:36. General Plan Amendment US-01, Developmen? Feview 0S_0'?, Conditional Use Permit 04 960 and Mediums Commercial zone with a to change the existing C-3: I -drum Commercial zone and C-3D, d-use Design Overlay to a P-D; Planned Development zone. for the con ttructionx of F residential development on approximately 1.28 acres. This project consists o m 5 865 square feet of condominiums located above 11,505 square feet of comrcial/rail space ect (area is desi;nated retail space and 5.640 square feet of restaurant space). F se P esidential!Corr,mercial Mixed-Use in the General Plan, which requires a Ca n ncrroeaslejin the number a mixed-use project". This request is also to amend the General plan for District from fourteen of residential units allowed per acre in the Resd parcels 14) units per acre to thirty (30) units per acre. The proposed density is 28du/ac. The four (4) totaling approximately 55,828 square feet are currently Vacant. 1.3.1 Proposed Building La)'out and Architecture a out: The site's shape is not square or rectangular, but rather shaped like3a'' The dhe site's ength, L 1 measuring from north to south, ranges from approximately 114 Tito buildings are proposed, both of measuring from east to west, ranges f''° frontage of Del Maz6.Avenue. Both a surface and a subterranean which will be located along the street fio ~ o ide driveway parking area will be located behind the buildings which will el?3c thebfa~adea -,of 'b u" wlding "A" spans on Del Mar Avenue. (See Figure ].3) As shown in Fryure approximately 74'-6" along Del Mar Avenue, and extends approximately 148'-0" to Thrds e the east property line. The total building footprint occupies approximately 11,139 square building "B" spans approximately 166'-0" along Del Mar Avenue, ands extends appro matelyin a 6" towards the east properr line. The total building footprint of building 12;616 square feet. ' are setback approximately 5%0" from the west Setbacks: Both building "A" and building ` B' is setback 34'-0" from the property line, which lies along Del Mar Avenue. In addition; buildino g "A" line. east property line, 11'-0" from the south properly line and 10~0',rfo e~he northOprop f on the line, 1-O" Building "B" is setback between 56'-0" and 15-/'-0'* f the north property' line. The total distance south property line, and approximately 1 - between buildine "A" and building "B" is 34'-0*,- 0 0 Rcsemead Mixed Use - Del Mar Nvenue Rosemead. California initial Fic u re 1.3 osed on each of the buildings. add building height Height: Rectangular and domed towers prop variation. Alonz the Del Mar Avenue frontage, the proposed four-store facades have an approximate avera%,e height of 50'-0." Building "B" is sliahtly taller than building "A." as the fourth floor o building "A" only consists of a covered stairWay access to a rooftop garden. A 61 0 tall 0 0 Use Ge! Mar Hvenve, Rosemead Mixed ln~y r located at the northwest corner of building and a hl'-0" tall domed tov,~er located the towe point between the nvo buildings. The southwest corner of building "B" will create a distinct focal p age height of the north- south and east elevations of building "A" is 41'-0." The average height av~r - roxitnateI . `]'-0.' of the north. south and east elevations of building "B" i- app cture: The proposed architectural style is post-modern Italianate, cth3ar scte plaster balustrades, Archite stop street-facing facades; tall, narrow and archfd ~`~'tl'ddat t e~rooflines, and smooth stucco comer towers with cupolas, predominately flat roo parapets plaster surface treatment (See Figure 1.4). Colors proposed range fvo 1eet g1tll7P tuatetthe sDel dM a brownish-red tones. At street level. ; ` glass storefronts aQardensgranite on the Upper floors, v hich will be facade. Both building "A" and "B", incorporate rooftop trellis covered patios, barbeque areas and children playgrounds. improved with landscapin=g, Decorative. 8'-0" block walls are proposed to surround the site alo g, allef op rt landscaped cent t.os residential areas. In addition to the rooftop larders, a total of _,^~6` quar ro osed at ;round level, throughout the site_ Decorative 6'-0" v,'alls are proposed along the also p p remaining north and south property lines of the site, which abut commercial zones. 1. 3.2 Access. Circulation and Parking ular access and parking: A two-lane, 29`-9" Fide driis proposed to provide chic in incy to the site. The drive~~,ay will be located to the approxi.nate center of area access frontage along Del 1 Iar Avenue. Both a surface parkin ec°t and subterranean parking 1~4 parl=ino spaces for will be located directly behind the buildings. The prof Proposes residential and commercial uses, including seventeen compact spaces property fiaze combined eleven handicap spaces. A secondary access will be added 3lolto the el nentary boundary linking the site to the existing= 20-fora alle}' the lie j cent school and connects to Dorothy Street. e • • Gcsemead Mixed Use -x.12 X232 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead ~aiifornia Iniira+ Study Pedestrian Access: Individual storefront doors located along both the street an an, uses. `Stairs facades will provide sidewalk-level pedestrian access to the retail, office and elevators are proposed on each of the buiidinas both at around level and in the subterranean parking area to provide access to the upper levels. 1.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT In addition to identifying and evaluating the potential environmental impthe level acts that of could en oonm s al result of the proposed project, this evaluation will serve to determine will required to adequately prepare and adopt the required environmental Pursuant t. Sections provide the basis for input from membof the ers nest the City of Rosemead is the Lead Agency in Guidelines, 15050; 15051; and 15367 of the State CEQA the preparation of this Initial Study. and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. . Section The remainder of this section provides a description of the project's ves environmental an overview of lthe potential Two of this Initial Study includes an environmental checklist that impacts to the environment that may result from project implementation. Section Three elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, providins justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ract The proposed project area for General Plan Amendment OS-O1, Zone aj Use Change Permit 04 960t and Zane Map 061336; Planned Development Review 05-02, Condition Variance 04-325 is located at 3"212 -323 Del Mar Avenue in the C-3: Medium Commercial zone and C3-D; Medium Commercial zone with a Design Overlay. The subject site co Isi is of four 4) va beiweencant ay, parcels of land, located on the east side o~D~eVeM e Avaesecondnue, roadway that runs north Mar Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. Del and south, in the Ciry of Rosemead. The site is re;atr, elv f~zt. There are six (6} trees on-site: tv'o Black Walnut trees, two (2) Chinese Elm trees, a Palm tree and a tall cactus. No oak trees are present. According to Building. Department records, the vacant parcel located at 3212 Del Mar Avenue was c3220 hild located previously developed as a residence and was demolished in 1959. The `'a t parcel ted to at Del Mar Avenue was developed as a single-family residence that was later 87. The daycare facility in 1983. All structures on this property were demolishedS.i a9d the parcel located el located at 3224 Del Mar was previously developed staucaupiesl were ahou, lso demolished in 1991 and in 323_ Del Mar was a single family residence. 19S3; respectively-. In 19S9, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved plans for the 5 • • Mrxed Use - =2 Gel Mar 4venue. Rosemead, Gafifornia Iniua' Study consolidation of the parcels located al -2232 and the construction of z commercial mini-mall. However, all permits expired before any construction ,vas initiated. Therefore, all four (4,) of these subject parcels have been vacant since the demolition of all sLructures Land uses surroundinz the pro)ect site consist of the follo'*ring: orth General Plan: Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning: C-: (Medium Commercial) :..and Use: Single-Family Residences South General Plan: Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) Land Use: Commercial/Office East General Plan: Medium Density Residential' and Public Facilities Zoning: R-3 (Light Multiple Residential Zone) Land use: Duff Elementary School and Multi-Family Residential "W est General Plan: Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial) ercial'Office, Multi-Family Residences; Duplexes. and Single-Family Land L se: Comm Residences • • fnttia! Mizeo Use 32'2-.;x.:2 De' Ma ti,enue. SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Potentially Significant h Les No Significant Impact Wit Mitigation impact impact environmental issues 1. Aesthetics Would the project: enic ❑ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a sc ❑ vista? b) Substannally damage scenic resources, k n ❑ ❑ including. but not limited to, trees. roc outcroppings, and historic building within a tote scenic highway. _ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual z ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? _ ht or glare I] d) Create a new source of substantial lig 11 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? enviro nmenial effects, lead 2• Agriculture Resources in determining whether impacts to agricultural l Land oluarion andlSite Assessment Model (19.07) agencies maY refer to the California Agricultural L artment of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing California Dep prepared by the Cal impacts on agriculture and farmland Would the proiecr: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland- or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), O ❑ O as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? - - - O ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing O ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. Air Quality the a licable air quality management or air Fhere available, the signzTicance criteria established b} pP pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following dererminations. Would the project: ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualir plan? r, Violate any air qualirv standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substanttaily to an existing or pro;e.cted air - T----_ quality violation? - - 0 0 - e Mar Avenue, Rosemeac. On eompad Mixed Use- - Environmental issues cl F:esul: u; 2 cumulatwel, considerable net Increase o' am criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including, releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? _ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4. Biological Resources 9,*ould the project: 2) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directh, or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califontia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ ❑ identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife ❑ Z C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally defined by Section 404 of d s as protected wetlan Clean Water Act (including, but not limited h ❑ D e t marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through to , direct .*emoval, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? _ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ❑ ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nurse-Y sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ protecting biological resources. suc as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Confiict with the provisions of an adopted munity C F7 om Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural , Conservation Plan, or other approved local, ional. or state habitat conservation plan? re g ltural Resources t i d the pro7ecr: u a) Cause 3 sllb5tantlal adverse change in the ce as defned l ~I ❑ resour significance of a historica ) s 15064.5? in o Z ❑ o ❑ o 8 0 0 ini f: ;I Mixed Use - s32'i-~C3z De Mar Avenue, California _^vironmenta !sues b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signt5cance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.3' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feat:- r` dj Disturb any human remains, including those intered outside of formal cemeteries? 6. Geology and Soils YI'ould the proiecr. 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`ault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or bated on other substantial evidence of a knov,,n fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. -ii) Strong seismic ground shaking-? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation impact impact iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topscil? _ C) Be located on a geoioQic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentialh result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building (1944)- 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 wastewater? for the disposal of 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ ❑ i ❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Woulazne ✓,VPIII* a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q environment through the routine transport, use. or disposal of hazardous materials? • Rosemead Mixed use - 321 Inifie! 17~ Mar Avenue. Rosemeadt Less roan potentially Significant th Less Than Significant No Significant Wi Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Environmental Issues b) Create a stgnificant hazard to the public or the sonaby foreseeable h i ❑ [I rea environment triroug J upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the - environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ces a b ❑ ❑ , n st or acutely hazardous materials, su I waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school" - d) e located within one-quarter mile of a faciii emit d t - o that might reasonably be anticipate ❑ hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or - acutely hazardous materials, substances or - waste? e) Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal site; or 2) that could release P. hazardous substance as identified by the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code? f) Be located on land that is, or can tie mauc, sufficiently free of hazardous materals so _ to ol? be suitable for development and use as a sch( C C) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, r within two miles of a public airport or public ` use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ 0 h) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? i) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving wildland fires. ❑ including where vviidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?„`__._..--•-- 11 11 10 i p""nead Mixed Us " Je! Mar in iba! Environmental issues k) Be located within 1500 feet of (i) an above- oround water or fuel storage tank. or (ii) an easement of an above ground or underground pipeline that can pose a safer hazard to the proposed school? 8. Hydrology and Water Quality F['ould the prole~r: a) Violate any water quaiin standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been Granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. in a mariner which ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? tantially alter the existing dra inage pattern e site or area, including through the ation of the course of a stream or river, or tantially the rate or amount of which would result nner r , ace runoff in a ma ooding on- or off-site? in te or contribute runoff water which would ed l ann ed the capacity of existing or p ❑ ❑ ❑ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted ~ runoff? f) otherwise substantially degrade eater quality. ❑ ❑ ❑ G) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ed on a federal Flood Hazard V ❑ ❑ ❑ area as mapp 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 din fl ❑ ❑ g, oo of loss; injury or death involving result of the failure of a ❑ including flooding as a levee or dam? _ _ --_0 - ❑ l - j) Inundation ~ seiche. tsunami. California Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant No Significant With impact Mitigation impact Impac`. 7-I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ~ ❑ m ~Y2 3~3: Gel Mar Avenue Roseneac caii;orrna - d Mixed L'se Rosemea Initial Studl, Potentially Less Than Less Thar, Significant Significant No Significant Impact with Mitigation Impact impact Environmental Issues g, Land Use and Planning F'ouid the project - ❑ J a) Physically divide an established communm ^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ulation of an agency with e g policy, or r jurisdiction over the project (including, but not ❑ © ❑ ❑ limited to the general plan, specific plan, local or zoning ordinance) adopted coastal program for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an i environmental effect? c flici with any applicable habitat ❑ i i ❑ ❑ t es conservation plan or natural commun conservation plan? 10. Mineral Resources Would the proiect: Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ a) mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- i ❑ ❑ ❑ te important mineral resource recovery s delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 11. Noise >ilould the project result in: ration of noise a) Exposure of W levels in exctablished in the El L ® ❑ ❑ local senerainance, or applicable sgencies? _ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ e db r ® ❑ ❑ o n excessive groundborne vibration or groun noise levels? - c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ above levels vicinit ❑ © ❑ y noise levels in the project existing without the project? F d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ i ® ❑ ❑ t) ambient noise levels in the project vicin above levels existing without the project? ) For a project located within an airport land use e plan or. where such a plan has not been adopted, bli ❑ c within two miles of a public airport or pu use airport; would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Rcsemeac Mixec Vie, Mar Avenue, Rcsemeac Z~afifornra s. Study Less Than Potentially Significant with S onifi ant No Significant Impact Mitigation _ impact Impact Environmental Issues f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or workins in the project area to ❑ Q excessive noise levels ❑ Population and Housing A'ould the project: a) Induce substantial popuiation growth in an area, n ❑ either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through r rnnA< or other infrastructure)? - i I❑ I El 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ - replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housine elsewhere? Public Services project result in substantial adverse p Fn'sical impacts associated with the provision o new or Would the hysically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, p to maintain the construction of which could cause significant Yhprenerforrnance l obimpacts, in jectives for aver of the public services: U Li Ly u 0 0 ® El o ❑ ® o a) Fire Protection? b) police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) other public facilities? a) would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? O ~ ❑ o 0 0 Mrxed Use - 3 "=•3-3, pel mar Avenue. Rosemead Caiilornra Inrf+ai Environmental Issues 15. 7 ra nspo rtation'T raffi c Would the project, a) Cause an increase to traffic, which is substantial jr, 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 taps. the volume to caaaciry 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 progra'rtts supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm e) Result :n inadequate emergenc_- N, a_ cc_ess? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 16. utilities and Service systems would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existinE facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Less Than Potentially Significant Se s Than nt No Significant With ignifica Impact Mitigation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ° ° ❑ D z D ❑ ❑ ❑ ° 0 0 effects'' cj Require or result in the construction of new cilities or expansion of f ❑ ❑ a storm water drainage the construction of which i es. existing facilit could cause significant environmental effects?_ - d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve d ❑ ❑ the project from existing entitlements an ❑ resources. or are new or expanded entitlements _ - needed? - R ult in a determination by the wastewater serve treatment provider, which serves or may e ❑ ❑ ❑ the project that it has adequate capacity to serv the project's projected demand in addition to the - provider's existing commitments? - - f f served by a landfill with sufficient permirned - ❑ n ❑ s solid capacity to accommodate . the P,osect waste disposal needs? 9 0 Reserneac Mixed Use - 3252.3232 Der Ma' Avenue. Rosemead California ,ilia! study Less Than Potentially Sionifizant Less Than Sionificant with Significant No t Mitigation impact impact Environmental issues impac C,) Compi\ with federal; state; arc iota. salutes " 7 L arc re,ulanons reiated to solic Waste 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential 10 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 O plant or animal communitN'. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan«ered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ - b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively " considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable ❑ means that the incremental effects of a project O are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects-) - - ` - c) Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beincs; either directly or indire.ctiy? 9 9 initia „_n:.:~,.rcor.,;rPC SvStems nvlronmental "Factors i hat Gould Result ir. a Potentially Sianifi ant Impact E-i The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed mu:eG-usr Nlvic... result in 2 "poten:iall~ sisttificant impact" as indicated b~ tine preceding checiaist and supported by substantial evidence provided in this document ❑ 1., Quality ❑ AesthetIcs ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous )Materials ❑ Nfineral Fesources ❑ Public Services D Rocemeac' Mixer - _ Dei Mar Avenue. Rosemead calitvrma ❑ Agriculture Resources tr - ❑ Cultural Fesources ❑ (aeolu' /Soils ❑ Hydrolocv!Water Quaitty ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Noise ❑ PopulationNousing ❑ Recreation ❑ rransporiationrTraffic ❑ A9andatory Findings or Si-rtiflcance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. env ronmen El 1 find that although the proposed project could case because re flsionsei~the project halve beent' there will not be a significant effect to made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration Nvill be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project M-AY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. pote ❑ J find that the proposed project A'i.AY have a '-potentially the environment, butnatlleast one ecffecotrl.) haslbeeln significant unless mitigated" impact on gal and adequately analyzed in an earlier document d on pursuant 'ea~laer analbses as described on attach eds been addressed by mitigation measure base 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 pro-Ject have a adequately to an•earlieeElR because all potentially sl~ntfica~tt effect(a) have been avoided or or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards. and (b) mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR ors tile tl`ropased project, including futilteros required. mttugation measures that are unposed p p Date SiL 7nir;a! StuCy Rosemeac Mixed Use - 32-, 2-" 2 De' Ma, Avenue. Rcsemead, Galitom;z SECTION 3 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WiTH MITIGATION) a) No impau Areas surrounding the project site are zoned for residential and commercial uses. Therefore, no significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through this site. bj lvo in"cL The subject site consists of four (4) vacant parcels of land. There are no scenic resources such as historic buildins. a state scenic highway, or rock outcropping within the subject site or adjacent area that would be affected or damaged. c) Less tha,r significant ivith mitigation. The proposed project would involve the construction of thirty-six (3-6) residential condominiums above approximately 11,505 square feet of leasable space. comprised of -,865 square feet of retail and 5,640 square feet of restaurant space. The proposed architectural style is post-modern Italianate. The design consists of a multi-story street-facing facade; tail, narrow and arched windows, plaster balustrades, cupolas, flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines, and stucco plaster surface treatment. Light earth tone colors have been chosen for the development, which will soften the "looming" presence that a larger development has the potential to create. These colors include shades ranging from light peach to brownish-red tones. The project \>,ould be developed upon that has been vacant and neglected for over ten (10) years. The project would result in structures that would be visible from the surrounding parcels. The new construction would improve vistas along Del Mar Avenue. However, the views from the residentially zoned areas to the south and east of this project site would be most impacted, as the proposed height of the structures do not meet the Rosemead Municipal Code Variable Height requirement. A Line of Sight Study(% ) was completed on January 7, 2006, to address the possible sight impacts of the proposed buildings from the adjacent residential propeves and school buildings to the east of the subject site. Results of this study indicate that with mitigation measures, the proposed building height would not cause a significant impact. hedst d), documents that the existing view from the residential properties is of v avant and commercial buildiu125 on Del Mar Avenue. Photo simulations were produced from the potentially impacted existing residences, looking onto the proposed proiect. These images were then compared to images with a perspective that conforms to the City's Variable Height requirement. The comparison suggests that the vievvshed between the conforming and proposed design is not significantly different. Further analysis was required from the adjacent school buildin-Ls. even though the proposed height of the project relative to this point is within the Height requircr:;ehts, Results indicate that there Neill be a large spatial difference Rosemead Mizell Use ` Jam!` Cpl Ma- Avenue Rosemead Gahfornla Inifia+ Study o T1115 stud)' also documetlts that the betti eon the proposed project and the school buildings. use of the school buildings along the adjacent propem' lineRl` eaation. thatev'ouldshave any there are fe N, windows and doors on the school building e1 sistlificance. height zone variance is approved for the project to exceed the var;able requiremen If included so that any impact is 'Jess than significant. miti gation measures have been d Lcss than si;►ifcalif with nutiautio~r The neighboring residential aje;a to the tna fromuwithd ethe of the development could most likely be impacted delin' e ed,` and o 1o installed, with appropriate development area. EXaerior lighttrlg will b shielding, to ensure that light does not spill beyond het limits of t1headeve pment area. Additional mitigation measures will be required to assure less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES: Applicant shall install dense landscaping, which includes 4b', box e''e>he il res dential area, make I g decorative perimeter block Nall to reduce vte~~, impacts of the site ro the impact less than significant. ocular building materials shall be used on exterior of structures to si'gnifi } antel"an ante U. Only non sp potential light reflection and `tare to a less than significant impact. 1~'indoN s shall glare coating. ` photometric survey shall be prepared that limits; to the maxi;num extent possible; glare on to off- Ill. A P site locations. 4 inches. V\'indow surrounds shall be N. All NVindows shall be recessed ctionstN'ithude cell ouout lines. dimensional pre-cast concrete V. All commercial public entrances at ground level shall be r o essl•d~i',,,o to our feet in depth a provide modulation. All doors; including ser\+ice entries. along Del minimum of two feet- \1. To reduce the appearance of glass of the building, the upper floors and roof forms shall be designed to vary in setback and height. MONITORING: cc,-porated. a r ',~'lil vel I ' 231,1 - F'l~ :nin~f Depa'lmen1 Stahl • t11 comlalir-C and docun-,e.nted on project plans- Building, inspectors v't11n` )epartilleintl NN ill perfo'111l afinal building permits. T11e Planning De.pal ~ment and the Bulldn - 1' • • Rosemead Mixed Use Gel Ma, Avenue. Rosemeacj, Caiitornia Inrfra! study Of p verification, for compliance of all mitigation measures upon completion project, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) t Site or or, atri re a- c) No Impact There are no acricultural resources present ohczonedecfor az"11cu s. The Cin is highly urbanized and all properties surrounding area farmland purposes. Agriculturally zoned properties in the City not currently utilized for site is consist of vacant lots; parkland. plant nurseries, and an elemen~ltis soect would not project impact vacant. and has no agricultural resources present. Therefore: proJ agricultural resources AIR QUALITY (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION) 3. a) No InipacL The Cit3' of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB): which is in t Mountains bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino; and San Jacinto Soutit Coast Air Basinnis east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality mana,ed 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 exceedeueCof the lean violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Air Act requires triennial pre the standards. The South Coast Air paration of an Air Quality Managemeni Plan (AQMP o achieve the Quality Management District (SCAQMD) pre-pares from the U.S. basin's air quality management plans with technical and policY inputs and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Au' Resource g the plans ever; three o , die Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)> updating adopted on .August 1, 2003, nears. The most recently adopted plan is the 2003 ~q~MPn This plan is the South Coast available at hnpa/\NA~~,•agmd.~ovlagmp/.AQMDO'AQ The SIP outlines steps required to Air Basin's portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). achieve the standards while allowing for grov,2h projected by the Southern California Association of Governments. This plan is designed to achieve the 5 percent annual reduction goal of the California Clean Air Act. tedictiotts. Future regional T'i1e , QI\ P accommodates grovnh based on SCAG's p' QMP levels of vehicular air pollution identified in the .A are based on SCthe lea°ona] forecasts in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) coupled with Transportation Plan (.RTP). Thus- projects that are consisteill th emp lo°nr car add population forecasts are consistent NNith the AQ~~P. These ioier.a..s are 1 usim-, local land use plans. particularly zoning and e.neral plan land use desi`ations. Rvsem=ac Nirxe Use - ~Y~ tee' Mar Avenue Rcsemea- lalrtorma Inrfra' Stud 28 units per acre. is twice the Crn The proposed projects residentia: dersin . approximatel.~ - a units °r acre for fire e site a: 1 of Rosemead's General Plan Land Use desi~naton ration' . Of RosemeadvGeneral Plan: ResidentiallCommerctal - hfixed Use Overlay des,g?ld Use Element pg The projec? proposes a mixt Lan ure of residential and commercial land uses, and lc located along a transit corridor that contains a mtx5ettture inf rand 'tl the pproposed residential uses in close rpro:.im 'Eo on a uomobiles~ea an important air quality, development itself retiu .e5 dependency avvi management-planning goal. Devtioping the proiect at this location nd local services will be affect regional air quality plans'. because transit is more cony en ciated reachable on foot or on bicycle thus reducing some vehicle trips and commercial units be des emissions. During the proiect design it ,s ucture will b that self-sustaining providing goods and located at this site because the proposed services hence reouiri112 less dependency on use of auto mobiles.eC 6ct;zation meat further, such as providing. bicycle racks in the parking area can reduce this prof b No Impact. Air quality standards in southern California are n,~ient Airn QualUty,Standards (E)\nviAAQronmental Protection Agency (USEP.4) in the National Ahe California Ambient Air S) and the California Air Resources Board (CARE) in t Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards have been established for five poi utants - nitroge~r dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (SO?), fine ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), d by the particulate matter (PN410), and lead. The South Coast Air Basin (..CAB) is manage MD The SCAQMD has developed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQ ) sicnificance thresholds that correspond to these criteria pollutants. These thresholds are described in Chapter 6 of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. (1993) below. The proposed project will generate short-term air pollutants from construction fed rtivitie'pand lang_ternt air pollutants from `eas v~ell,assresidentialotelelcle trips. The project's potential air' restaurant and commercial uses Pollutant emissions were calculated using the "Lt~Eh'i1S _00 actors~r`1640'squarerf ea'~ Development" mode} (UREEl\21S): and applying the follo~~ inc, restaurant area, 5,865 square feet of retail and office area, and {6 rof thet'aoposed project so acre site. Table 3.1 compares the estimated air quality emissions p the SCAQMD thresholds. I'orre of the project's anticipatedN/imissi tin- controls-, these thresholds. Consequently, as long as job-site practices comp~~ project will not create a significant impact to air qualit},. • • Rosemead Mixed Use - -21 i-"Z32 De! NVar Avenue. Rosemead California ,ifia! Study Project Air E Table 3.1: missions!SCAQMD Threshold Comparisun Matrix Plus Operational Area Project's.4rea and Laih Construction sion Threshold E Project's Maximum Daih Cunstructron Emission Threshold Operational Emissions mis (Max. Ibsiday ) Emissions (max. IbsidaYl (max. Ibslda)') r') (max. Ibsrda ~ T t0U C3.~0 I I S I NOx cn ; I? BOG f (Reactive Orsanic Gas) throucn a Rends Although this project does not have the potential to causea CO 1101spot, ii a vaffetheless expose future residents to high amounts of CO during p~ X006, indicates that Hotspot which was prepared by Meyer. Mohaddes Associates on May Del Mar M en venue conditions already exist during peak traffic periods at the intersections and Garvey Avenue, Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue and at A and Dorothy Street. The study indicates that these intersections) oare f oe e;ctiric at a le\,ecrof -ser the designation of "D." However; based on the City s traffic study indicates that no significant impacts would be created attlae proposed proud t intersections with the construction of the proposed project. would not significantly elevate the amount of CO released into the environment. not result C) No i~ttpact. Construction and operation of the propoq eCOr project t I 0, land precursors of cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants ozone VOC and NOX) for which the proposed project reaion is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. SCA M Dssi ithernoroprov des quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational used to assess cu,niula ive separate methodologies or thresholds of signific~iCA to erecommends that a projetct s construction or operational impacts. Instead, the QMD potential contribution to cumulative impacts should bei'assessed e sinz he same sic a anticipated of the prcject~s criteria as those for tile projects specific impacts. Since it is not antici ated that P daily emissions exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, ill d) Less than significairr ivilh ini.tigati.ntt. There are three sen and rece tors.loHae withal the project's vicinity: Garvey Park, Duff Elementan School indicated above, tale project does not exceed the basin vvlde.,regional thresh add ehe project proponent will be required to comply with all applicable Q including rule 40: whicli insures the clean up of coil strucatcolil-`e 1lateedtdirt oil C1 site. Rule ~40e. prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions ,lum aiu~ or disturbed surface area beyond the properly line of Tile Sit Issionaso'urceial till prCisl ctt~twill a)es also be required 10 comply with BMPR per Los .An- ` 0 0 -csemeac' Mixed Use - ~2'2.3232 De, Na, 4venue, Resemeac. Ca"fomra Plan. Due to the size and scaie of this project, air qualm emissions would be less than si~*nificant with the inco-poration of the detailed mitigation measures. e) Less than sirnifccant with mitigation. During project construction, obieu.ionable odors, multi- immediate as those created by diesel emissions, may affect the neigh d will borhood not of extend and single-family residences. However, these impacts are short-term an as limiting the hours ompletion and occupancy. Mitigation measures: beyond project c level. of construction, will reduce these impacts to less than a sib MITIGATION MEASURES: V1I. The site shall be watered at 'least rwice a day to reduce fugitive dust during grading. Grading shall cease when wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. VIII. On-site construction vehicle speeds shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per how. papn 1 materialinaterialcas with D;. To the maximum extent feasible, architectural coatings shall be applied using n be zero-VOC content. A list of manufacturers supplying zero-VOC Provided by the SCAQA'ID upon request. ll add dedicated, to approval of final plans; the applicant shasecured bic~alop~ustomarackso , ~ 1 the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre-manufactur cemented Or bolted in g*round, lockers; or similar bicycle storage device to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. During g ` Project phasing: any proposed vegetation and around cover to be utilico uibuting ]told b X1 st planted in phase one to reduce disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion from 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. The project proponent shall comply with all applicableonCelated dirt]on sil rRulett403 including rule 403 tnsurtna the clean up ol constructi prohibits from ariv active O, open le. the release of fugitive dust emissions or disturbed surface area beyond the property line o t also be required to cot,~ply ~~'ith B?NlPs per Los Angles Storm y~%ater Quality Mananement Plan. X11. Consistent v ith the construction plans: the applicant shall provide pedestriantheaproject site1 and encouraging v,,alking and bicycle use as a mode of transportation between related facilities on site and adjacent uses. 0 0 d Use Je, par Avenue, Rosemead. California Rosemead Mixe inma' 4. a-b) MONITORING: Pianning Department Staf7 will veritl that all mitigation measure con have been incorporated, and documented on prc+iect plans. Building inspectors will v eri5 P mits and throughout project inspection. Planning staff shall have access to the building ~ , Her rig-ess. subject properr)' at an), time during construction to monitor p BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) ,No LnTOCL Since the project area is urbanized, there is no ~xetation area d that endangered and rare species nor is there any significant e- may be affected. This development is occurring in an area Nlcommun unities:hat existed in already been highly impacted by urban development. The natural the area prior to the existing development were destroyedlen'dment e05 OlaoPlanned implementation of Zone Change $ Map 06113P6 nConditional Use Permit 04-960, Development Review 05-02.. Tentative Tact the biological and Zone Variance 04-325 will not create adverse impacts to resources because such resources do not exist at this site. c) No inipact. The project site is not a site of federally protected wetlands. greets, ~~'hich are currently vacant. d) No impact The subject property consists of four (4) le parcels. In addition: there are no nearby There are no native wildlife species found to occupy t features, 'hicli may disrupt migratory fish patterns. bodies of water or hydrological f e No inipacL The City of Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation a Ord lance r es izes conditions tre star -for he significant historical, aesthetic and ecoloeSCal~oes0a~cie es aie piesent within the proposed preservation and propagation of these t e development area. and f No unpacL Project plans have been sent to all reviewing agetc .i Ss orconsen ation plan iew to determine if the project will conflict with any local! regional, 5. a-b) CULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) No inrPact. Based on a staff review of the project site, it is deltic tied f{ecteld , b),s the recorded archaeological or historic resources existing that may implementation of this proposed project. The Cite o h' wid f Rosemead is archaeological aresources, N~ ith fe\y properties in the ci11 with l sc'~Uidelinesl~~' llihel included in the proposed project Measures in Section 15064.4 Of thir C)✓,_ to provide for sat'sfac-Lory n- -Ligation of an) archaeological impact that ma) result. Rcsemeac Mixec Use - 321 De Mar Avenue. Rcsemeac, Gafifernra Initra' Studp c No intpa^L Before 1991. the subject site was deve}opednR}onf these rpa c is yWert- and a child day-are fa..ility. 11 s ure of th parcels tha. make up file subject development area. have been demolished. All four ` geographic features are }sloven or vacant since 199-1. No paleontological resources or expected to be present m"M.In this impact area. d No inipacL The subject development area is not expected to disturb an): human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) region. Tbough I~'o impacL The en?ire City of Rosemead lies in a seismiuist a a) -P oloEeartl quake Fault i) ) 1 there are various properties in the Cit\ that 'eo ten e 111 There the lare no kno\hm active surface Zone, this project area is not one of those prP opme severe faults within the project area. which mad impact futuieot\onl y 1 enproject`~area but also not _round shaking from a resional earthquake would impact the entire site and surrounding area. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, most o dtsun 'u d nR par elsdare located within an identified liquefaction zone. This subject site a not located within the liquefaction zone. Theproject area is not prone to slope instability! hazards such as landslides because the area is relatively flat in nature. 'is L ni icalir wipact- The major cause of sU uctural damage. from e dlsqu on the ii) Less than s , -j ground shaking. The intensity of ground motion expectedeaiterpaantduthe sate depend o of the area magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the ep between the epicenter and the propeil),. Greater movement can be to expected al. sites on poorly or in rience earthquake- consolidated material; such as loose alluviwn, in close proximity response to an event of Great magnitude. The project site could expeC?-Usati fault, m induce:: ac::~i:~ because or;.~ lc'"a_ioT'. 111 S°~~c1111cally active re g ~ ' ucL Ar~p~='prate eri`'"''' 'r'"s`'res Will be identified and 11-riplemented during the I\o r,np e preparation of final grading. plans and throughout the construction be developed or project site that -will be impacted during approved °slpro ect Plans. Therefore, this project a},propriately landscaped u1 accordance will not create any significant increase in soil erosion. As ne»w construction occurs in the cite, nevv structures will repla 1eo1d~11btrudCtioiS C- e) lVo and will comp}v N> it}1 current huildul~, codes. Blet~ i~\ 1landt appi-oval by the C}tv's Building soil reports will be submitted at Plan Check for 0 0 Use - 32'2.32 = C>e Mar Avenue. Rosemead California Initlar 7. ap and Safery Department . The soils report Fill determine if and methods of mitigation will be required. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) No in2act The implementation of Zone Change OS-==1: General Plan Amendment 05-01., pr. ,6-i3_36: Conditional Lse Permit Planned Development Review 05,02, Teeano Traci Map creation and transportation of 04-960, and Zone Variance 04 _ do hazardous materials. in2 act The proposed protect will not involve the release of j hazardous daterials into t household be I'm* e to Ao A environment. The existence of artand raid elan eaprodlucts related to the operation of the quantities of items such as cleaning ~ e and location of any hazardous facility. If applicable. a busineslan would that r eedtto be pproyed C` the Los Angeles County materials used and/or stored on-site Fire Department. ir2rP. act. The existence of any hazardous materials will be rim ed to ho s h eld quanrties d) o of items such as cleaning and maintenance products related to 'die operation e No impact. Before 1991, the subject site. was develop ed ucltu es on family rpacels eWe apartment house, and a child daYc tieatf aiarke)upA~e subject development area, have been demolished. All four (4) of the parcels, vacant since 1991. h'1si ~ l.. C. a of oschoodous ess than si-nifcc2121 tmpact This site could be made suef'~l0't11 er fl'ee f) L does not include the d p },rc};rc,~cct h) J TO impact. The proposed project is not located ~~'ithin 2 miles af Airport,c locol- ated at private I 1YVor d The nearest airports to the site are the Los Angeles Int rnatiloris located at 4233 Santa Anita Way. Los .Angeles; Ca 90046; and El Monte Airport, Ave El Monte; Ca 91731. Neither the Los Angeles International rno AS app,oxin alte Monte A 3.5 airport is located v~'ithin 2 miles of t1l Aoleo>15\~hrchlis o~~lned bN Los Angeles County and miles east of the project site. )✓1 Morte p operated by American Airports Corporation, is not a lame airpoand 1eseve alt lohas cal tllaw FgQ,'flight schools, aircraft maintenance faci1elo.e tt~~ Clubs impact the. operations at enforcement helicopter operations. The proposed p J ould El Monte Airport.. nor \vould the airport result in a safety hazard for people living p ox o )i of on or near the protect sites. TI•rerefore, there are no related nttpact_ due to the these. airports. per Mar Avenue. ResemeRc C,a"fomia Rosemead Mrxed Use - 32 initial Stud i lac impact he proposed probe"t would not impact the implementation of any emergency resnorse or evacuation plan. The Los Angeles Coun^' Fire Department will re~'iev this Project for adequate access. fuels not to No impact There are no wild lands within the project area ors rr n~ m area J) expose people of structures to the risk of loss, injury or d ath in`o e are no tanks. easements or pipelines within 1500 feet No impact Ther } g. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (NO IMPACT) a-f No impact The implementation of Zone Change'0 i - C'6] ~r6 PConditional Use Pe-rmit Planned Development Review US-U?; Tentative Tact Map 04-960. and Zone Variance 04-325 will not create sisnifrcant in' aaceS or~tablso~ption~atea. water quality of the area. The vacant site would result in changes inaa study ~~'r s. drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff adequate drainage q prepared; along with the appropriate final`, ll bel discharged. applicable, The proposed project will not facilities will be installed. Surface runoff create d overall quality of potential impacts to the volume; drainage pattern. rate of flow an any body of water. The quality of storm water runoff is reg Elimination System (1\ ulated under the N t io ro rl'd~lauooe Dnisnafor rPDLS)The NPDES storm water perm p . monitoring the discharge of pollutants and for establishing approp oat en litre 1(NPDESmize the entrance of such pollutants into development nteprojecotsfftnAits jurisdiction to comply with CAS6]4001), the County requires all d pme the N?DES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. The project will be served by the Golden State Water Company, hich is lxpecte ioihave adequate capacity to serve a mixed-use 1Jc yf feet thirty-six urant space. This project was 5.86{ square feet of retail space; and 5,640 square distributed to the Golden State Water Company for review and comments. At this stage, no significant requirements have been issued. ,\'o i,npacr. Water-quality impacts depend on the conditions` el t h gent ra m i ity .located g_J') P prc±iect will be located and what it will involve. the City,' of Rosemead has been declared by near any \N ater basin that may be affected. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be in Zone "C", flood insurance is not mandatory and there is no conununity panel flood map for the cil-V. 0 0 Nrxec Use- = P' Mar Avenue, posemead California inifra: Study g LAND USE AND PLANNING (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) at No intpact. Aithougr to project im olves the subdivision of four{ re ail apacto and t 5,640 (36) residential condominiums located above 5.66 square fee s uare feet of restaurant space, the proposed project will not physically divide the existing q years communm'. The project site has been vacant for over tent~edevelopment site are caned C-3; b) Less than signiricanr impact The parcels mal.I up Medium Commercial zone, and C3-D. Medium Commercial with a General DessignP0)verl Under Te site the is des]-nated Residential/Commercial IvIixed-Use in he General Plan, mixed-use Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use designation in the developments are permitted When a developer obtains a Conditional Use Pen-nit through the standard procedures. This project is also a request to amend to General Plan, for an is arMi~ed eseumbtricot residential units allowed per acre in to Res) dential/Conuner (14) units per Currenth this land use designation limits the residential dens e -Use, o as last amended in acre. The land use designation. Resideitaiadl/C °11ea existence of marginal commercial activities 1987. Due to the underutilization of land Iona this portion of Del Mar Avenue, it would be appropriate to one nethe rficae trial tra densit), in this overlay district. By increasing tile a and reta lsestablishments in this area. increase, and be beneficial to the existing _ In addition; this development would make 10% of the residential nits i ould be recognized as rates for moderate income families. Finally, the overall a pedestrianifriendly design. The location "small ~ ov,~th", as the development would provide of the mixed-use development along with increased concentrationof contribute tohouseholds would minimize dependency on the auto i P}d111eAn?dnamel d fonot r a higher density in the sprav,~l. Upon adoption of the General Residential /Commercial Mixed-Use District, the project will be compatible with Mixed-Use developments in the San Gabriel Valley region. applicable habitat conservation C) No impact The proposed project will not conflict with any plan or natural communities conservation plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES (NO 1MAPCT) ifn act.. There are no mineral resources located within the project area so as to result in al ~a p loss of availabilit, of such resources. b) h'o iinpacL The Rosemead General Plan and 1`7unicipal Code do 'lot i Therfore, tian aWON~ed le proposed indicates a locally unpoi'tant Mineral resource. land use plan that roje.ct will not result in the loss of wsilability of a locally important mineral resource p . discovery site. 0 0 Z.s"~ ? Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead California Rosemeae Mixed Use - inifia! 5tua% 11. NOISE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION) aj Less than sionifcant with mitinatioiL The Cit,'O: Rosemead has established noise/land use compatibilit, gu►dehnes consistent with Sate oF . Californiz criteria. According to Chapter 8.36 of the Rosemead Municipal Code: the Allowable Exterior Noise level for a residential land use is 60 dBA (decibels) between 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 a.m. The Allowable Exterior Noise level for O co rrrnandi~l Ua0ndmse is 65 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA bem,een 10 p generate construction noise, traffic-related noise, and general The proposed project will activity noise. The proposed project is expected to comply with these acceptable levels of noise. b) Less than signiTcaat with miti,,ati.on. Because the proposed project is a subdivision for the development of thirty-six (36) residential units, located above 5,865 square feet of retail space and 5:640 square feet of restaurant space, there will be exposure to ground borne levels. However, this is temporary and is primarily vibration and ;round borne noise associated with initial grading and foundation work, lthe t ire eort ~ tclose proximity roto process. Mitigation measures will be required due to 1 J sensitive receptors. the C) Less than significant impact. Since the proposed project will r ale from th eon trued n of two (Z) new structures, it is expected that the noise level may vin The noise may be derived from the increase in the numbo'ajf farnilies destr 3n arad`velticular traffic the subject site. The proposed project will result in additr p noises. The increase in noise levels is not considered to be substantial. new d) Less than si,(nificant with mitigation. Since this project en nolves tJie con tru do Is above buildings, there will be a substantial temporaryincreas arnblent noise le existing levels that may be created due to construction activities. Mitigauon measures have been included, due to the project's close proximity, to a school. e_f) No inipacL The project is not located in the vicinitN, of a privatSe aFI Monte irstrip or q locatedrt locan two miles of an airport. The closest all-port to the project site 4233 North Santa Anita Avenue in the City of L-1 Monte. This airport is approximately 3.5 miles east of the project site. The proposed project wouldotthhave an impact oil the operations or the noise levels at El Monte Airport, nor would airport re sulting from acti',,ities at tl-ie airport. Therefore. no impacts would result. exposure 0 0 csem_ad Mrxeo Use - De' Ma, Avenue. Rosemeac . Gaiitornra R fnfba MITIGATION MEASURES: from a.m to p.m. ]Monday Saturday. No The hours of cons'~ructior, shall bt iirnited c a~rti~oul for approval by the )all al noinday_ pr construction shall take place on Sunday or or. am City. The develo er shall require by contract specificati actors that to reduce oclonstruct:ionnno management practice e~level est • The p practices (BWs) be implemented bi contra Ensure that construction equipment is properly m utd izevnorse shielding a and standards. All power construction equipment steal muffling devices. Locate construction staging areas and no'se-generating equipment away from the school and residential uses; -,arhere feasible. Schedule high noise-producing activities between the ho'ble.f hi 1 no's -p d ucing minimize disruption to sensitive uses. . ande6 P M to minimize noise impacts activities should be scheduled benvee.n p•M to the adjacent school. • Notification shall be mailed to o\*mers and occupantsral olladschedule for d ni jor immediately bordering the subject project area pro n activities that ~aill occur though the duration of file construction period. munitY onstructro number c The notification shall include the identification and c.ontaa;ailableo Ositectorlmonitor liaison and designated construction n,iformationt will lthe coniununity liaison and construction activity. Contract construction manager shall be located at the construction Cfoffice, the1 the Building County Sheriff s Depai.nnent (Temple Cite Station) and -Department. fv. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as t leaels~d operating several pieces of ~ equipment simultaneously, which generates high noise n 8'_0'' high decorative concrete block ~valll School. all bin tiled along 6a0"pd porative XV I. A mrnunul lines adjacent to residential areas and Duff Elementary . block wall shall be installed along the remaining north and south prope in, lines of concrete site., m!hich abut commercial zones. MONITORING: rl~ De artment Staff v ijl verif• ti at all n.,,igatiori ,,casures hp lia ecenbefore ssaui Planar p and documented on project plans. Building inspectors v'rll Rey staff shall have access to the buildiiz2 permits and throu_~110ut prc+je.cl inspection. Plalulln- sut~ject property at any time during c011st1'uCtlon 10 1110111101" Pro``leSS. 0 0 S, , 232 De` Mar Avenue. Rosemead Calitornra Rosemead Mixed Use - Initial Stutly 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING (NO IMPACT) tin impact This proposed protect will not result in substantial growrt'! in the Ciry"s aJ population, However. since the project tn~ olves he Co unooT1OOpulat on.I-S`ntm (30) Of condominium units. there will 'be an increase in the Crn " (4} of the units will the units will provide one (1) master bedroom and one (1) bedroom. four ne 1 master bedroom and two bedrooms; and two f_') of the units will provide prop lde o ( ) Cou NOO I bedrooms. According to the California Department of Finance. n 2005 of X Cin; / w thaan Popuiar.ion and Housing Esnnaates; the City of Rosemead has a p p estimated 4.001 persons per household!v'l) The applicant is proposing to change the zones of Medium Commercial with a the subject site from C-3; Mediut ovelo ment1av'hich is3d signed to support high density, Design Overlay to P-D; Planned De P . This proiect is proposed to meet the needs of current homeowners and condominium units potential buyers. 1 i n acL All four (4) parcels that make up the subject site have been vacant for over ten b--c) 1\o p (10) years. Therefore; there will be no displacement of people or housing. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) public service agencies Tile conceptual development plan for this Pi~J and aco nments sent tThese agencies include- the that ill serve this development for rep ie Coun of Los Ariveles Fire Department; the count)! Of Los Ang Works hartiffnD the C.ount)t of Garvey School District; the Count) of Looun Angeles Public of Los A nveles Health Department. County Los Angeles Sanitation District, and the Less than sig . Lcanr impact. Because the rate of use is not expeCOfd this pr to cho pct willtcreatel a a b) due to this development, it is anticipated services, sucle1a afoe and police protection. The public minimal increase in the demand city is not currently planning the construction of new or altered go However. rinl he faciliti sx e decd to maintain acceptable service ratios; response times; etc. impair services to the City and its residents. c -e) Less than significant i.nipact. Impacts to parks and schools are community-specific and are ►not expected to be significant with the implementation of this P~°j otulationagtener tedoper depend on the site and magnitude of thepaR~eCy-tlbsclilool`district. The construction of this household and the capacit} of facilities in d thus project will increase the area population ar~us may 1e a~easlostudenllpoP1e14uio red p} at schools. To offset any ID ,tential impacts to public se1~ ices.. t to pay public services impact fees required b\ all reviewing agencies. • • 32ii Ge! Ma' Avenue Y.osemeac a„ Rcsemead Nrrxee Use, Initial Stud 14. RECREATION (NOIMAPCT) a; Nc, impact The implementation of Zone Char.ae US= I. General P~onait nal Use Permit Planned Development Review 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061_ 04-960;. and zone Variance 04-325 will not si~ttificantl) impact ttne usa o'ninat?1s300 recreational facilities in the area. Garvey Part: is the nearesua e deg el pment. feet from the project site. Garvey ParK would serve this mix amenities for rsidnts rec reation No impact Tile proposed development will include four p roof Gardens and etwoe( ) residing in the condominium units. The project includes fo (4) not developments. playgrounds. This project meets the open space requirement f ~ plannd on pursuant to Rosemead Municipal Code. Therefore, this project facilities. 15. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC DISCUSSION (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) ate) Lcss tha1~ si;nificant u~ipact A comprehensive traffic analysis(° . prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates; was completed on May 22, 2006, for the proposed mixed-use Pment located at 3212-3232 Del Iviar Avenue. Four intersections u~select ed for the of eptember develo level of service (LOS) analysis. Analysis also >.ould occurea lg after Duff Elementary School 36, 2005 to ensure that no significant impacts ,as in session. Meyer. Mohaddes Associates used the significant u 1 impact definitions provided » in the 200 10177 estio» J1lanageMel7t Frogra1n .for Los ,gl7gelcs Cot? 'nave been adopted by the City of Rosemead. The traffic study results indicate that under existing conditions, fourMohaddeintersections operate Associates at acceptable levels of service during A.M and PM peak prop calculated a total daily yip generation rate of 8SS trips ortat on Engineers, Trip Generation, were based on rates published in the Lnstitute of TransP Mohaddes Associates; the 'r1 Edition. Based on the traffic study prepared by Meyer, will not siGnificantly cumulative project traffic analysis reveals that the proposed project w impact any of the study intersections. d-e) No impact .4 site access and circulation analysis was also completed b Mar Avenue woluld dot Associates. The evaluation shoN,ed that traffic operations along be impacted by the project. For precaution; Planning Department Staff will require, as a condition of approval, that 40 feet of red curb be installed an eitheras den of athe driveway Mar entrance to increase visibiliry for vehicles both accessing the site a Del Avenue. • • Mixed Use - 32?2.3Z3,~ De! Ma, Avenue Reseme3d C;212212 iniva! 5 f 16 a-~) 17 Les sign ijuant impact According to Rosemead Municipal Code. the enti-e project is thar ~l handicap accessible spaces. The required to provide =_4 parking spaces. including seven (7 , project will provide a total of 158 spaces. as the applicant will pro~'ide 10°ro moderate income housin-z for concession of a reduced parking space amount. The reciuctior, is a total of sixry- six (66) spaces, and it is expected to have a less than signif cant impact. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (NO IMPACT) . The implementation of the proposed project is not expected to significantly affect No impact the consumption of natural gas and electricirv. the demand for the communication system, the gional wastewater treatment system, the storm water drainage; the solid waste generation re and the demand for water, beyond the providers' supply infrastructure. The of the unities will not be substantial enough to exceed established level-of-service standards and service systems. The conceptual development plan for this project has been sent to all pertinent utility companies that will serve this development for review andcomments. panies U'tiilitl~),comSouter include the SBC (Phone Utility); Charter Communications outhern California Gas (Gas Utility) and the City California Edison (Electric Utilih'). and S Ca Engineer. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) ~1. General Plan Amendment 0:,-01, a) No impact The implementation of Zone Change 0-22 Planned Development Revie\hl 05-02, Tentative Tract Map 061336, Conditional Use Pennit 04-960, and Zone Variance 04-325 Nvill not degrade the environmental itf n), fish ang wildlife habitat or threaten to eliminate any plant or antnnal in the community. District and Land Use designation of this site allow for this proposed proiect to be constructed. the b) Less than .ci.,nificant inipact_ Based on analysis of this r 'loration of nieipao'oose~easouiest has f6A, impacts that are less than significant NvIth the into p The cumulative impacts created by construction of this ini e fe6evelroetail nt., which space and residential units; located above 5.56- square proposes thirty-six (36) 640 square feet of restaurant space, is less than significant. The proposed project is expected to revitalize the existing site, and the surrounding areas on this portion of Del Mar Avenue. C) !'o blzpact. Based on the findings provided in this environmental analysis oil the \Pe t of plans for this icvelopment; the irnplemt Re~iien~ c'~ Z(12 e Tenta gtive 1 Tract and ]~1ap 06] 336 Amendment (15-01, Planned D~.ve1~.pm 0 0 F.osemead Mized Use - 3252.3-':3= Dei Ma, Avenue Rosemeac. 'alifomia Initial 5iudy the 'V no" dtrien' 10 Conditional Use Permi: 0= 9tiC, and Zone ariance ~e- ro will 1eb` °V~etrnrespe- oCfhe nor will i~ have adverse impacts on tine surrounain~ p p Iv.s of the architectural design, proper consideration has been given to the Qoals ' and obr- that this General plan and Zoning District for this area. It is the opinion ointhjonm nt. The proiect proposed prc?ject will enhance the existing use and surround' will not cause adverse effects on human beings. - .3232 De- Ma Avenue, Rosemead, Cafftornia Rosemead Mixed Use 37'12 initra' Stud}' SECTION 4 REFERENCES i. City of Rosemead General Plart, November y~ ii. Cite of Rosemead Municipal Codc City of Rosemead Building Department Records iv, Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Meyer. Mohaddes Associates. May ''006 Vie-wshed Analysis, prepared by Medea Portfolio; January 7, 2006 epared by South Coast Air Quality Management ~,i CEQ,4 Air Quality Handbook; pr District vii. Department of Finance - E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005 0 0 • FLN.kL REPORT • 3120 Del Mar Avenue Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Cit-NT of Rosemead Prepared for C. B. Homes, Inc. Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4810 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Au^ust 1, :007 J05-1664 r l ; i i , i,'` • • 3220 Del Mal- Avenuc Illixed-Use Protect Traffic Impact Study C B. Domes, Inc. C'ih, of Rosemead TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIFTION PROJECT .ANAL1'SI EXISTING CONDITIONS DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INTERSECTIONS 3 . DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROAD NETWORK . . 5 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ...............7 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS . 7 . TRAFFIC \'ULUA4ES FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS TRIP GENERATION ...1~ TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT E ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS • ` SIT 20 . E PARKING ANALYSIS UPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS y S 20 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .22 FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS 24 E CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS 24 4 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 26 . CONCLUSIONS f APPENDIX A THROUGH D Alohadde~ /IfSP';ClteS 1 ~~2Q Del Mar Avenue Adixed- Use PrOiect Traffic impact Stu~il Cin of Rosemead LIST OF FIGURES C. B Homes, Inc. FIGURE ] -PROJECT SITE FIGURE 2 - EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION FIGURE 3 - EXISTING AM!PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES......... . ..............................................4 ...............................................8 .........10 FIGURE 4 - RELATED PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 5 - RELATED PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 6 - RELATED PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .......................................12 FIGURE 7 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 8 -PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 9 - PROJECT-RELATED AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE ]0- CUMULATIVE PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................18 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS FIGURE S-I - EXISTING AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE S - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE S-3 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 25 Afe))er, Mnhaddes Associates ii • • r i r i.~ 3 220 Del Mar.4venue Mzxed-USE PrTect Ira, :c Impacr Stud 1, C. B. Tiomes, Inc. Cm, o= Rosemead LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . TABLE 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 4 - RELATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 9 TABLE 5 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT CONDITION TABLE 6 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 15 TABLE 7 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS _ TABLE 8 - PROJECT DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 22 TABLE S-1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE S-2 FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT CONDITIONS TABLE S-3 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS TABLE S-4 - PROJECT DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Alever, A1ohaddesAssociales iii 3220 Del Adar Avenue A?.Led-Use Project Tra.M Impact sruc_ C 3 Homes. Inc. Cin, o- Rosemeaa ITS'TRODUCTION This traffic impact study is for a proposed mixed-use project consisting of 36 condominium apartment units located immediately above approximate]y 11.300 square feet of leasable space to be utilized for commercial, retail and restaurant uses. The project site is located along Del Mar .Avenue, south of the I-10 Freeway, in the Ci*N of Rosemead. This analysis evaluates the operation of four selected intersections, tersect ons agrfed to b foreport llowing of proms des Rosemad staff, as key traffic potentially being significant) impacted by the proposed project. The 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. - Project Description The proposed project would be, constructed on a and sE-ac.re vacant parcel lcated on e ea-stern side merson Place to the south. The project would coonls st Mar Avenue, between Dorothy Street to the north a rest would el 11,340 of 36 residential condominium units (4 three bedroom units and 32 two bedroom units), pp ) square feet of retail and restaurant space and a single-level subterranean parking structure with a capacity of 113 spaces. The new parking structure will be connected to the rear of the proposed structure. 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 analysis, 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). Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the surrounding street network. Protect Analysis w In conjunction with City of Rosemead staff, a total of four intersections, three signalized and one - The stud intersections represent locations that unsignaljzed; were selected for level due to the LOlprojeet. The may potentially be impacted by traffic proposed C_ I . Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue; ' 2. Del Mar Avenue and Dorothy Street; 3. Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Place; and t 4. Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Aver. L: As requested by Cjty of Rosemead staff, a second analysis is to be conducted utilizing traffic counts taken after the week of September 26, 200to ensure that no significant impacts occur when Duff Elementary School is in full session. Once these counts have been taken, the second analysis will be conducted utilizing t' the same methodology and impact criteria. EXISTING CONDITIONS MMA conducted a site visit in order to assess existing conditions at the project site and within the stud); area. j The field inventory included review of intersection geometric layout, traffic control, lane configurations, L posted speed limits, transit service; land use. and parking. M ever, Mohaddes Associate: 1 is • :_ZO De.' h1ar.4ver.ue 1~fix~I-se P,oiecr Traffic Impac. Studv Cin, o;'Rasemead FW Glendon Way W Saxon Ave • E Saxon Ave C. R domes. Inc. ' Hellman Ave i z Dorot 1 < m 'Pr o}ect site - Emerson PI I N Q Whitmore t _ ~ Or - D t (D i Garvey Ave M < N < I~ Egley Ave ~ a, m ~ ~ o Fern Ave 0 :3 - n M Gorvalia Ave _ A!ever rfjohaddes Asso,ci te5 0 G1 0 or m ~a a business unit of Ilerls, Inc. 220 Del Mar AN el"Ic 1\lixcd L)sr Prujrct Cite of Rosemead 7 Cr ~c (D St i-EGURE.I Prnje.ct Site r- i .p { 3_220 Del Mar Avenue Mixed-Use Proiect Traffic Impact Stuff C B Homes; inc. Cin- ofP,osemeac ilescri tion of Existing Intersections Finure 2 illustrates the existing intersection lane confi gurations for the four analyzed intersections. A brief description of each study intersection follows. all Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue is controlled by a four-phase raffi signal xvitha ornmi left phasing for one left-turn movements. The northbound and southbound approaches striped through lane and one shared th Hp-t hane. Immediate])- north of this intersect ion are he eas bou d and left-turn lane and one shared throub westbound on and off-ramps for the I-10 Freeway. op-controll west und Del MarAveriue at Dorotl:' v Street is anns na as liz one through lane ands onetshared thro gh-right IaneboThe approach. The northbound approach is striped -through lane and one through lane. The westbound southbound approach is striped as one shared left approach is striped as one left-turn./right-turn lane. all one Del MarAverrue at Emerson Place is controlled eastboundoapp approaches are dtaspo~i ~ ft-turn hasilaneng ]eft-turn movements. The northbound through lane and one shared through-right lane. The eastbound approach is striped as one left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. The westbound approach is striped as one all-movement lane. udes protec eft- Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue is controlled obches arehStriped asa traffic on leftaurn lane, tlarou h lta eland turn phase for all the approaches. All four pp one shared through-right lane. Descri Lion f Existing Road Nerivork The following describes existing conditions at the major roadways within the study area. between the Int Del Mar Avenue is a north-south maj60aFreeav ;hat Thisifa ilrtyiis lage ocated immediatelyerstateadj1acen0 (1 to the Freeway and the State Route 60 (SR -0) western edge of the project and provides access to the parking area associated with the project. The existing excl usive left- pockets lane configuration of this facility consists of of lanes in each direction Street Curbside parking hs allowed along either side at all study intersections with the exception of the street in mid-block seements but is restricted near study intersections. Hellman Avenue is an east-west secondary arterial, located north oofh the proj ct, that parallels the 1-1t0s Freeway from New Avenue to Walnut Grove Avenue through the ~ of one travel lane in each direction with exclusive left-turn pockets at study intersections. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street. Dorothy Street is an east-west local street begins asilane enteachtdlrectioai. Cu bside parking is allowed to Kelburn Avenue. This facility consists of on travel along either side of the street. from N Emerson Place is a secondan, anerial; located south of one travel lane in eachtdirection bath eacluse e Avenue to San Gabriel Boulevard. This roadway consists left-turn pockets at study intersections. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street. Ajei,er. Adohaddes Associates '220 Del Mar .Venue.Mxed-Use Projecr Traffic Impact stud.}' Cit of Rosemead C B Homes, Inc. 1.10 EB Ramps R Hellman Ave 14>a. ~ 8 r Dorothy St I Site Emerson Ave -V A k I ~ Irv l ~ Garvey Ave ~l I I' a r m o Meyer, Mohadudes Associates a business unit of tteris, in.,. F,220 Del N1ar:l\rnuu Mixed L'sr Project FIGURE 2 Fziainh Lane Cunfi2uratinns Cite of Rosemead • Mever. A1ohaddes.4 4 • I; I 3220 De' Afar Avenue Mixed-Use Project Traffic impact Study Homes, Inc. Cur of Rosemeaa Garver Avenue is an east-west maior divided arterial located south of the project site. This facility consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a landscaped median containing exclusive left-turn pockets at study intersections. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street in mid-block segments but is restricted near study intersections. Existing Public Transit Services Existing transit service operating in close proximit?' to the project site includes two express routes and one local bus route operated by Metro, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). METRO operates the following two local and one limited bus routes through the stud), area: Route 70 is an east-west line that travels between Downtown Los Angeles and the El Monte Bu-sway Station. This line utilizes Garvey Avenue when traveling through the study area. This route operates with 10 - 12 minute headways 24-hours daily, seven days a week and holidays. Route 3 70 is a peak period limited route that operates along the same corridor as Local Route 70. This route operates with 12 minute headways from 6:00 to 9:30AI\4 and 3:00 to 6:30PM weekdays only. Route 170 travels from the California State University - Los Angeles campus to the Montebello Towne Center utilizing Del Mar Avenue as it passes through the study area. This line operates weekdays and minor ' holidays only from 5:00AM to 9:30PM with 60-65 minute headways. f TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS'NIETHODOLOGY Traffic operations in the project vicinity were analyzed, as discussed with the Citti of Rosemead staff; using f' the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, as defined in the Congestion Management Program ti (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 Highwgv Capacity Manual (HCM). lr 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. r L ttfever, Alohaddes ::ssoeiates • 5220 Del Mal. AI)cnue Mined-Use Project Tragic impact Srud-17 Cin o= Rosemeaa TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE of Description e n•i ce c, Uesmd operations: all queues ciear jr, a singie signal cycle. ht congestion, an occasional approach phase is fully B . ongestion: occasional backups on critical approaches. C ant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection p nal. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle short peaks. No long-standing queues formed. congestion with some long-standing queues on critical E ches. Blockage if intersection may occur if traffic signal ot provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections upstream of critical approaches. F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. Source Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Qrcuiar 212. Interim Capacity, 1980 C B. Homes, inc. V/C Ratio < 0.600 >0.600 to 0.699 >0.700 to 0.799 >0.800 to 0.899 >0900 to 0.999 > 1.000 on HI.Qin hlei'er. hioPac 6 TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE • 3220 Del M07-.4Iienue Mixed-Use Pr•oieet Traft?c Impact Stud- C'in- of Roserteai C B. Homes, Inc. Level tar Seri ice Threshold Criteria The significant impact definitions provided in the 2004 Congestion Management Program jor Los Angeles ied county were utilized in this study. These deftthese standardsl`andpthe tarel'~ CbePappliedetowall study Count\'. but the City of Rosemead has adopted intersections. The definitions state that a significant impact is deemed to have occurred if the proposed proiect 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 facilirv 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 four 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. Traffic Volumes New traffic counts were conducted on Tuesday August 16, 2005 at the four 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 stud, intersections. Traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 summarizes the level of service calculations for the study intersections under existing conditions acce during the AM and PM peak hours. ehours,results Le incate all our intersections o~ksheetsafor thpstable service during the AM and PM peak provided in Appendix B. TABLE 3: Intersection AM teas noun "'/C = • LOS v!C LOS q 0.509 B 0.674 1 Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue 2 Del Mar Avenue at Dorothy Street (U) C 21.4 C 20.5 3 Del Mar Avenue at Emerson Place q _ - 0.545 B 0.605. 4 Del 14ar Avenue at Gamey Avenue B 0.611 I D 0.545 (Ij) This mtersecuon is unsignahzed and tnc LOS resu lt is sha"r❑ ir. scconas of dela y, rather than (C • vet. Mohaddes Associat_s • ~-,20 De, Ma*.4venue Alixed- Use Project Tra1~rc impact Stud' Cirv o`Fcscmeau C B. Homes, in_. I-10 ES Ramps r ~ m N c 34184 c u -10,14 67-6 Hellman Ave 146~Z1~ ~ s r 10',~s+ a c 5J'11:~ ~^a c A r. m N rV N ~29t15 i 1r 152 Dorothy St t T m~ r, r N m c. w 5 °-47:30 _ c m u W96 1 r 24,r23 Emerson Ave - - - - _ &1191 ~ ~I 1 r 94,202 t~, u 33153 7 ` c r, a a c r _ CN n c~5 ~ 1261195 -539,$613 j y-32139 Garvey Ave - - - 35;229 ~ ~ t r 3277 y c :7 !P ry c io C~ Q L r v E Mlohaddes Associates -Meyer , a Lus,ness unq of liens. Inc. FIGURE 3 3220 Del ~'lar Avenue Mixed USC PI-coca Exi~~in :~l'Ill)M P eak Hour Traffie Volulnes City of Roselliend • meyer, Mohaales wisSOC1Ufe3 S • 32 )0 Del Mar avenue Mixed-T-'se Project T7-aiilc 1))7,iaC7 SrudV (7i7, oi'P.osemead • I.1C EB Ramps N K ` , 34184 a. c o co Lo - +-19154 146TZ12 J ( I 5D!195--► _ m n n V o 691513 Bi ^ 0 r, ~ v rv -29n8 t~ r 1818 t N rv d ~ N N 4 " F Project C. B. Homes. Inc. Hellman Ave Dorothy St m ;F, T 1-47M u . 94f96 1 1 f- 24"23 Emerson Ave 51191 1 `I t r 941292 t°~ u 33153 ~ n o 0 N A C H 'm 1261195 n + 539:569 F32139 Garvey Ave 3s;329_-4 4 t r• 3891915 GG 3286 _ r ~ : N ar Q m' Q - -Meyer, Pwohaddes Associates a business unit of I(erls. ln- {'lGl'{ik:3 3?2l1 Del Nlor A5 enue fluxed Use f t-(Iject Existilit, ./~)1P\1 Peak {luut•Traflic\'nlumCs Ci1v of Ruseme:id Ade~ler. IJohoddes Ass'?c ates s 3220 Del Mar- avenue Mixed-Use Project rai%ic 1n:?: S:uj1' i C. B. Inc. ~Wr I-1© EB Ramps cn 5% Hellman Ave O r t i - Avo,. 3319 DelMar , Dorothy 5t 0 0 O 2% Emerson Ave 2% H ~w 8% Garvey Ave i i 8% O IN 0 d 7 Q cc R v Meyer, r"urohaddes Associates a business unit or hens. Inc 1 IGl•1tF 3220 Del Nlar Avenue MiNed Use Project Related I'rojcct 'I-ral'(ic Triir l)istrihution Cite of IZtrscmcad i~lever, 1t9011CrdUec CS.~~tuiea ]l ~2U Dei h7ar .AvenuE A9 ea-Use ?roiect Tra>fc Impact Study • C B Homes, Inc. 1-10 E6 Ramps Hellman Ave 0 :331.9 Del Plar Av e - f Dorothy St Pro}oct s I`' site- _s Z Emerson Ave oil J t e d 0 N'tohaddes Associa1 Garvey Ave r~ v r T Ift o business unit of IWIS ln: FIGURE 6 3220 Del Mar Avenue Mixed Use Project Related Project AMIPA1 ON of Itusentcad Peak Ilou r Traffic Volumes 1Iever. Al' ohaddc-F Asocial 12 - ?o Del Ajar avenue Mixed-Use Project 1 rafi: impact Stu;-v C B. Homes, Inc. Cin' 01-Rosemead 1-10 EB Ramps 35.86 o; : a r 10114 116.26 Hellman Ave 149-216--d 4- ll 16 I a ' bi - o su^ N W N r 1` 30118 `lass Dorothy St ~ N P ^ G ~ ^ N C G Pro}ect . 0 "CND 48.^,1 .-95198 y-24(23 Emerson Ave --E3i93J ~1 t 96'70E ~ m -y r_ o n ^ o L' m C o' ~--12912( K70 -550"550 1 jr33140 Garvey Ave 357235- 1 t r 3EaG29-+ r 33180'- N u; G' L] W ;,~,l J ,.SCA.LE v- ;v"ever, r0ohaddes-Associates y business unll of liens. Inc. 7-3220) tarAN'cnur Mixed F'rcljcct Future Base Plus ReNtud Project scnlead ,1ti1'P, I I,en1, Hour •1-raf llc VOIIInIes ~1 ver, ~ ohaddcs 4ssn: es 13 0 0 3220 Del A/ar (!venue hissed Use Project Traffic Impact Stud), C E tiomcs. Inc. cin, 0-"Rosemead As can be seen in Table 5. all four intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in both the AM and PM peak hours. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITION'S growth The Cumulative Project scenario anathe eects The numb~f ofrneevttrips generated by the proposed pdrojectoahas Future Base plus Related Project conditions. and Leveagainsls of calculated and added to the Future Base plus Related those( ~alculat d new°c volumes volumes. the stud}, intersections were then calculated under the Future Base plus Related Project conditions to determine if the proposed project would create any significant traffic impacts. Trin Generation ton rates forthe} d on an estimate The future conditions with the proposed edproject were calculated based e on those trips generated by the project. Trip genera on, 7 Editi -were published in the Institute of Tra~sPei al s~n Engineers Use C)odel glGandr820) and 36 re~ident alld elling tin is identified as 11,300 square feet space (Land (Land (Land Use Code Due to the small size of be used in calculating projects}related trecialty Retail U ortunately..ITE has not f, it Code 814) trips rates ates were selected to developed AM peal: hour trip rates for Shopping land use. ased on discussions B (Land Use Code 220)swe eito be utilized an thefAM was determined that the trips rates for a Cent 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: PROJIvc I ~`J'-..j-~ S' t Trips Ends Generated Land Use Siu Units weekday .41`4 Weekday PM Dail)' I In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 11,3 KSF 26 16 I 42 - ~I u (AM onk') 22 27 49 531 Specialty Retail Center 11.3 KSF - (PN4 only) 17 1 ~4 13 37 367 apartments 36 DU 4 40 86 888 30 I 33 63 46 Total Note. KSF = 1,00D square feet DU = Dwelling unit ortati s f T on Engine ers, Tr+p Generation, r Edition p ran Source institute o r, moi7nddes associoles 14 7-0 Del filar Avenue Mixed-Use Project T,a~fjc Impact Study C. B. Homes. Inc. Cin, of.Rosemead Tri Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the project. The eeographic distribution of project trips is based on the locations of local activity, centers; study The trip street system that serves the site, and re Fent traffic cllected developed inccon unction with Cif of distribution utilized for the Cumulative Pro eci conditions Rosemead staff and is shown in Figure S. 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 8, to estimate the project relatfdtpe k-ho carat affi``vatre for of the study intersections. Figure 9 illustrates the project p assignment onto the the AM and PM peak hours. jec The project trip assignment was then added to the Future Base plus e at us Prore its traffic in lumes.e he Figu 10. resulting Cumulative Project traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak, These traffic volumes were then is Suannraricalculate levels of service fr th study zes the results of the Cumulative Project traffic ranalysiss for Cumulative Project conditions. Table Future NVith Project Future Without Project A11 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Significant Intersection N'tC LOS N'tC IAV/C•I . LOS `;tC A `,rC Impact? LOS VIC LOS Del Mar .Avenue at Hellman A 0 517 B 0.686 A 0.524 10.006 B 0.695 0.007 N N 1 Avenue Del Mar Avenue at Dorothv C 21.9 C 21.6 C 22.7 0.8 C 22.5 0.9 N N 2 Street (U) Del Mar Avenue at A 0 .557 I B 0.617 A 0.562 O.OUS B 0.623 0.006 N N Emerson Place 3 Del Mar Avenue at Garvey B I 0.622 D 0.562 0.62S I O.OU6 B D 1 O.S69 0.007 N N 4 Avenue . re Base with Project and the Future Base analysis scenanos n the Futu e 6 V,C represents the diffe • rence in the volume t o capaca) ratio bem e r, .tilohaddes Associates 15 • --0 Del Mar,4venue Mixed-Use Projecr TrOITIC Impact Stuffy Cin• o' Fosemead C. B Homes, Inc. 1-1 C EB Ramps LM 5% Hellman Ave H to Dorothy St a~ 0 Project: 2% Emerson Ave 2%.. H 6% Garvey Ave 8% H ~N O 0 C% 7 Q Z v -7 Meyer, MohaddesAssociates a business unit of hems. Inc, ,221) Del `tar ANcnue Mixed U%c Project FIGURE 8 City of ko,,cmead Project Traffic Trip Distrihutian • A fever, A9ohaddes Associates 16 0 0 3220 Dei Nar Avenue )&xed-Use Project Traffic lntpac Study C. B. Homes, Inc. (-in' ol'Rosemead - 1-10 EB Ramps Hellman Ave - - r Ana d y _C j orothy St . 1 0 ~ m ti N 4 2L project ,r 1T16 site 0 N Emerson Ave ut ~ ~ n 0 Mcc r fy j S. '-z..' Garvey Ave 2,13 a iem 4 A 0 v ! PSIjeeyef; MohaddeS njSOClai~S a businsss um! of fteris, Inc FIGURE 9 322O 1)el Mai-ANenue Nli,,ed Use Project Project-Related AN11Pii1 Cit of Roscmcad Pcak hour Traffic Volumes h9ever, Pvlohaddes Associates 17 0 0 3:20 Del Mar .Avenue 14'xeci- Use Pro'ec: Traffic Ifiinac: studl C. B omes 177c. Cin o`Rosemeac if 1.10 EB Ramps t E m ~ w c 35186 +--10114 , r729 ,49'216 t r ,0.'107-+ Crvr 82.'117 - < „4 s g N rv 30118 ~r 1 B's tr ^ N N ^ Sn e _ ry m m Project 1 - Site' ci- M N m O~~ P 1_49:32 c6 ~ v r 98196 J ; L x24123 S4 f94 9or!`Jfi u+ c m 34.54 -t n N rn e a~ mm ~ ssD.sao J { 1 33:4D -38'238 -4 3851929-► ~ 33180 y C ^ rv v. N Q Z Q7 Mohaddes Associates Heliman Ave Dorothy St Emerson Ave Garvey Ave G :*-I 1^ SCALE P Dusmess 0011 of Bevis, Int. :22(i Del MarAvenue Nlized Use Project 01 o Myseniciid Alever, A1c,h H (L,Ultt iu Cumulative Project Perk Hour Traffic VOILIIIIeS ,Associates • i - 2~i 1,1a,_Ave7ue 1~1ued-use Frnject T.a7tc Impact Srudj C. B. Homes, Inc. Ci`r o' Rosemead be seen in Table all four intersections are e?:p`ctede, operatec t an ac resnold=p significant -As can pro ect. Level of both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the Cir - e osed p i ruci impacts are created at an) of the study intersections wit, the coentdiatB on of the prop service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in App SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS center tw.o corner of the vewav Access into the proposed project will be provided at ~roelectronnc. ate idea dan the northeaslocated in the of the building frontage along Del Mar Avenue and a arkin Jot that provides access onto Dorothy Street. The proposed site plan is provided in Appendix C. P g gate ensure that The expected traffic operations of the driveway along Del Mar analyzed to the absence of an exclusive left-turn lane into the project for Figure 1D, N~ere used to hours. in Figure using the Cumulative delays along Del Mar Avenue. The Cumulative Project traffic volumes, provided determine the level of service of the driveway for both the AM and PM peak, con all Project traffic volumes, the levels of service calculated in this analysis nalysis epee ent operating results of ditto an roses are project-related traffic utilizes the driveway located along Mar Avnue. The this ai shown in Table S. TABLE b: FROJECT DWYE«'AY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Westbound Total Northbound Southbound Time Approach Intersection .Approach Approach Period Delay LOS Delay L.; LOS Delay LOS Delay L05 22.0 A 0.6 A 0.3 C 4M A 0.0 D 28.2 A 0.8 PM A 0.0 .4 U.5 Note. Delay is measured in seconds and is the average delay for each movement in each approach. ecte to dTi ` - As shown in Table S, the proposed location and coAfienueti Tra~che pt ng the project wa~ sisite not may e e?:experience 4 significantly impact traffic operations along Del Mar arcir Nation of the project nsite umber of due to me delay but this is not expected to significantly impact theresults internal so waiting queue lengths of approximately one vehicle. These vd regardless of the vehicles using the secondan' point of access from Dorothy Street. Level of service worksheets fort is a analysis are provided in Appendix D. curb As a condition of approval, City of Rosemead staff has recommended ent a mini m of 40 f eet fin ceased be installed on either side of the driveway entrance. This improve visibility to vehicles both exiting the project and traveling along Del Mar .Avenue. acts along the alley\vay, located Dorothy Street. This alleyway The secondary point of access is not expected to create any significant imp approximately 125 feet east of Del Mar Avenue an nE traveling 1 een Del Mar Avenue and the structures south f located from betw generally provides secondary access to the four ears 1. alle sway and to the parking lot located on the western edge of the Margaret Duff Elementary School. A very minimal amount of project-related traffic is expected t tilise locat his o i frof aDel . Mar ThAven rimarily due to the additional travel time and distance needed to reach roject-related traffic to this facility is not expected to reateevan\ The n of p_ tbe e o by the facilit~pac~ as a result o pided he extremely low existing traffic volumes and the la..l• of continuity L_ h-?ever, 1~9o17addes .associates 19 • • 20 Del Mar avenue Mixed-Use Project raff c Impact Study C B. Homes. Inc. Cirl. oRosemea I PARKING ANALYSIS ing quir imum According to City of Rosemead Municipal Code, the proi ct isfeet ore to provi e act° l and on o, four ark pace spaces per residential unit, one parking spat. per 100 square per 250 square feet of commerciallretail space. UsPn for restaurant use and roject is for commercial/retail o minimum of 144 spaces for residential use, 57 spaces is er 154 use for a total of 2225 on-site parking spaces, including ldotaand thessublterranean p arThekintotal garage number available parking spaces proposed in the ground level parking Appendix C. Therefore, the project with 8 handicap accessible spaces as shown in the site plan provided in App is deficient a total of 71 parking spaces and does not meet the City municipal code regarding the number of required parking spaces. the nu The applicant has requested a reduction in the City's development standards, Senate Bill (SB) 8l8 SpDensit)l Bonus Lawei Under n.r ten perre^* I, the total number of dwelling units site parking spaces required, under State of California this law, the applicant must designate a minimum - r available as "affordable to Moderate Income" households to become eiigibie for a five percent density stndards. from the City. New arkinc, itled to conce Once this threshold is met, the , es tab] sh the nutmber of spaces persdwell ng un t at two spaces per two to three- developed part S 18188; spaces ential use bedroom units. This new standard reduces the total numb2~ot P153 ngTh is alsoereducesr theitotal numbeoof ] 44 to 72 and the cumulative number of spaces from handicap-accessible parking spaces required by the p from ser even to six Under this provision, the project provides enough on-site parking to meet the standards set und SB 1818. SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ose As requested by City of Rosemead staff, a second set of a lioc counts were approximately one block south P east of the ensuring that traffic generated by Duff Elementary School proposed project, was included in the impact analysis. Eaistinp Traffic Operations Analysis New traffic counts were conducted on Tuesday Septembre~`e2005 oumesoatrthe study exist existing study intersections. 1 illustrates the existingAM and PM peak hour turning Traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix A. ions con exi for the study itions Table S-1 summarizes the level of service calculations all four intersect onstoperate atra ceptable levels of during the AM and PM peak hours. The results indicate service during the AM and PM peak hours. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. ASSpCi Wes 20 • 3 220 Del Mar Avenue Mixed-Use Project Traff c Impact Study ritt. 7'Rosemead i-1o ES Ramps 6 y-Si152 n N r - - r. 248'87 1 r 39:25 Heilman Ave _ 298'116 I r 191H44-► °nn Szm a• < N m c a m c L ° 1&-20 rta19 Dorothy St ' L r v n n 9 i . Project , Site. a• ? 53!32 .-1nGn7 x40;27 Emerson Ave t 3ol9s ~ ~t 1 116'196-+ ~u~ ' G9•'631 ~ ~ H o-a ^ Q 1657187 7 ' 29 .r. 43 6 397 y-7 Garvey Ave 1 - - - - - 165'121-4 ~t I r 624;775- u v c. t 98r 7 c~ CD Q tc d 5~: ALL Nrohaddes Associates !`Meyer , N i business unit of hens, In: F]GUI;F S-I 3230 IM Mar .vend' Mixed USe Project Existing .%N'UP. 1 P cal: Hour Traffic Volumes Cite of Rosemead • C. B Domes, Inc. A1et~er. A1ol7addcs.9csnc:u7ea 2l • 3220 Del Mar avenue Mixed- Use Proiect Traffic Intaac; Stud, Cim ofRosemead S-1: Intersection 1 Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue 2 Del Mar Avenue at Dorothy Street (U) 3 Del Mar Avenue at Emerson Place 4 Del A4a7 Avenue at Garvey Avenue (V) This intersection is unsienahzed and the L is E D I 0.829 C 19.5 B I 0.627 I D I 0.812 n in seconds of d C. B Homes. Inc. LOS '\'/C B 0.694 D 26.6 B 0.623 :CI 0.795 rather than V/C. Future Base Plus Related Projects Conditions The ambient growth rate and related project trip assignment utilized in the original analysis were then applied to the supplemental traffic volumes, shown in Figure S-1. The resulting traffic volumes were utilized in calculating the levels of service for the study intersections for the Future Base plus Related Project conditions for the AM and PM peal: hours as summarized in Table S-2 and illustrated in Figure S-2. TABLE S-2: FUTURE BASE PLUS Intersection Ana Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS %*/C LOS V/C D 0.844 C 0.708 ] Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue 2 Del Mar Avenue at Dorothy Street (U) 20.1 D 27.9 3 Del Mar Avenue at Emerson Place B 0.639 B 0.635 D 0.827 D 0.811 4 Del Mar Avenue at Garvey Avenue (Vi This intersection is unsignalized and the LO S result is sho-n ir: seconds of delay rather than V/C As can be seen in Table S-2. all four intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in both the AM and PIA peak hours. Level of service analysis worlsheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. Meter, Wohaddes Assoc,,ales • 3,~ 2o Del R1ar Avenue Mixed-Use Project Tra~'Jc Impac; SrudY Cin n'-`Posemeac 9 C B Homes, Inc. {-10 EB Ramps u- ~d r g ~-89'53 = °r ~--2=3.89 j `40.27 Hellman Ave r es"I 95 53x75 - c ~r.~ r. m P. 16!29 f- 1009 Dorothy St ' tr C CJ 7 m Project site- Emerson Ave `33!96 ~ ~ ~ r 116(200-+ a<c c rv 70164 ,p c a n 165192 1-758642 1 r 741.,e Garvey Ave 168:,24-4 1 t r 637.791 v f 100,79 c~ m Q A a A Meyer, Vlohaddes Associates O V a business unll of (lens, Inc FI CAI RE S-2 3220 Del Mar Avenue Mixed Use Project Future Base Plus Related Project C)I, of I~u~eme;,cl AMITNI Peak I tour Traffic Volumes 1Ierer, IvIonaaaes.RJSVUwco 23 0 0 i i 220 Del Mar.4venue Afted-Use Prolecl Tralf c Impact Studs C. E lames: Inc. Cin. o`Rosemeaa' Line Project Conditions 07 "al The proposed proiect trip generation. distribution andtassi merit utilized the the cum analysis wa: applied to the supplemental Future Base plus Related Project Of serv Conditions, as shown in Figure S-3. These oject conditions. 'rabic S3 utilized the results of the ice for the study intersections for Cumulative P Cumulative Project traffic analysis. TABLE S-3: CUh'fULA I IN I r"nv v Future With Project Future \''ithout Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Significant :~A1 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour i Intersection \'?C D 1'/C' Impact? LOS \'/C LOS C/C LOS I V/C Ia \'/C- LOS 0.85 1 0.007 c, 0.719 ~ C-010 N Del Mar Avenue at Hellman D 0.844 C 0.705 D 1 I Avenue Del Mar Avenue at Dorothy C 20.1 D 27.9 C 20.7 0.6 D 29.6 1.7 N N 2 street (U) B 0.645 0.006 B 0.640 0.005 N N Del Mar Avenue at B 0.639 B 0.635 Emerson Place N Del Mar Avenue at Gam ey D 0.827 D 0.8 i I D 0.8:2 0.005 D 0.81 S 0.007 N 4 I Avenue p \'?Crepresents the dtf{erence to the volume to capacity ratio between the Future Base with Project and the Future }lase analysis scenarios. no significant As can be seen in Table S 3, all four intersections the expected of servicetthresholdtcbitena, level both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on impacts are created at any of the study intersections with the construction of the proposed project. Level o service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. Site Access And Circulation Anah'sis Using the Cumulative Project traffic volumes provided shown in rTable e S-3S-he level of service of the driveway for both the AM and PM peak hours was calculated and lADLL + - - Northbound Southbound Approach Approach Time Period LOS Delay LOS Delay Westbound Approach LOS Dela}' Total Intersection LOS Delay .4M .A 0.0 A 0.3 D 25-33 A 0.6 PM A 0.0 Note Delay is measured to seconds a 28.5- A 1 0.8 A 0.5 D nd is the average delay for each movement to each approach I' i As shown in Table S-4, the proposed location an dc 01; elnueattTraffic eapna of the project driveway is not expecte to 5ignificar~tl\ Impact traffic operations along Del M some delay but this is not expected to significavehicle.paLe\zl of ys rl'ice circulation tl fopthis V angle)e sseare waiting queue lengths of approximately one provided in Appendix D. Mever•, Mohaddes Assoc'---- -2 4 :a • 3 220 Del'Mar Avenue Mixed-Use Proiect Traffic impact stuq) C,n• o-' Rosemead • I-10 EB Ramps 4 C L C ^ O IIr f a 1 6 - - 304'118 f 4i r 5474 7 ~ m ~ r r Cr ~Qr ° 1b29 ~ tO~tF a r 6 n, M N C C'F 'k-553< r a e 10679 134197 -1' 1 r 11e2oo-► ~ g 70:64 t A Q Nt. " " ^ X1701195 1 x74148 I7or,2- 1 r 637,791 ► _ O ~ 100?5q -ro Q_r m Q i9 C' O Motladdes Associates C B. Homes, inc. Hellman Ave Dorothy St Emerson Ave Garvey Ave G n;:l I C.SCALL a business unit of hens. Inc. FI Ca L R F S-3 3220 lld 1~u :\venuc ~li~ed Use 1'1*oject Cumulative Project City of]tnsemead 1'cal, liner Tratlic 1'ulurncs Aleyer, h~j1ohaddcs,4ssociales 23 0 0 I— , O Del Adar Avenue Mixed-Use Project Trafc Impact Stud' C E Homes, Inc. Cin o' Rosemead CONCLUSIONS The initial analysis. conducted using counts taken on Tuesday August 16, 2005, shows that the proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections in either the AM or PM peak hour. As discussed earlier. this analysis was conducted a second time utilizing traffic counts taken after September 26, 2005 to ensure that no significant impacts occur when the Duff Elementary School is in full session. The supplemental analysis, conducted using counts taken on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, shows again that the proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections in either the AM or PM peak hour. An evaluation of the traffic operations occurring at the project driveway was also conducted in both analyses. In both scenarios, it was found that the project will not create any impacts on traffic operations along Del Mar Avenue in the vicinity of the project driveway. As a further precaution. the City of Rosemead staff, as a condition of approval, recommended that 40 feet of red curb be installed on either side of the driveway entrance to increase visibility, for vehicles both accessing the site and traveling along Rosemead Boulevard. No other traffic-related impacts or conditions were identified. r, :~:toltaddes .4ssa 26