PC - Item 4B - Conditional Use Permit 04-968ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: APRIL 20, 2009
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-968 (MODIFICATION No. 2)
8930-8932 MISSION DRIVE
SUMMARY
JDWA Architects (applicant) on behalf of Chin Sung Chen, who is the owner of the
Rosemead Mixed Use Plaza, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit Modification
application, requesting to modify the approved uses for an existing mixed-use project,
located at 8930-8932 Mission Drive in the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone. The
applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider amending the approved
uses as shown on the site plan in order to reclassify some of the tenant spaces from
"office" to "retail" space, and to allow all tenant spaces as a combination of
"office/reta i I/resta u rant".
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local
environmental guidelines exempts "in-fill development projects" where the proposed
development occurs within city limits on a site measuring no more than five (5) acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses, meeting applicable General Plan and Zoning
regulations. Accordingly, Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) is
classified as a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of CEQA
guidelines.
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Certain uses may be permitted, subject to suitable conditions, in zones in which they
are not otherwise permitted by Chapter 17.112 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, where
such uses are deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, and
are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the comprehensive general
plan, and are not detrimental to surrounding property.
Such conditional use permits may be issued only after a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.112 sets the following
criteria for Conditional Use Permits that must be met:
That the Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 2 of 18
this title; and
• That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located; and
• That the establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the
Conditional Use Permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and
• That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit
04-968 (Modification No. 2) for a period of six (6) months and adopt Resolution 09-09,
subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located on the south side of Mission Drive, between Ivar Avenue and
Rosemead Boulevard. The site totals approximately 69,565 square feet (1.6 acres).
On October 17, 2005, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 061523
and Conditional Use Permit 04-968 for the development of a mixed-use
residential/commercial project consisting of two (2) buildings. Building "A" was
approved with 9,103 square feet of commercial area, consisting of 5,903 square feet of
office area and 3,200 square feet of restaurant area. Building "B" was approved with
sixteen (16) residential units, totaling 11,213 square feet, located above 11,098 square
feet of office area. The project was completed in December 2008, and currently there
are three occupied tenant spaces within Building "A". The office/commercial portion of
Building "B" is currently un-occupied, and there are approximately four (4) units
occupied within the residential portion of the building.
On September 15, 2008, the applicant came before the Planning Commission to
request that one of the original conditions of approval be removed. The applicant was
originally required to record a covenant agreement restricting two of the residential units
as "affordable". The Planning Commission granted the request to remove the condition
by the adoption of Resolution 08-23, which was approved on the same date.
Prior to the approval of Tentative Tract Map 061523 and Conditional Use Permit 04-968
and its subsequent modification, the site had been vacant. Planning and Building
Department records indicate that the property was originally developed with single-
family residences, as well as an automobile dealership. A variety of discretionary
applications had been approved on the property, including Zone Variances to allow the
expansion of a non-conforming use and Conditional Use Permit for temporary office
trailers for the dealership.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Paqe 3 of 18
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is designated in the current General Plan for Mixed-Use
Residential/Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated C-3 (Medium
Commercial) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses:
North:
General Plan: Mixed-Use ResidentialICommercial (0-30 du/acre) and Commercial
Zoning: C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use: Commercial Center and Residential Condominiums
North Elevation (Building "A")
North Elevation ("Building "B")
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 4 of 18
South:
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential)
Land Use:
Residential
East:
General Plan: Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/acre)
Zoning: C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use: U-Haul rentals
West:
General Plan:
Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial (0-30 du/acre)
Zoning:
R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
Land Use:
Residential
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting to modify Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification) by
making changes to the approved site plan, which specifically listed the allowed uses
within each tenant space. As approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on
October 17, 2005, the original site plan shows that Building "B" was to be developed as
as a bank with office space on the main level, and residential dwellings above. Building
"A" was not labeled, but the original project summary table indicates that it was to be
developed with 5,903 square feet of general office area and 3,200 square feet of
restaurant uses.
In this request, the property owner is proposing to modify the project to allow 17,000
square feet of commercial office or retail floor area and 3,200 square feet of restaurant
area to be designated within any of the ground floor tenant spaces. The number of
residential units in project will remain the same. The purpose of the proposal is to allow
greater flexibility in obtaining either office or retail tenants. The approval of this request
would also eliminate the restrictions on where such uses could be located within the
commercial level of the buildings.
Parkin
The proposed uses within the commercial portion of the building spaces are limited by
the available parking on site. According to the approved site plan, there are 137 parking
spaces available. Of the 137 spaces, 32 spaces are needed for the residential portion
of the project, and 100 spaces are provided for the commercial portion of the project.
More specifically, of the 137 spaces shown, 68 are required for General Office (1 space
per 250 square feet), 32 are provided for restaurant parking (1 space per 100 square
feet), and 7 spaces are ADA accessible.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Paae 5 of 18
The off-street parking provided is based on the following criteria:
Commercial/Retail parking needed = 1 space per 250 square feet or 17,001/250 = 68 spaces.
Restaurant/Fast Food parking needed = 1 space per 100 square feet or 3,200/100 = 32 spaces.
Residential parking needed = 2 spaces per unit or 16x2 = 32 spaces.
The parking requirement for restaurant, fast food, or similar uses which serve food and
drink to the public, is 1 space per 100 square feet. Although the revised site plan
indicates a potential of 9,100± square feet of restaurant space, it was the intent of the
property to illustrate the potential location of restaurant uses within the development.
The property owner is aware that the proposed uses within the development are limited
by the available parking on site.
The previous and current plans acknowledge the limitation for potential restaurant use
due to the parking. However, staff is concerned that the representation of potential
location of uses could likely be construed as a pre-approval for restaurant use in each
unit. Two of the units shown on Exhibit "C" exceed the allowed 3,200 maximum for
restaurant use, including Unit B-101, which totals 4,479 square feet, and unit A-101,
which totals 3,360 square feet. These units should be automatically excluded from
potential restaurant use due to their size. Staff has brought this to the attention of the
applicant, as we suggested modifying the plans to remove "restaurant" from these two
units. The applicant is reluctant to do so due to the fact that they do not want to lose
potential tenants for any available unit. However, as mentioned, the size of the
aforementioned units would prohibit there use as a restaurant. Therefore, due to the
amount of parking available onsite, a condition of approval has been added to limit the
total restaurant, fast food, or similar use which involves serving food and drink to the
public to not more that 3,200 square feet.
Staff is also concerned about the prospect of having a "restaurant" use in Building "B",
which is the mixed-use, multi-storied building. The reason for this concern is the fact
that a typical restaurant needs proper ventilation for food prep (cooking, frying, etc.),
and that any vents would lead to the roof where there is a roof-top garden for the
enjoyment of the residential tenants. Venting to this location would not be ideal and
maybe structurally impossible unless venting spaces were previously installed when the
building was constructed. Wall venting is also unrealistic, and would become unsightly
with smoke discoloring the building wall. Staff is concerned that residential tenants
could become subjected to smells emanating from the restaurant due to the cooking or
baking of food.
However, staff is not opposed to a "restaurant" use that does not require a stove to
prepare food, such as a yogurt/ice cream, delitescent/cold sandwich shop, or similar
use where food preparation does not include cooking or the use of a stove or oven. For
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 6 of 18
this reason, staff has added a condition of approval that states restaurant uses within
Building "B" shall be limited to those described above, including the limitations on food
preparation and "venting".
Existinq Site Conditions
As indicated previously, the project has been built and is currently being occupied by
both commercial and residential tenants. During a recent site visit staff noticed that
some of the plants within the landscaped areas, as well as some potted trees and
shrubs were dying. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the applicant
replace any dead or dying landscaping, including potted plants.
Traffic Impacts
The original project was analyzed in a Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Linscott,
Law & Greenspan in October 2004. Staff required the applicant to submit a revised
Traffic Impact Analysis to explain how the potential land-use changes from 17,163
square of general office area to 17,163 square feet of retail area might affect the
intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive near the project site. For this
reason, a revised trip generation assessment was prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan on March 23, 2009. A copy of this study has been attached as Exhibit "E."
The revised study, which was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, analyzed the
traffic impacts at Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. The study concluded that
the modified project is "not anticipated to create significant traffic-related impacts" at this
intersection. Therefore, no additional traffic mitigation will be necessary at this site
beyond what was required with the original approval of CUP 04-968.
Conclusion
There is a clear benefit to both the City and to the residential occupants of the mixed-
use development to have additional active retail spaces in lieu of office spaces. Active
retail will provide additional shopping opportunities for the residents of the project, which
will allow them to live and shop on the premises, rather than having to drive elsewhere.
The purpose of the mixed-use concept was to provide this type of living experience, and
to reduce unnecessary trip generation by allowing a mixture of commercial and
residential uses. The additional retail space will also help to generate additional sales
tax for the City, whereas office space would generate no sales tax.
Staff is confident that the proposed changes in use to allow more flexibility to the
property owner is a benefit to the City, and that limiting the retail space might drive away
potential sales tax revenue from businesses looking to locate on Mission Drive.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 7 of 18
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes a 300-foot property owner public hearing notice, and postings of the notice at
the five (5) public locations and on the subject site.
Prepared by:
Mathew W. Evans
Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Sheri Bermejo
Principal Planner
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution 09-09
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Revised Site Plan, dated March 3, 2009
D. Assessor's Parcel Map (APN 5391-011-054)
E. Traffic Addendum Memorandum, prepared by LLG, and dated March 23, 2009
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 8 of 18
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 09-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-
968 (MODIFICATION) TO AMEND THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED
USES AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A MIXTURE
OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT USES WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROJECT, FOR AN EXISTING
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 8930-8932 MISSION
DRIVE (APN: 5391-011-054).
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2009, JWDA Architects on behalf of Chin Sung Chen,
filed an application to modify the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 04-
968 (Modification) to amend the originally approved site plan to show a mixture of retail,
office and restaurant uses within the existing mixed-use development, located at 8930-
8932 Mission Drive; and
WHEREAS, 8930-8932 Mission Drive is located in the C-3 (Medium Commercial)
zoning district which allows a mixture of commercial, residential, retail, office and
restaurant uses within an approved mixed-use project; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code Certain states
that certain uses may be permitted, subject to suitable conditions, in zones in which
they are not otherwise permitted by Chapter 17.112 of the Rosemead Municipal Code,
where such uses are deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or
welfare, and are in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the
comprehensive general plan, and are not detrimental to surrounding property.
Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.112 sets the following criteria for Conditional
Use Permits that must be met:
• That the Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions
of this title.
• 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.
• That the establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the
conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 9 of 18
That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the city.
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2009, seventy one (71) notices were sent to all property
owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted
in five (5) public locations and on-site, specifying the availability of the application, plus
the date, time and location of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 04-968
(Modification No. 2); and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Conditional
Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2); and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that
Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) is classified as a Class 32
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332(b) of CEQA guidelines. Section
15332(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act and local environmental guidelines
exempts "in-fill development projects" where the proposed development occurs within
city limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by
urban areas.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission
that the modification of the site plan does not in
made by the Planning Commission to apprc
(Modification No. 2), and that the facts do exist
Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) according to
the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
-IEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
any way alter the findings previously
ve Conditional Use Permit 04-968
to justify approving Conditional Use
:he Criteria of Chapter 17.112.010 of
A. The Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of this
title and that the granting of such conditional use permits 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.
FINDING: The proposed Conditional Use Permit Modification is consistent with
land uses in the general area with no foreseeable negative impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood. Adjacent properties along Mission Drive are currently developed with
either retail uses, or have the potential to be developed with retail uses. The mixed-use
development will benefit from having additional retail opportunities, as allowing such
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 10 of 18
uses may reduce trip generation from those who live within the mixed-use portion of the
project.
B. The establishment, maintenance or conduct of the use for which the
conditional use permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood.
FINDING: The existing Mixed-Use development, which was approved by the
Rosemead Planning Commission on October 17, 2005, is located within an established
commercial district of the City, and it is designated in the General Plan as Mixed-Use
Residential/Commercial (0-30 dwelling units per acre). The existing and proposed uses
are in conformity with the General Plan, in that the policies of the General Plan
encourage mixed uses to provide for an area where people can live, shop and work
within the same complex. The request to allow retail uses within the existing
development was analyzed in a traffic analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan
on March 23, 2009. This analysis determined that the proposed project is not
anticipated to create significant traffic related impacts. Furthermore, conditions of
approval have been added to ensure that the placement of restaurant uses will not
impact the aesthetics of the existing building, or the welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood.
C. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use so
applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental
or injurious to the general welfare of the City.
FINDING: Conditions of approval have been added to ensure that the
establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will no be detrimental
or injurious to the general welfare of the City. The proposed project is a benefit to the
City and to the residential occupants of the existing development. Active retail spaces
in lieu of office spaces will provide additional shopping opportunities for the residents
and help generate additional sales tax for the City.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Conditional Use
Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2), to amend the originally approved site plan for the
existing mixed-use development located at 8930-8932 Mission Drive, subject to
conditions listed in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this
decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed
with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in
Article IX - Planning and Zoning of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 11 of 18
SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on April 20, 2009, by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SECTION 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 2009.
Daniel Lopez, Chairman
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 10th day of
April, 2009 by the following vote:
YES:
NO:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sheri Bermejo, Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 12 of 18
EXHIBIT "B"
TENTATIVE TRACT MAT 061523
CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT 04-968 (MODIFICATION No. 2)
8930-8932 MISSION DRIVE
(APN: 5391-011-054)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
April 20, 2009
1. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building
permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request.
2. Tentative Tract Map 061523 and Conditional Use Permit 04-968
(Modification No. 2) are approved for a 16-unit residential development, to
be developed in accordance with the plans on file in the Planning Division
and dated October 12, 2005, the Tentative Tract Map 061523, dated July 7,
2004, and the amended site plan marked Exhibit "B" and dated March 3,
2009. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review
and approval by the Planning Division.
3. All applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 061523 shall
remain in effect and apply to Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification
No. 2).
4. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any
development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building
divisions for review.
5. Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) is granted or approved
with the City 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 Conditional Use Permit 04-968
(Modification No. 2).
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 13 of 18
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.
7. Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) shall not take effect for
any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an
affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all of the conditions set
forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions.
8. Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) is approved for a six (6)
month period. The applicant shall initiate the proposed use, or request an
extension 30 days prior to expiration from the Planning Commission.
Conditional Use Permit 04-968 (Modification No. 2) shall become null and
void.
9. The applicant shall comply with
the approved use including the
Sheriff and Health Departments,
all Federal, State and local laws relative to
requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire,
10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such
time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full.
11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum
character width of 1/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level
from the street. Materials, colors, location and size of such address
numbers shall be approved by the City Planner, or his or her designee, prior
to installation.
12. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division and the Planning
Division shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed
construction.
13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all school fees shall be paid. The
applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from
the Unified School District.
14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday to
Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal
holidays without prior approval by the City.
15. The Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time
during construction to monitor progress.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 14 of 18
16. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this
approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate
department(s).
17. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the
public right-of-way.
18. 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 Planning Division.
19. 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.
20. All utilities shall be placed underground, including facilities and wires for the
supply and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television etc.
The underground conversion of these utilities shall consider all future
connections to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
21. The dwelling units shall be provided with water conservation fixtures such
as low flush toilets and low flow faucets. The hot water heater and lines
shall be insulated. Landscaping irrigation systems shall be designed for
high efficiency and irrigation timers programmed for maximized water
usage.
22. Window signage area shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the window
and door area.
23. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any new graffiti shall be
removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be
called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance.
24. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed and litter free state in
accordance with Sections 8.32.010-8.32.040 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal
of garbage, rubbish, trash, and debris. All trash containers shall be stored
in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and
garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained
in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. The trash enclosure doors shall be
closed at all times.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 15 of 18
25. No portion of any required front and/or side yards shall be used for storage
of any type.
26. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment or
trailers.
27. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland
concrete cement, and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition.
28. The parking area, including handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re-
painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division. In accordance with Chapter 17.84 of the Rosemead Municipal
Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped and have wheel
stops. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly
manner.
29. A wall and fence plan will be required if any perimeter fencing or walls are
proposed. The colors and materials of the proposed fence shall be
consistent or compliment the submitted color and material board and first be
approved by the Planning Division prior to installation (on file as Exhibit C).
30. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, a landscape and irrigation plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for review, reflecting preliminary
approval of landscape/site plan, referred to as Exhibit B, dated July 7, 2004.
The irrigation plan shall include automatic timers and moisture sensors. All
landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and completed prior to final
Planning Division approval.
31. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened
from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no
mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment
shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level
mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other
equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened
by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right
of way or other public space within the development. The City Planner shall
approve said screening prior to installation.
32. Stamped concrete color shall be a medium to dark tone of gray.
33. Concrete block wall for the perimeter of the development shall be split face
block with decorative smooth, precast, concrete caps.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 16 of 18
34. All parking stalls adjacent to an obstruction must be widened by Z-0".
35. The Rosemead Planning Commission must approve any changes to the
approved plans.
36. Each unit shall be constructed exactly as approved; no as-built plans will be
accepted.
37. No semi-trailer trucks (larger than 30'-0") are anticipated to make trips to the
site and any trucks larger than this are prohibited.
38. The easterly driveway is to be limited to right-turn ingress and egress only.
39. Mission Drive must be restriped to provide a center two-way left-turn lane to
facilitate left-turn ingress and egress traffic movements.
40. The perimeter wall is to be increased to 8'-0" in height on the east, west and
south property lines.
41. The east, west and south property lines must be planted with fast growing,
mature evergreen trees. Minimum 48-inch box.
42. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be revised by the
developer to reflect the elimination of moderate income condominium units,
approved by the City Attorney, City Planner, and City Engineer and
recorded on each of these tracts. The CC&R's will cover all aspects of
maintenance of the common areas, including but no limited to driveways,
fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, open space, recreation area,
sewer maintenance, etc.
43. The amount of allowed restaurant use is limited to a total of 3,200 square
feet. For this reason, Units A101 and B101, as shown on Exhibit "C," shall
be limited to "office" and "retail" uses only. Although the remaining tenant
spaces are shown on Exhibit "C" for possible restaurant uses, the total
square footage allowed for restaurant use within the development is
restricted to a maximum of 3, 200 square feet.
44. Restaurant uses within Building "B" as shown on Exhibit "C" shall be limited
to exclude cooking, baking, or any preparation of food that requires the
installation of a ventilation system for any heat producing appliance.
Restaurant uses considered within Building "B" shall be limited to a yogurt,
ice cream, deliquescent or sandwich shop, so the preparation of food is
clearly incidental, such as the use of a small toaster oven to warm the food.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 17 of 18
45. Dead and dying landscaping and trees, including potted trees and
landscaping, shall be replaced within thirty (30) days of this approval.
46. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened
from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall
not exceed the height of the parapet wall.
47. Any substantial changes to the approved site plan, including the dividing up
of tenant space, will cause the approved Sign Program, dated February 10,
2009, to become void, and a new sign program will be necessary. No signs
will be approved for the project unless they meet the approved sign program
requirements for placement, color, location, and size.
48. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation
of revocation proceedings.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 20, 2009
Page 18 of 18
EXHIBIT "D"
9
t
\ 12 I
v I'
2008 - . N
C.
r
• W is 4
_ _ t u u'>
LAWMEN"
g
r.; !
.e
c
n 14 1
J
O
[
`
~
-
y R
.F LAWRENCE--
' P
.srr.n
M 51.21
c
Y -
AVE
o
18
-
~s1pACT [
NO
o
f8
a
2'
c
H
ul
7•
!
10
11
-m.13
.A
MEWD
AVF.
Z
V
ri 5 M8~
B
107
!
S7
i•
_
t.~_
r,
,
.m
1 NEWSY
AVE f
PC
12 i
SUBJECT SITE ~
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Chin-Sung Chen Dale: March 23, 2009
Linmay Corporation
From: Sarah Drobis, P.E. Jk"~ LLG Ref: 1-09-3777-1
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Trip Generation Assessment Addendum for the Modified Rosemead
s`~ Mixed-Use Project
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared this
additional traffic assessment for the Modified Rosemead Mixed-Use project located
at 8930 E. Mission Drive in the City of Rosemead. This addendum includes an
assessment of the potential impacts of the project as currently proposed (Modified
Project) at the Rosemead Boulevard/Mission Drive intersection for the PM peak
hour, as requested by City staff (i.e., Ms. Joanne Itagaki, Traffic Engineering
Deputy). As you are aware, the changes between the Approved Rosemead Mixed-
Use project (Approved Project) and the Modified Project as it pertained to trip
generation were summarized in the memorandum dated February 26, 2009 prepared
by LLG. In addition, the Approved Project was fully analyzed in the Traffic Impact
Analysis, Rosemead Mixed-Use Project, prepared by LLG, October 2004 (Traffic
Study).
Briefly, it is concluded that the Modified Project will not change the conclusions of
the Traffic Study. The trip generation forecasts for the Modified Project description
results in a nominal change in traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. Based
on the City's significance threshold criteria, the Modified Project is not anticipated to
create significant traffic-related impacts at the Rosemead Boulevard/Mission Drive
intersection during the PM peak hour. As such, no traffic mitigation measures are
required or recommended, which is consistent with the findings and conclusions
reported in the Traffic Study.
Trip Generation
As described in the February 26, 2009 LLG memorandum, the Modified Project is
forecast to generate 18 vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 10 outbound trips) during
the AM peak hour, 68 vehicle trips (37 inbound trips and 31 outbound trips) during
the PM peak hour, and 776 daily trips ends during a typical weekday. This trip
generation forecast was reviewed and accepted by City staff. The Modified Project is
forecast to generate slightly fewer trips during the AM peak hour and slightly more
trips during the PM peak hour as compared to the Approved Project.
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
236 N. Chester Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91106
626.7962322 T
626,7920941 F
www.ligengineers.com
Pasadena
Costa Mesa
San Diego
Las Vegas
EXHIBIT E
QVQe_n1_EQ 77Le1.ml3_n7 - A1_'-Clk n hl, ~JilieJ R.~~rutr:Kl aii~d-I!v P-jrci Trip Gm k,%% wn,Aw
Mr. Chin-Sung Chen
March 23, 2009
Page 2
Rosemead Boulevard/Mission Drive Intersection
Based on direction from City staff, an analysis of the potential impacts associated
with the Modified Project at the Rosemead Boulevard/Mission Drive intersection
during the PM peak hour was prepared. For consistency purposes, the additional
analysis was prepared utilizing the same methodology and parameters as contained in
the Traffic Study (i.e., analysis conditions, project trip distribution pattern, traffic
data, lane configurations, etc.). As such, the Rosemead Boulevard/Mission Drive
intersection was evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method
of analysis which determines volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios on a critical-lane basis.
The overall intersection V/C ratio is subsequently assigned a Level of Service (LOS)
value to describe intersection operations. The Level of Service concept indicates a
measure of average operating conditions at an intersection. The Levels of Service
vary from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition).
Impact Threshold Criteria
The relative impact of the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Modified
Project during the PM peak hour was evaluated based on analysis of future operating
conditions at the study intersection, without and then with the Modified Project. The
previously discussed capacity analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate the future
volume-to-capacity relationships and service level characteristics at the Rosemead
Boulevard/Mission Drive study intersection.
The significance of the potential impacts of the project generated traffic at the study
intersection was evaluated using the traffic impact criteria set forth in the City of
Rosemead Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, February 2007. According to
the City's published traffic study guidelines, a significant transportation impact
occurs at those study locations where the project-related increase in the V/C ratio is
two percent (0.02) or more and causes or worsens LOS F conditions. It should be
noted that the City's impact criteria is consistent with impact criteria set forth in the
2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (CMP).
Revised Traffic Analysis
The PM peak hour traffic analysis was revised to reflect the trips generated by the
Modified project. A summary of the V/C ratios and LOS values for the study
intersection during the commuter PM peak hour is shown in Table 1. A copy of the
revised ICU data worksheet for the study intersection is also attached at the end of the
memorandum.
0-UPA-FILr~V7774r.mOM7 . Ni_•Ulrn NI-Wiluhl %.wi d k hW.U..r Pr.,jmi Trip Gol Aetixvnrm.J.w
Mr. Chin-Sung Chen
March 23, 2009
Page 3
The intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F (V/C=1.005) with the Modified
Project, which reflects a change of 0.009 in the V/C ratio as compared to the "Future
Pre-Project" conditions. As shown in column [4] of Table 1, application of the City's
threshold criteria to the "With Proposed Project" scenario indicates that the Modified
Project is expected to create incremental, but not significant impacts at the study
intersection. As there are no significant impacts noted, no traffic mitigation measures
are required or recommended for the study intersection. These conclusions associated
with transportation-related impacts for the Modified Project are the same those
transportation impacts and conclusions reported in the Traffic Study.
Summary
• The Modified Project potentially includes retail tenants as compared to the
general office tenants envisioned as part of the Approved Project.
• The Modified Project is forecast to generate slightly fewer trips during the
AM peak hour and slightly more trips during the PM peak hour as compared
to the Approved Project.
• As requested by the City, further traffic analysis of the potential impacts
associated with the Modified Project at the Rosemead Boulevard/Mission
Drive intersection during the PM peak hour was prepared.
• Based on the City's significance threshold criteria, the Modified Project is not
anticipated to create significant traffic-related impacts at the Rosemead
Boulevard/Mission Drive intersection during the PM peak hour.
• It is concluded that the transportation-related impacts for the Modified Project
would be similar to those transportation impacts and conclusions reported in
the Traffic Study, based on a review of the site plan for the Modified Project,
associated trip generation changes, and additional analysis of the Rosemead
Boulevard/Mission Drive intersection.
cc: Kevin C. Jaeger, LLG
File
O:V08_f1LJ:u~7Vrp.r1U"'7T - M'_-Chrn M.Kh1W R..xnkvJ Mi% J-Uw Pn*o Trip Gcn A. mnrm.Aw:
Table 1
SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS
AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
PM PEAK HOUR
23-Mar-2009
[2]
(3)
14]
YEAR 2006
YEAR 2006
YEAR 2004
FUTURE PRE-
W/ PROPOSED
CHANGE SIGNIF.
PEAK
EXISTING
PROJECT
PROJECT
V/C IMPACT
NO.
INTERSECTION
HOUR
VIC LOS
V/C LOS
V/C LOS
F(3)-(2)]
1
Rosemead Boulevard/
Mission Drive
PM
0.961 E
0.996 E
1.005 F
0.009 NO
LINSCOrT, LAw 8 GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-09-3777-1
Rosemead Mixed-Use Projecl
m V CD
O O O
CD 00
C%l N N
N
O
J W
m}
O C
00
O v
m O m
a o
00d
m
c
0
c
0
N n
220
0 CL
D
W
m
0 r
° ~
m Q
W L'
ELF
w m c
0 0 c
ma¢
y O
N
w O
o
b
2 y
N
O
Qoa
(L
m
o
y N Q
W
m v
LUG-.
w m
N
o
m ~
~m
C X
NO N
a m
C
E
E
~QLL
o
m N W ~
m
m
3 q
m
a:
a N
f\
NZt1p
ZmN
LO~ a
U)
.~ry/a.
ZwatT
m a
a m
m m
N
co
0
0
r v!
O tOn
- N
O r
O
00
00
00
00
0
rLL
U
~
Z
j
W
Q
~Q
N
0 0 0
0 00
0 0 0
0 co 0
C7
v
~
[OD CY
tOO m
tD cli
F-
W
~L
W
F
U
w
my
mm0
mmm
LO CD
m
mtn to
11 -W
mNCh
vv'-
Q
E
!
r N
N M
N r
~
W
7
a
c
o
w
W
o 0 0
000
0 0 0
0 0 0
N
D
7
D
D
O
a
>
V
0
0
°
-
NN
O
O
L
U
~
m
,
r
O 117
r to
- N
O
O
LL
7
W
Q
r
0 0
O O
O O
0 0
O
a
U -
C-4
O O
O
000
O
w
r
O
OO
O O
O O
F"
O
W
w m
w CM
w C
t^ m
N
F
W
U
W
t0
my
mm to
mma
r11Q
mmm
mNOi
Inmo
.rc
Q
a
E
rtn
rN
Cl)
Nr
N
r
S
O
a
f
3
m
1`00
o0m
0tnm
0toO
o
m
W
o
E
N
b
~
b
a
G
>
°
o
na
`o
m
°
0
m
fA
V
-
N
o
t0
O N
^t
o
N
t
v
O r
0
07
m
00
00
Cc
00
O
O
U
W
W
N
O O O
000
000
O O O
3
r
O O
00
00
O
Q
C7
m N
m N
tD N
l
t
N
m
tt
ca
m
m
C
)
a
❑
W
w
V
vmv
mmv
ma7N
tnmo
W
hln to
nm
NNO
VQ :
J
W
E
N
r
m Cl
N r•
CV
w
c
2
r
¢
P
o
to
o m0
inmv
W) 0
0mN
°0
00
E
m
m
Q
D
Om
o
N
.
Q
O
<
r`07
O ~t
v 117
N
O
O
O
V
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
O
O
m
,
1
'
2
¢
w
w
70a
mOO
mmN
mto in
m
W
C'i
.
N
N O T
v t mtl 0
W
O
E
O
W
T
7
t
a
7-
3
to
CO O r
N to to
v V N
r to N
ao
m
E
m
N
N
b
7
D
C
a
>
m
n
V
U
o
r 7
ttom
O a
t
.7a
N
NO
O
0
m
O
LL
>
Q
0 0
O O
d 0
O O
O
O
w
Q
H
N
O O O
0 0 0
0 0 0
C3
000
00
H
V
to 0
t0 m
tD m
w m
to
W
cc
w
r
Om
rv to
ai mO
vain
co
in
Of
v
N O
O
N
E
r m N
N m
~
V
O
C
>
ca
0
C
9
a
CC
J Q
J rs .0
Q
-
,C
J F- Q
O
In
a
N
l7
O
U m
o m
Z
Q O
to O
W O
c
m
~-0b
oa a
E m y
OI j
tt 4
V CO m
O G7
YUU
- (N
cC)
~l
S
v
^ V
V
O
q p
~ s