CC - Item 2A - Ordinance No. 846ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ANDREW C. LAZZARETTO, CITY MANAGE
DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2006
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 846 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 04-218 AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02
7621 - 7637 GARVALIA AVENUE
SUMMARY
On November 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
Zone Change and Planned Development Review for the property located at 7621 -
7637 Garvalia Avenue. A copy of the staff report, which provides a detailed analysis of
the project, is attached for your review as Exhibit "B". After hearing all testimony, the
Commission voted 5-0 to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 04-218.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 846 APPROVING Zone Change 04-218,
AMENDING the Rosemead Zoning designation from R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) to PD (Planned Development) and the Development Concept Plan.
2. ADOPT a NEGATIVE DECLARATION finding that this project will not have
adverse effects on the environment.
ANALYSIS
The applicants, Peter and Brenda Jong, are requesting to change the existing R-2 (Light
Multiple Residential) zone to a PD (Planned Development) zone for a proposed
subdivision of two (2) lots, totaling 1.3 acres, into eight (8) parcels for the construction of
eight (8) new single-family homes and a private street. The subject site is located on
the north side of Garvalia Avenue, between Jackson Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. The
PD zone is designed to support various types of developments, including single-family
residential developments. The proposed zone also allows for diversification in both
minimum lot sizes and the location of structures.
As indicated on the Development Concept plan, attached as Exhibit "E," the
development will be arranged around a new private street and cul-de-sac, which will be
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ~
0 0
City Council Meeting
November 28, 2006
Page 2 of 2
accessible via Garvalia Avenue. The total proposed lot areas range in size from 5,226
square feet to 7,243 square feet. Three different floor plans are proposed, as well as,
four (4) different elevations, each following a Spanish architectural style. The proposed
living areas for the homes range between 2,348 and 2,499 square feet. Careful
consideration has been given to the scale and ornamentation, with regards to the
design of each residence.
The underlying General Plan Land Use element specifies the density for Medium
Density Residential properties as 0-9 units per acre. This project proposes 7 units per
acre, and therefore, complies with the General Plan Land Use designation. The project
has also been designed to closely follow single-family residential development
standards to ensure compatibility with existing and future developments in surrounding
areas. Furthermore, the development is projected to meet the needs of current
homeowners and potential buyers.
During the Planning Commission meeting, held on November 6, 2006, there was no
neighborhood opposition, nor was an appeal of the Commission's decision received.
For additional review, the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Resolution No.
06-43 have been attached to this report as Exhibit "C" and Exhibit "D" respectively. In
order for the project to proceed, the Development Concept Plan and Zone Change must
be considered by the City Council.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
For the City Council Meeting on November 28, 2006: This item has been noticed
through the regular public hearing notification process. In addition, on November 16,
2006, eighty-eight (88) written notices were mailed to property owners within three
hundred (300) feet of the subject site.
Submitted by:
Sheri Bermejo
Associate Planner
Attachment: A. Ordinance No. 846
B. Development Concept Plan (Site Plan/Floor Plan/Elevations/Topographic Map/Radius
(Land Use) Map)
C. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 6, 2006
D. Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 6, 2006
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-43, dated November 20, 2006
•
ORDINANCE NO. 846
E
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
ZONE CHANGE 04-218, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM "R-2 (LIGHT
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)" ZONE TO "P-D (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT)" ZONE, LOCATED AT 7621-7637 GARVALIA AVENUE
(APNs: 5285-031-005 AND 5285-031-022).
WHEREAS, Peter and Brenda Jong, filed an application for a Zone Change to change the
current R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone to the P-D (Planned Development) zone for the
development of eight (8) single-family residences with a private street, located at 7621-7637
Garvalia Avenue, and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
map, including specific development standards, to control development;
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and
requirements for zone changes;
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2006, an initial study for the draft ordinance was completed,
finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
negative declaration was prepared;
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, notices were posted in 8 public locations and eighty-eight
(88) notices were 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);
WHEREAS, on November 6. 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 04-218;
WHEREAS. on November 20, 2006 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 06-43,
recommending City Council approval of Zone Change 04-218;
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the City Council held a hearing to receive public
testimony relative to Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review 04-02; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make
the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council ofthe City of Rosemead as
follows:
EXHIBIT A
0 0
Ordinance No. 846
Zone Change 04-218
Page 2 of 3
Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and State CEQA
Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have potential
significant environmental impacts. This conclusion is based upon the record, initial study and
comments received during the public review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been
prepared according to CEQA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project,
has reviewed and considered any comments received during the public review prior to the approval
of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in
reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, approves the Negative Declaration.
Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulation, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has
determined, after considering the record as a whole, that there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have the potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which
the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby
finds any presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted. Therefore pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3),
the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact and therefore the payment of Fish and
Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project.
Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that
placing the property in the "P-D (Planned Development)" zone, (Zone Change 04-218) is in the
public interest and necessity and the general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and
supports the proposed zone change in that the change will provide a superior level of planning and
protection to the quality and character of the area where the development is proposed and is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
Section 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 04-218, amending
Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)" to "P-D
(Planned Development)" and the Development Concept Plan for properties located at 7621-7637
Garvalia Avenue (APNs:5285-031-005 and 5285-031-022).
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead
HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all
provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to
be invalid.
0 0
Ordinance No. 846
Zone Change 04-218
Page 3 of 3
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED. and ADOPTED this _ day of 52006.
Gary A. Taylor, Mayor
ATTEST:
NINA CASTRUITA, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 846 being:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 04-218, CHANGING THE ZONING
FROM "R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)" ZONE TO "P-D
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)" ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
PLAN LOCATED AT 7621-7637 GARVALIA AVENUE (APNs: 5285-
031-005 AND 5285-031-022).
was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
281h day of November, 2006, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2006, by the following vote, to
wit:
YES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NO:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NINA CASTRUITA, City Clerk
0 0
TO
FROM:
DATE:
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARMENT
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 04-218 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02
7621-7637 GARVALIA AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
Proiect Description
Peter and Brenda Jong have submitted a Zone Change application and a Planned
Development Review application for a request to change the existing R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zone to a P-D (Planned Development) zone for a proposed subdivision of
two (2) lots, into eight (8) lots for the construction of eight (8) new single-family
residences located at 7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue. The total proposed lot areas range
in size from 5,226 to 7,243 square feet. Three (3) different floor plans and four (4)
different elevations are proposed for the single-family residences. The living areas
proposed for the new homes range between 2,348 and 2,499 square feet.
Environmental Analysis
An Initial Study was completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). This study reviews the potential environmental impacts that could occur
with the proposed Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review 04-02.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of this initial study is
provided as Exhibit "C."
Municipal Code Requirements
Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the
procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may
be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good
zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found consistent with the
Rosemead General Plan.
Planned Development Review - Chapter 17.76.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code
sets forth the procedures and requirements for planned development review. A planned
development may be established to provide diversification in the location of structures
and other land uses while insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility
with existing and future developments in surrounding areas.
EXHIBIT C
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 2 of 11
The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council approval or disapproval
of the P-D zone and development concept plan as submitted, or modification, alteration,
adjustment, amendment or conditional approval of the development concept plan. If the
City Council approves Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review 04-02,
an application for approval of a Development Plan and a Tentative Tract Map shall be
filed with the Planning Commission within two years after classification of the property
as P-D.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of Zone Change 04-218 and
Planned Development Review 04-02, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit
"A."
2. ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Zone Change 04-218 and Planned
Development Review 04-02.
ANALYSIS
Property History & Description
The proposed project area for Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review
04-02 is located at 7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue in the R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
zone. The entire project area is located on the north side of Garvalia Avenue, between
Jackson Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. The subject site consists of three, relatively flat
parcels of land, two of which have been tied together for tax purposes. The site totals
57,750 square feet of area. The parcel of land located at 7621 Garvalia Avenue is
currently developed with two single-family dwelling units, according to Building
Department records. The Los Angeles County Assessor's records indicate that both of
these units were built approximately in 1935. The parcel located at 7625 Garvalia
Avenue is currently developed with nine (9) single-family dwelling units, which were built
between 1959 and 1963, according to Building Department records.
Elevations
• •
Planning Commission Meebng
November 6, 2006
Page 3 of 11
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
The site is designated in the general plan for Medium Density Residential and on the
zoning map it is designated for R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. The site is
surrounded by the following land uses:
North:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use: Single-Family Residences and Duplexes
South:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use: Multi-Family residences and Duplexes
East:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Land Use: Single-Family Residences
West:
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning: R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use: Single-Family Residences and Duplexes
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 4 of 11
Administrative Comments and Analysis
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing two (2) parcels into eight (8) parcels
for the construction of eight (8) new single-family residences, as well as, change the
existing R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone to P-D (Planned Development) zone.
According to the proposed Development Concept Plan (Exhibit "B"), the residential
development will be arranged around a new private street and cul-de-sac, which will be
accessible via Garvalia Avenue. The private street measures a total of 28'-0" wide,
from curb to curb. Although sidewalks are not proposed, the front yards will be
landscaped to the curb line. Two (2) of the eight (8) new residences will have frontage
along Garvalia Avenue, the remaining six (6) will have frontage along the private street.
The total proposed lot areas range in size from 5,226 to 7,243 square feet. Although
the Planned Development zone does not have a maximum floor area ratio, the
residences have been designed with ratios ranging between 34.5% and 44.9%.
The subject property will be changed to a P-D (Planned Development) zone and the
proposed use of the site is consistent with the current land uses of the City of
Rosemead's General Plan and Municipal Code. The P-D zone is designed to support
various types of developments, including single-family residential developments. The
underlying General Plan Land Use element specifies the density for Medium Density
Residential properties as 0-9 units per acre. This development proposes approximately
7 units per acre. The project is proposed to meet the needs of current homeowners and
potential buyers. By subdividing the land into eight (8) parcels, the opportunity for
property ownership becomes a possibility, thus creating a higher standard of property
maintenance, which is difficult to achieve if the units were occupied as rentals.
Although the Tentative Tract Map is not being reviewed under this conceptual plan
review, it was distributed to various agencies for their review on May 16, 2005.
Responding agencies have made their comments, which are on file. At this stage, no
significant requirements have been issued by the Fire Department or utility companies.
Zoning Setbacks
The project area is currently zoned R-2 (Light Multiple Residential), however the
applicant is requesting to change the zone to a PD (Planned Development) in order to
provide diversification in the location of structures. To insure compliance with the
General Plan and the compatibility with existing and future developments in surrounding
areas, the project design closely follows single-family residential development
standards.
The front yard setback for each of the dwelling units range between 15'-4" and 20'-0."
The rear yard setback for each of the dwelling units range between 15'-0" and 254"
The proposed side yard setbacks range between 5'-0" and 15'-0" on the first floor and
between 10'-0" and 17'-9" on the second floor. Each proposed unit measures
approximately 27'-0" in height.
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 5 of 11
The following table provides an overview of the setbacks and building heights proposed
for each of the residences.
PROPOSED SETBACKS AND BUILDING HEIGHTS
LOT
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
REAR YARD
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
1st FLOOR
L-I
SIDE YARD
SETBACK (2nd
FLOOR
BUILDING
HEIGHT
1
201-0"
151-0"
12'-911- 71-6"
17'-9" - 10'-0"
27'-9"
2
201-0"
151-3"
10'-0" - 51-0"
161-611- 101-0"
271-7"
3
151-4"
151-0"
51-0" - 51-0"
10'-0" - 101-0"
251-6"
4
18'-0"
15'-3"
12'-0" - 25'-3"
14'-6" - 27-3"
27'-9"
5
18'-0"
15'-0"
25'-4" - 12'-0"
30'-0" - 12'-0"
27'-9"
6
151-4"
151-0"
51-0" - 51-0"
101-0" - 101-0"
251-6"
7
201-0"
151-3"
51-0" - 10'-0"
10'-0" - 109-0"
271-7"
8
201-0"
151-0"
71-6" - 121-8"
10'-0" - 17'-8"
271-9"
Figure 1.0
Residential Floor Plan
Eight (8) two-story, single-family residences are proposed with this development. Floor
plan sizes range from 2,348 - 2,499 square feet of living area. A two-car garage is also
proposed for each unit. There are three different floor plans detailed by the following:
Lots 1, 4, 5 and 8: This plan consists of 2,499 square feet of living area. The
first floor includes a foyer, a living room, a dining room, a family room, a
breakfast nook, a kitchen, a powder room, one bedroom (with a bathroom) and a
two-car garage. The second floor includes a master bedroom (with a bathroom,
a walk-in closet and access to a covered balcony), two bedrooms and one
bathroom.
Lots 2 and 7: This plan consists of 2,499 square feet of living area. The first
floor includes a foyer, a living room, a dining room, a family room, a breakfast
nook, a kitchen, a powder room, one bedroom (with a walk-in closet and
bathroom) and a two-car garage. The second floor includes a master bedroom
(with a bathroom, a walk-in closet and access to a covered balcony), two
bedrooms and one bathroom.
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 6 of 11
Lots 3 and 6: This plan consists of 2,348 square feet of living area. The first
floor includes a foyer, a living room, a dining room, a family room, a kitchen, a
bathroom, one bedroom and a two-car garage. The second floor includes a
master bedroom (with a bathroom, a walk-in closet and access to a covered
balcony), two bedrooms and one bathroom.
PROPOSED LOT AREAS AND LIVING AREAS
LOT
LOT SIZE
TOTAL
LIVING
AREA
FAR
NUMBER OF
BEDROOMS
1
61102
2 499
41.0%
4
2
5 785
2 499
43.2%
4
3
5f226
2 348
44.9%
4
4
7 239
2 499
34.5%
4
5
7243
2 499
34.5%
4
6
5 229
2 348
44.9%
4
7
5,787
2,499
43.2%
4
8
6,102
2,499
41.0%
4
Figure 2.0
Architectural Design
As shown on the architectural plans, marked Exhibit "B," there are four (4) different
residential designs proposed for the development, each following a Spanish
architectural style, characterized by a Spanish tile roof, clay pipe roof vents, arched
windows and decorative wrought iron embellishments around the proposed balconies.
Each of the units will have a furred-out base. A stucco plaster surface treatment,
ranging in white to dark beige, is also proposed for each unit.
Careful consideration has been given to scale and ornamentation, with regards to the
design of each of the proposed homes. The design elements proposed, such as the
balconies proposed on the front elevations and decorative wrought iron embellishments,
add visual interest and minimize the overall impact of the building's mass. Furthermore,
the light earth tone exterior colors proposed for each dwelling will soften the "looming"
presence that a larger development has the potential to create in residential
neighborhoods.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 7 of 11
According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning
Commission Meeting, the specific colors and materials proposed for each of the
dwelling units are as follows:
Lot 1 and Lot 6: The color and material of the main body of the units will be light beige
(La Habra Stucco - San Simeon). The fascia, trims and furred out base will be a
contrasting, darker beige color (La Habra Stucco - Mirage and ICI Paints - Manuscript).
Proposed decorative wrought iron will be painted black. The vinyl shutters will be
painted brown (ICI Paints - Bryce Lodge). The roofing material will be a Spanish
concrete roof tile in a reddish, brown tone (Eagle Roofing Product - Caliente).
Lot 2 and Lot 5: The color and material of the main body of the units will be off-white
(La Habra Stucco -French Vanilla). The fascia, trims and furred out base will be a
contrasting beige color (La Habra Stucco - Adobe and ICI Paints - Sand White).
Proposed decorative wrought iron will be painted black. The vinyl shutters will be
painted brown (ICI Paints - Coach House Brown). The roofing material will be a
Spanish concrete roof tile in an orange-red tone (Eagle Roofing Product - Terracotta).
Lot 3 and Lot 8: The color and material of the main body of the units will be medium
beige (La Habra Stucco - Alamo). The fascia, trims and furred out base will be a
contrasting, lighter beige color (La Habra Stucco - Saddleback and ICI Paints - Toasty
Grey). Proposed decorative wrought iron will be painted black. The vinyl shutters will
be painted brown (ICI Paints - Coach House Brown). The roofing material will be a
Spanish concrete roof tile in brown tone (Eagle Roofing Product - Ramona).
Lot 4 and Lot 7: The color and material of the main body of the units will be white (La
Habra Stucco -Crystal White). The trims and furred out base will be light gray (La
Habra Stucco - Silver Grey). Proposed decorative wrought iron will be painted black.
The vinyl shutters will be painted dark brown (ICI Paints - Steward House Brown). The
roofing material will be a Spanish concrete roof tile in red tone (Eagle Roofing Product -
Red Range).
To further address potential impacts to the surrounding properties, resulting from mass,
bulk and design issues, staff has incorporated conditions of approval at the end of this
report. These conditions include, but are not limited to, the following:
All proposed foam details under the fascia boards shall be redesigned to create
18" eave overhangs.
All windows on the front elevations shall be recessed a minimum of four (4)
inches and all other windows on side and rear elevations shall be recessed a
minimum of two (2) inches.
All front entry doors shall be brown, as indicated on the colored elevations.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 8 of 11
• The color of the garage doors shall be the exterior color of each dwelling unit or
dark brown, to accentuate the Spanish architectural style.
Landscaping and Fencing
Each residence will include new landscaping with a combination of trees, shrubs and
sod. The applicant has proposed a minimum of one 24" box tree in the front and rear
yard of each residence. Staff has added a condition that a landscape and irrigation plan
be submitted for each parcel as part of the final development plan for Planning
Commission approval, if the proposed zone change is approved by City Council. The
landscape plan shall include a wide variety of colorful and drought tolerant trees,
shrubs, flowers and ground covers. The irrigation plan shall include automatic timers
and moisture sensors.
The fencing materials currently surrounding the property include chain link, precision
block and wood fencing. New block walls are proposed for the perimeter of the
property. Staff recommends that the perimeter walls be constructed of decorative split
face block with precast concrete caps or a stucco wall matching the exterior color of the
proposed homes. Each individual lot will have walls to separate the lots. Staff
recommends eliminating all proposed block walls in the front yards of Lots 2 -7, to
create an open and inviting appearance. If the applicant prefers defined separations
between residences in the front yard areas, staff recommends using built-up
landscaped planters, not exceeding 3'-0" feet.
Neighborhood Character
Development on the site would be greater when compared to the existing residences
currently on-site. However, two-story apartment houses can be found within the vicinity
of the project. Furthermore, the proposed homes are consistent with the new planned
development projects that have been built throughout the San Gabriel Valley region.
Staff has worked with the developer in designing a project that will create new single-
family housing in the City without detracting from the character of the existing
neighborhood. Staff has also included numerous conditions of approval to address
design details on each of the residences. With the recommended conditions of
approval, staff feels that the addition of this residential development will increase
property values and the general aesthetics of the neighborhood.
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 9 of 11
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On October 10, 2006, eighty-eight (88) written notices of this public hearing were mailed
to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. On October 10, 2006, eight (8)
notices were posted in designated public places and filed with the Los Angeles County
Clerk.
Submitted by:
Sheri Bermejo
Associate Planner
Attachments: A. Conditions of Approval
B. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans/Topographic Map
C. Initial Study/Negative Declaration
D. Assessor's Parcel Map (5285-31-005 and 5285-31-022)
E. Zoning Map
F. General Plan Map
G. Applications dated, July 13, 2004
0 9
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT "A"
ZONE CHANGE 04-218
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02
7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
If the City Council approves Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development
Review 04-02, an application for approval of a Development Plan and a Tentative
Tract Map shall be filed with the Planning Commission within two years after
classification of the property as P-D. Prior to submitting for approval of the final
development plan, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of
approval.
2. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review, reflecting preliminary approval of landscape/site plan, commonly referred
to as Exhibit "B". Irrigation plan shall include automatic timers and rain sensors.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and completed prior to final
Planning Department approval.
3. A wall and fence plan will be required if any perimeter fencing or walls are
proposed. The perimeter walls surrounding the development shall be
constructed of decorative split face block with pre-cast concrete caps or a stucco
wall matching the exterior color of the proposed homes. Proposed block walls in
the front yards of Lots 2 -7 shall be either eliminated or defined separations
between residences shall be created with built-up landscaped planters, not
exceeding 3'-0" feet. All 6'-0" block walls that encroach into any required front
yard setback shall be reduced to 4'-0" in height.
4. All stamped concrete along the common driveway shall be a medium to dark
tone of gray.
5. All proposed foam details under the fascia boards shall be redesigned to create
18" eave overhangs.
6. All windows on the front elevations shall be recessed a minimum of four (4)
inches and all other windows on side and rear elevations shall be recessed a
minimum of two (2) inches.
7. All front entry doors shall be brown, as indicated on the colored elevations.
•
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Page 11 of 11
8. The color of the garage doors shall be the exterior color of each dwelling unit or
dark brown, to accentuate the Spanish architectural style.
9. Details of all materials to be used on the dwelling unit, as well as, details
(preferably in pamphlet format) of the decorative lighting, garage door, front door,
windows and chimney cap shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
10.The minimum interior of the garages shall be 20'-0" X 20'-0" clear, with no
obstructions, such as water heaters, washers and/or dryers. Sinks shall not be
located within garage interiors.
11. All dilapidated shed structures on-site, without permits, shall be removed.
0 0
Initial Study 1 Negative Declaration
EIGHT NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
7621-7637 GARVALIA AVENUE
Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA
' Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA. 91770
626-569-2143
Contact: Sheri M. Bermejo
October 9, 2006
EXHIBIT C
0 0
Initial
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Introduction
The City of Rosemead has prepared this Initial Study for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the
potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed Zone Change and eight
(8) parcel subdivision for the development of eight (8) new single-family homes. It is the intent of
this environmental document to address, to the extent foreseeable, the potential environmental
impacts that could be expected to occur with this project.
1.2 LOCATION
The proposed project area for Zone Change 04-218 and PD-R 04-02 is located at 7621 - 7637
Garvalia Avenue in the R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. The entire project area is located on
the north side of Garvalia Avenue, between Jackson and Del Mar Avenues.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Zone Change 04-218 and PD-R 04-02 is a request to change the existing R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) zone to a P-D (Planned Development) zone for a proposed subdivision of two (2)
parcels, into eight (8) parcels for the construction of eight (8) new single-family residences located at
7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue. The total proposed lot areas range in size from 5,226 to 7,243 square
feet. Three different floor plans are proposed for the eight (8) new dwelling units. One floor plan
will be 2,348 square feet in size and the other two will be 2,499 square feet. Four different elevations
are also proposed.
1.13 Proposed Building Layout and Architecture
Layout: The proposed development will be arranged around a new private street and cul-de-
sac. which will be accessible via Garvalia Avenue. Two (2) of the eight (8) new dwelling
units will have frontage along Garvalia Avenue. The remaining six (6) will have frontage
along the new private street.
Setbacks and Building Height: The front yard setback for each of the dwelling units ranges
between 15'-4" and 20'-0." The rear yard setback for each of the dwelling. units ranges
between 15'-0" and 25"- 4." The propose side yard setbacks range between 5'-0" and 15'-0"
on the first floor and between 10'-0" and 17'-9" on the second floor. Each proposed unit
measures approximately 27'-0" in height.
Architecture: The proposed architecture style is Spanish; characterized by a Spanish tile
roof, clay pipe roof vents, decorative wrought. iron embellishments around the proposed
0 0
Initial
Land uses surrounding the project site consist of the following:
North
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use:
Single-Family Residences and Duplexes
South
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zonine:
R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use:
Multi-Family Residences and Duplexes
East
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Land Use:
Single Family Residences
West
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Zonin_:
R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use:
Single-Family Residences and Duplexes
Introduction
• •
Initial
-Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attairunent under an
lit
i
❑ ❑ ❑
y
r qua
applicable federal or state ambient a
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑ ❑ ❑
substantial number of people?
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
❑
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
❑ ❑
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, .policies,
❑ ❑ ❑
and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
❑ ❑ ❑ 21
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal. filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
❑ ❑
species or with established native resident or
❑
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑ ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
❑
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
❑ ❑
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
S. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑ ❑
significance of a historical resource as defined
❑
in 81 1064.5?
Initial Study
_ Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
❑ ❑ ® ❑
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
A
d)
Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility
that might reasonably be anticipated to emit
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 a hazardous substance as identified by
❑ _ ❑ ❑
the State Department of Health Services in a
current list adopted pursuant to Section 25-56
for removal or remedial action pursuant to
Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code?
f)
Be located on land that is, or can be made,
sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to
❑ ❑ ❑
be suitable for development and use as a school?
g)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
❑ ❑ ❑
use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
-
h)
_
For a project within the vicinity of a private
r
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 wildlands are adjacent to
❑ ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
k)
Be located within 1500 feet of (i) an above-
ground water or fuel storage tank, or (ii) an
easement of an above ground or underground
❑ ❑ ❑
pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the
4
•
)nitial
17.4
Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
l
❑ ❑ ❑
limited to the general plan, specific plan, loca
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
- .
_ -
-
habitat
applicable
with any
c) Conflict
i
i
-
El ❑ ❑
om
es
t
plan or natural commun
on
conservati
conservation plan?
10. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
❑ ❑ ❑
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
❑ ❑ ❑
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
11. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
❑ ❑ ® ❑
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
❑ ❑ ❑
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
l
l
❑
❑ ❑
eve
s
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
i
i
® ❑
❑ ❑
ty
n
ambient noise levels in the project vic
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
❑ ❑ ❑
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
❑ ❑ ❑
excessive noise levels?
• •
Environmental Checklist
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Environmental Issues
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a desi-m
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑ ❑ ❑
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑ ❑ ❑
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑ ❑ ❑
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
❑ ❑ ❑
Board? _
b)
Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
❑ ' ❑ ❑
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
.
-
-
c)
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑ ❑ ❑
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
❑ ❑ ❑
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
❑
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
❑ ❑
the project's projected demand in addition to the
°
provider's existing commitments?
-
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
❑ ❑ ❑
waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
❑ ❑ ❑
and regulations related to solid waste.)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
❑ ❑ ❑
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
•
Initial
•
Environmental
Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed residential development
would not result in a "potentially significant impact' as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported
by substantial evidence provided in this document.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic
❑ Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Y
10
Discussion of
Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
SECTION 3
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. AESTHETICS (NO IMPACT)
a) The subject site is not located in an area considered to be of any visual value. Areas
surrounding the project site are zoned for residential use, both existing and proposed, and
therefore, no significant scenic vistas or views open to the public exist through this site.
b) The subject site consists of two (2) parcels of land. There are no scenic resources such as
historic buildings, a state scenic highway, or rock outcropping within the subject site or
adjacent area that would be affected or damaged.
c) The proposed project will not damage nor degrade the visual character of the existing area
since the proposed residential development is consistent with the surrounding residential land
usage.
d) This project has no potential to create a new source of substantial light and glare to the
surrounding properties. The proposed development consists of eight (8) single-family
residences with no indication of any outside sources of light that will have an impact on the
surrounding properties.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT)
a) - c) There are no agricultural resources present on this project site or on the surrounding areas.
The City is highly urbanized and all properties zoned for agriculture are not currently utilized
for farmland purposes. Agriculturally zoned properties in the City consist of vacant lots,
parkland, plant nurseries, and an elementary school. The project site is currently developed
with eleven single-family dwelling units and has no agricultural resources present. Therefore,
this project would not impact any agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY (NO IMPACT)
This project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD has implemented the 2003 Air Quality
Management Plan to control pollution from all sources.
For a complete evaluation of both direct and indirect consequences that could arise from this
project. the Planning Department Staff utilized the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which
Discussion of
Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
addition, there are no nearby bodies of water or hydrological features, which may disrupt
migratory fish patterns.
e) All vegetation currently existing on the site consists of ornamental landscaping. The two (2)
parcels are relatively flat parcels of land. There are eleven (11) trees on-site. eight (8)
Chinese Elm trees, one (1) Pine tree, one (1) Lemon tree and one (1) Peach tree. The City of
Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance recognizes oak trees as significant historical,
aesthetic and ecological resources and establishes conditions for the preservation and
propagation of these trees. No oak trees are present within the proposed development area.
fl The implementation of Zone Change 04-218 and PD-R 04-02 will not create adverse impacts
to the biological resources because such resources do not exist at this site. Since the project
area is urbanized, there is no existing habitat or wetland with endangered and rare species nor
is there any significant vegetation in this project area that may be affected.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT)
a)-b) Based on a staff review of the project site, it is determined that there is no recorded
archaeological or historic resources existing that may be affected by the implementation of
this proposed project. The City of Rosemead is a highly urbanized city with few properties in
the city with significant historicalaand archaeological resources. Measures in Section 15064.5
of the CEQA guidelines will be included in the proposed project to provide for satisfactory
mitigation of any archaeological impact that may result.
c) The subject site is currently developed with eleven (11) single-family residences. The
proposed project includes the construction of eight (8) single-family residences. No
paleontological resources or geographic features are known or expected to be present within
this impact area.
d) The subject development area is not expected to disturb anv human remains.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (NO IMPACT)
a) The entire City of Rosemead lies in a seismically active region. Though there are various
properties in the City that are situated in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, this
project area is not one of those properties. There are no known active surface faults within
the project area, which may impact future development. However; severe ground shaking
from a regional earthquake would impact not only the project area, but also the entire site and
surrounding area.
3
I 1 0 0
Discussion of
Initial Study Environmental Evaluation
probability that significant amounts of hazardous materials would be released is substantially
low.
f) This site could be made sufficiently free of hazardous materials. However, the proposed
project does not include the development of a school.
g)-h) The proposed project is not located within two miles of a public or private airport.
i) The proposed project would not impact the implementation of any emergency response or
evacuation plan. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has reviewed the project and
access has been approved. The Fire Department has also indicated that if a vehicular access
gate is proposed.. it shall be submitted for review and approval, to verify compliance with
Regulation 95 of the Los Angeles Count Fire Department.
j) There are no wildlands within the project area or surrounding area so as not to expose people
of structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
k) There are no tanks, easements or pipelines within 1500 feet.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (NO IMPACT)
a~-f) The implementation of Zone Chance 04-218 and PD-R 04-02 will not create significant
impacts to the hydrology and water quality of the area. The site would result in changes in
absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff. A drainage
study will be prepared, along with the appropriate final grading plans. If applicable, adequate
drainage facilities will be installed. Surface runoff will be discharged. The proposed project
will not create potential impacts to the volume, drainage pattern, rate of flow and overall
quality of any body of water.
The quality of stormwater runoff is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES stormwater permits provide a mechanism for
monitoring the discharge of pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize
the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As co-permitee (NPDES No.
CAS614001), the County requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with
the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate.
This project was distributed to the Golden State Water Company, and has been verified to
have adequate capacity to serve eight (8) single-family homes.
g)-j) Water-quality impacts depend on the conditions of the community where a project will be
located and what it will involve. The subject development area is not located near any water
basin that may be affected. Since the Cite of l:osemead has been declared fig the Federal
5
I Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation
Initial
b) Because the proposed project is a subdivision for the development of eight (8) residential
units, no person will be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or excess groundborne
noise levels.
c) Since the proposed project will result in the construction of eight (8) new structures, it is not
expected that the noise level may increase from the previous use, as the site is currently
occupied by eleven (11) single-family residences. Therefore, there will not be a substantial
increase in noise levels.
d) Since this project involves the construction of new buildings, there will be a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels that may be created due to
construction activities. All construction work shall comply with the timeframe, and decibel
levels indicated in the City's noise ordinance. (The hours of construction shall be limited
froth 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.)
e)--f) The pro . ject is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or located within two miles of an
airport. No impact would result.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING (NO IMPACT)
a) This proposed project will not result in substantial growth in the City's population. The
existing site is currently developed with eleven (11) single-family dwellings. 'The proposed
project involves the subdivision of two (2) parcels into eight (8) parcels for the construction
of eight (8) new single-family homes. Each residence will provide a total a total of four (4)
bedrooms. The project will provide three (3) dwelling units less than what currently exists
onsite today. Although, the applicant is proposing to change the zone of the subject site from
R-2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development), the use of the lot will
not change. The P-D zone is designed to support low density, single-family residences. This
project is proposed to meet the needs of current homeowners and potential buyers.
b)-c) The project site is currently developed with eleven (11) single-family residences. The parcel
located at 7625 Garvalia Avenue is legal-nonconforming due to density, as the current R-2
(Light Multiple Residential) zone only pen-nits one dwelling unit per 4,500 square feet of lot
area. Therefore, the existing code would only permit ten (10) dwelling units if the existing
units were to be demolished and rebuilt. Although the proposal would provide two (2)
dwelling units less than the current development, by subdividing the land into eight (8)
parcels, the opportunity for property ownership becomes a possibility thus creating a higher
standard of property maintenance, which is more difficult to achieve if tine units were
occupied as rentals. The proposed project may displace some existing residents on the
project site who might not be able to afford the new units. However, adequate housing exists
7
0 0
Initial
Discussion of
Environmental Evaluation
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC DISCUSSION (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT)
a) Zone Change 04-218 and PD-R 04-02 may result in potential less than significant impacts to
traffic and transportation due to the slight intensification of the land use with the proposed
eight (8) lot subdivision and the construction of eight (8) single-family residences. Such a
proposed use will result in an increase in vehicle traffic deriving from the increase in
population size. However, the proposed project includes the construction of eight (8) new
two-car garages for each unit and a new private street.
b) This project has been sent out for review and comment to several agencies, including the
county agencies, and has not been found to exceed service standards established by the
county.
c) The proposed development will consist of a subdivision of two (2) parcels into eight (8)
parcels and a zone change from R=2 (Light Multi-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned
Development). This project will have temporary impacts to this sidewalk and portion of
Garvalia Avenue. However, the completed project would provide pedestrian and vehicle
access along a new private street. The proposed project would not otherwise impact
alternative transportation. If the proposed project is approved a condition of approval will
require the applicant to record Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). The City
will require these CC&R's to include the continuous maintenance of the private street.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs
supporting, alternative transportation.
d) The proposed project consists of the construction of eight '(8) new single-family residences
and the opening of a private street. There are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections or
incompatible uses proposed as an activity connected with this project. Therefore, the project
will not substantially increase hazards due to design features.
e) The Los Angeles County Fire Department and City Engineer have reviewed this proposal for
adequate access. The proposed project meets the preliminary comments of these reviewing
agencies and shall be approved prior to the final recordation of the Tentative Tract Map.
f) Each of the proposed dwelling units will be compliant with Rosemead Municipal Code,
Section 17.84.02, which states that there shall be not less than two parking spaces for each
dwelling unit. The proposed development includes the construction of a new two-car garage
for each unit.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (NO IMPACT)
a) -g) The implementation of the proposed project is not expected to significantly affect the
consumption of natural gas and electricity, the demand for the communication system, the
reulonal NNastex ater treatment system. the sionnwaier drainage. the solid \%aste generation
9
Initial
SECTION 4
REFERENCES
Citv of Rosemead General Plan, November 24, 1987
City of Rosemead Municipal Code, 1999
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District
Department of Finance - E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005
Initial Study for Tentative Tract Map 060158 and Zone Change 03-217
•
•
- -
K V'
m
N
-
o
~0
4
a
JACKSON
y AVE. a
N
o
~Jy.
~R✓
60
/ 0 o Sa
ao I ,so
S40
L+
T
~
,r• I r
ru
~
0.... O J I
I ~
O o w NIp O I O 0
I
---I
Do
D
F-
I
/D
4
0
I
30
-
L-
D
O _L-
:
-
-
_ ---1-_
^ N /-4'0
f
ti
cO
cD
~
Ln
iso
F
0
Im
D
n
cO
--4
I
60 60
io0. / 7
Bo
i
O
Z
" r
~ a ~ v 1
o
I'
(D
(Aj A ' 6~ b
CJ
(n
v r
b 4
-
O)
w
_
b c ~o o
6
10D
4 45.0/ 60
"
a/
N
s
R, 30 A O
9S
oOAROCA
u
o AVE.-
4x.99
` X60 0 O O ,
kii
V
\
, ti
C
~ - tD ~
y o
OD
n H o
~ v
60 co
BO /DO.PP
so
n
0
c
o
r ^
o
N H
a a
0. m •~j
=
V•
r =
zz ° W
N °
EXHIBIT
D
a
r
ll I111IitI1l111~1~1111~[YJ(~~ ~I f ~ ez••~- ~ -
rtrtnN rt►n++ uuwet 1 r MnRnrnn Ip~11~.r:IRi .n
• Yw! - ~ J L
..t HELLMAN 3400 s AV
HERSHEY
_ v~ + D
U Q - w
4 DOROTHY
> CAtidEY- Di _j Q 1,~
w O - lc-,C7'2 , co r --1 f
Q
MI* SON I I PL 3200 PL 32
Z S'
R
~IrYHITMORE ST LU
.O m >
Q v VIRGINI O
Q . U S I->
C~ Z¢
' GARVEY 13400 o AV 3
fill urrtninnulnmmt n(wSAM I ntmrrrmmmm nn nunninlulnuulnmmiiurnrulmmTinunmtnnrmilmnmmrrrtmmlfrrmmrt
-
I
O f o O
~I> Cn 6kRVEY h. ' c~ '
< trw DOT
Too <
I ]_ZQ_
EGLEY AV ,NEWMARK AV
AV
EWM ARK AR6ECLEM'~ as _ A
slA < ?d _
0 26(
A^v
d Z' v4rA O x m '
GARVALIA a AV t tL aAEl
x - i_--:~AV w
<1 P,ILMA v - cc _j U.1 AN O P O Z
>
E MELROSE,l HIGHCLIFF S Q W m I
p t GRA1r S :2 00 AV
to ~ EXHIBIT E
u Lrlmrr` \NTInrrrrurnnnn;nnrnnrrnnnnn„ rrrnrl r ul nntnn I ~1 nnnrmrnrrnnrrn YTI
0 0
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential`
yOccc( Mixed Use:Residontlal/Commerclal
DOOOO a
Mixed Use: industrial/Commercial
Commercial
J J J J
J J ' Public Facilities
IJJJJJ JJ_ 01-ANNING AREA
I
Y
\
a) Z^
W v
c Q
0
21J
FIGURE LU-5
Land Use Policy
Planning Area 5
City of Rosemead
General Plan
COTTON/SELAND/ASSOCIATES
k, Garvey Ave.
J J
JJJJ
J J
JJJJ
EXHIBIT F
tcx,
ZONE CBAJ7GE
APPLICATION SUPPLEMKHT (1)
CITY OF ROSKKKAD, PLAPUCDVG DEPA3MXKNT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
RDSEMBAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 7621-7637 Garvailia Street DATE: 7/13/04
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PRoJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
Development
£r.isting Zon ng: F Proposed zoning: ~D
-existing General Plan Designatipn:
Address the following statements or. a separate sheet.
1. The proposed change of zone meets the intent and is ccnsistent with the
General --!an designation applicable to the area.
2. The proposed change of zone provides for the logical and best use for the
property or properties involved, and does not constitute a 'spot zoning'
situation.
3. The proposed chance of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare
and benefit of the public at large.
4. The public necessity supports the proposed change. There is a real need in
the community for more of the type of uses permitted by the zone requested.
5. The property involved in the proposed rezoning is more suitable for the
::ses nerritted in the proposed zone than for the uses pe mitred in the
present zone.
6. The uses permitted by the proposed designation are not detrimental to
surrounding properties.
SIGAATURE: DATE: 7/13/04
FEE 51350
FL/ZC
Exhibit G
0 0
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM (2)
CITY OF ROSEMRAD, PLANNTNG DEPARTMENT
8839 VALLET BOULk-YARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 298-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 7621 -7637 Garvalia S+f2e'} DATE: 71!310 `1
DESCRIPTI5A OF REQUEST/PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
LOT SIZE: 1.327 Acres APN: 5285-031-022,00%ONE: R2 GEN. PLAN:
PROJECT/BUSINESS NAME:
HOURS OF OPERATION: NO. OF EMPLOYEES:
PROJECT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more apace is needed):
Existing use: 11 Dwellings - Residential of: 57,785
to be demolished: All of to remain: None of
Proposed use: 9 Planned Development Units
additional sf: / total of: 57,785 height:
Building of broken down by intended use and number of structures or du:
Parking calculation (show sf/parking ratio/number required & provided):
Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage:
APPLICANT/ SUBDIVIDER: Peter 8 Brenda Jong
Address: 802 E Mooney Drive, Monterey Park, (PAoSd:754 626-255-8115
BUSINESS OWNER(S):
Address:
Phone:
PROPERTY OKNER: Same as applicant.
Addrera:
Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE (architect, engineer, Tritech Associates Inc.
Address: 135 N. San Gabriel B1. 1!100 San GabrivaorQA 91775 626-570-1918
I hereby certify that the ove is correct to the beat of my knowledge.
Applicant's signature: Date: 7/13/04
Print Name: Brenda Jon
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:
DATE:
CASE(S): NO(S): FEE:
FL/INFOSH
E
•
ENVIRONHKNTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (3)
CITY OF ROSRHEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMXNT
8838 VA LKr BOULNVARD
ROSEHKAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 7621-
Garvalia -Street DATE: 7 I /3~L I
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/ PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
Development
1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north SFR, Duplexes, & TriplexesR widen*-<<
south 1.11 nn
east SFR, Duplex, Triplex, Apartmtmt,9,oJe-^
west SFR-Residential
2. Could the request, if granted, have an effect on any of the items listed
below? Answer yes or no in space provided.
Pjl a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to
public lands or roads.
fdo b. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
ATa C. Change in plant or animal life.
A1O d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
f(~ e. Change in duet, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
tiL' d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
f. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
JV g. Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
h. Site on filled land or on elopes of 109 or more.
,ICJ i. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammables or explosives.
j. Projected change in demand for City services, (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
~v k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet.
3. Number of trees on the site: 14 No. of oak trees: 0
Number of trees to be removed: 3
Number of oak trees to be removed: N/A
If oak trees are to be removed, please refer to RMC Sec. 9131 about permit
procedures.
4. Are there any known cultural, historical, archeological or any other
environmental aspects of the project site and surrounding area that the
Planning Department should be aware of?None
If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet.
t
SIGNATURE: ~ (~Z - DATE: 7 i3 f O~
FL/ENVIRON
• •
NCrrF :
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST/RADIOS HAY INSTRUCTIONS (4)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTN.KNT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
The information furnished must be as it appears on the latest assessment roll
of the Los Angeles County Assessor. An inaccurate or incomplete list may cause
invalidation of your case. Attached is a list of providers of this service. A
listing does not constitute a recommendation from the City.
INSTRUCTIONS*
Submit the following with application:
a. one (1) map showing each parcel within, or partially within, a
300-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the property under
consideration. Number each parcel within the 300-foot radius on the
map (i.e., fl, 12, f3...).
b. one (1) list of assessor's parcel number, property owner's name, and
property owner's mailing address for each parcel numbered (i.e., fl,
12, f3...).
C. three (3) sets of gummed labels with the list copied onto them.
d. one (1) copy of this form with the affidavit shown below signed and
notarized by the preparer of the three items listed above.
Site Address: 7621-7631 Garvlia Street Date: 7/13/04
Description of Request /Project: A 9 Lot Proposed Development
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead )
County of Los Angeles )
State of California )
I, *****RrPnd;4 .Tong***** , hereby certify that the
names and addresses of all persona to whom all property is assessed as they
appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles
within the described and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the
exterior boundaries of property described as:
Street Address(es):
Signed:
Print Name(s):
Phone: 636-280-0098
mailing Address: $02 E. Mooney Drive
City/State/2i"p: Monterey Park, CA 91754 Date: 7/13/04
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of JULY, 2004
NOTARY PUBLIC, HSIANG I HUANG
/ Asses;yor's Po{cel No. (e): 5785 _03I pnJin.~-Z
r
HSM11G CHI HUANG
Commlgbn r 1463463
Noby "left - Comorr o
La ArgaM~ County
CM Conrn. E~ia Apr 26, 2
FL/RADIUS
• •
COMMISSION REARING APPLICATION INSTRUCTION SHEET
CITY OF ROSEMF.an/PLANNING DEPARTMENT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
ADVICE TO APPLICANTS: Do not begin work/operation, sign a leane/excrow, or
make any other legal/financial agreements dependent on approval of this case
until AFTER you receive written notice of approval (and applicable conditions)
AFTER the public hearing.
Submit the following. Type or print neatly in blue or black ink.
1. APPLICATION SUPPLSMSNT. This form is not attached. Please ask for the
appropriate "application supplement" form(s) for your particular request.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION FORM. The applicant must sign.
3. ENVIRONMHNTAL ASSESSMENT FORM. The applicant must sign.
4. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST/RADIUS MAP. Submit the four items listed on the
instruction sheet. Attached is a list of providers. A listing does not
necessarily constitute a recommendation from the City.
5. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT. The applicant, not the representative, should read
the attached form, sign, and notarize it.
6. PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT. The property owner should read the attached
form, sign, and notarize it.
7. PLANS. Submit fifteen (15) sets of plane, all drawn to scale (preferably
I" 10' or I" - 20'), and folded in simple quarters if larger than 8-1/2"
X 14" (legal size). All plans must show the existing and, if any, proposed
development, and must include, at the very minimum:
Site Plan. show entire property, building location & setbacks, landscaped-
paved areas, parking layout, intended use of buildings.
Floor Plan. show interior walla and intended use of rooms
Project Data Table. include site address, assessor's parcel no., and lot
size; show building of broken down by existing, demolish, new and total;
show parking calculations and lot coverage, floor-area ratio, landscape
percentage.
For requests involving new construction, please include elevations and tree
preservation plans (as stated in Section 9131.5) Be sure to label oak
trees. Please check "application supplement" for additional information on
plans.
8. FEES. Add up the fees below and submit cash, check, or money order for the
total amount.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
51:75
Design Review (DR)
690
General Plan Amendment (CPA)
1250
Municipal code Amendment (MCA)
1225
Planned Development Review (PDR)
935
Relocation Impact Report (RIR)
1500
Tentative parcel/tract maps (TPM/TTM): base fee
1685
plus $100 per lot created
_
Zone Change (ZC)
1350
Zone Variance (ZV)
1275
(All fees listed include an environmental assessment fee of $300.)
Your application WILL NOT be accepted without all of the above eight items.
NOTE: The Planning Department reserves the right to request additional
information and refrain from ecbeduling•,a hearing until the case is deemed
complete.
The public hearing before the Planning Commission will be held two to four
months from the date the application is filed. The applicant will be notified
at least ten days before the hearing. The applicant, or a representative,
must be present at the hearing. Failure to attend may result in postponement
of action. Planning commission hearings are held every first and third Monday
of each month in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at the address at
the top.
After approval of your request at the hearing, please wait for notice of
approval in writing and affidavit of agreement with conditions. For zone
changes, municipal code amendments, and certain other requests, a public
hearing before the City Council is also necessary. For tentative map
(subdivision) requests, check with the Engineering Department regarding final
map approval.
• •
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (5)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
The applicant, not the representative, should read this sheet and then sign and
notarize signature at bottom:
Dear Applicant:
NOTICE
You are advised NOT to obtain any loans or loan commitments on the subject
property, or to clear the land, or do anything whatsoever that is dependent on
final approval of your application. Anything you do before final approval will
be AT YOUR OWN RISK. Do not assume that your case will be, or has been finally
approved until you are officially notified of such decision IN WRITING by the
City of Rosemead.
Final approval requires favorable action by the Planning Commission or the City
Council. Further, final approval alone may not be enough. READ the notice of
decision and the RESOLUTION of the Planning commission or city council on which
the decision is based. It is necessary that you comply with ALL the conditions
of approval set forth herein before the final approval takes effect.
Sincerely,
PETER LYONS
Director of Planning
City of Rosemead
Site Address: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street Date: 7/13/04
Description of Request/Project: A 9 Lot Planned Development
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead )
County of Los Angeles)
State of California )
I/We, *****Brenda Jong***** hereby
certify that I/we am/a.re the applicant(s) involved in this request, and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information
herewith subm.i~ted a e in all respects true and correct to the beet of my/our
knowledge and belief. I
Signed:
Print Name(e): Brenda J04Q
Mailing Address: 802 E Money Drive Phone: 626-280-0098
City/State/Zip: Monterey Park, CA 91754 Date: 7/13/04
Subscribed and sworn to before ine this 16th day of JULY, 2004 ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
INIANG CIM HtL1tX.
~~ft-(I --f~'mss ,
NOTARY PUBLIC, HSIANG CHrt-} ANG L.NV"C-*
W/Canm. EONAP u.
FL/AFFIDAVIT
• •
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (6)
CITT OF ROSKKKAD, PLANNING DHPARTHKKT
8038 VALLRT ROULRVARD
ROSKK AD, CA. 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street DATE: 7/13/04
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: A 9 Lot Planned Development
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead )
County of Los Angeles)
State of California )
I/We, *****Brenda Jong***** , hereby
certify that I/we am/are the owner(s) of the property involved in this request,
and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the
information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best
of my/our )&gowledge and belie.
Signed:
Print Name(s):
Mailing Address: 802 E. Money Drive Phone: 626-290-0098
City/State/Zip: Monterey Park, CA 91759 Date: 7/13/04
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of JULY, 2004 11Yf/
k
/
1
HSMNG CH
I HUANG
aC! A
CommYYOn 1 1483463
_
NOTARY PUBLIC
HSIANG C UANG
s
cakmia
i Y
,
Co
urty
M!r Canrn. E>~YM App 24.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Filed with Case No.: on the day of 19_
FL/AFFIDAVIT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
1,0,2 0'/- D3
SITE ADDRESS: 7621-7637 Garvalia STr p.A- DATE: 7/13/0`t
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
( j Modification of approved PD project
PD approved by Zone Change E (date: )
1-41 New PD project
a. Do the submitted plans comply with concept plan requirements per RMC
9120.3, Development Plan requirements per RISC Sec. 9120.4, or both?
JP.S
I
SIGNATURE:
FEE $935
PD
DATE: 7' )3 1 ey
0 0
GENERAL INFORMATION FORM (2)
CITY OF ROSEXEAD, PLANIYTNG DEPARTKEh-r
8838 VALLEY BOUIXVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
517E ADDP.ESS: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street DATE: 7/13/04
Fcr':,P-ION OF ~:''sT;PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
LOT SIZE: 1.327 Acres ApN: 5285-031=005, 022yoNE: R2 GEN. PLAN:
PROJECT/BUSINESS NAME:
Ho:r,S OF OPERA-ION:
NO. OF EMPLOYES:
PRO.,--CT DETAILS: (type or print on separate sheet if more space is needed):
Existing use: 11 Dwellings-Residential 6f: 57 785
None sf
to be demolishes: All _ to remain:
proposed use: 9 Planned Development Units
additional sf: / total sf: 57.785 height:
Building of broken down, by intended use and number of structures or du:
Parking calculation (show sf/parking ratio/number required 6 provided):
Lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaped percentage:
F.?PLICAI:T/SUBDIVIDER: Peter &:Brenda Jon
Adc.ess: 802 E Mooney Drive, Monterey Park CAF%b-A64 626-255-8115
BDS:KzSS OI" SR(S):
Addres_5:
oho?-=7y Ow'n_P. Same as
Phone:
Phone:
Tritech Asociates Inc.
P.EPRESEN'TAT:vE (architect, engineer,
Address:135 N. San Gabriel B1 x/100 San Gabriel ~Y1bn41775 626-570-1918
I hereby certify that th bove 's correct to the best of my knowledge.
Date: 7/13/04
A~nlicant's signature:
Print Name: Brenda Jong
DO NOT WRITS HEI.OH THIS LIKE
P.PPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:
CASE(S):
DATE:
NO(S): PEE'
PL/Ii:F05H
0 0
EAVI)mKKENTAL A.SSE smi~xT FORK (3)
CITZ OF ROSSKF.AD, PLAMrJ %r- DEPARTMENT
8838 VAILST HOOI.EVARD
R05EKEAD, Ca 91770
(818) 288-6671
SITE ADDRESS: 7621 7637 Garvalia Street DATE: 7113/04
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
SFR, Duplexes, & Triplexes TF~~:dc^~'^1
1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north
It of lilt
south
east SFR, Duplex, Triplex, Apartment, Res;,,,,i
west SFR-Residential
2. Could the request, if granted, have an effect on any of the items listed
below? Answer yes or no in space provided.
0149 a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to
public lands or roads.
ti)0 b. change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
~p c. Change in plant or animal life.
ND d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
/U0 e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
kl~ d. Increase of solid waste or litter.
/CL e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
/l~Q Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns-
/jig g• Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
h. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10% or more-
AF i. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
NGi substances, flammable& or explosives.
j. Projected change in demand for City services, (police, fire, water,
se+ age, etc.).
/110 k. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
If yes, please type or print explanation on a separate sheet.
3 Number of trees on the site: 14 No. of oak trees: 0
Number of trees to be removed: _ 3
Number of oak trees to be removed: u/R
If oak trees are to be removed, please refer to RMC Sec. 9131 about permit
procedures.
4. Are there any known cultural, historical, archeological or any other
environmental "aspects of the project site and surrounding area that the
Planning Department should be aware o`? Ncre-
If yes, please tyke or print explanation on a separate sheet.
DATE: 7/13/04
SIGNATURE:
FL/EN-'IRDN
0 0
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST/RADIUS KkP INS;'RUCTIONS (4)
CITY OF ROsKMEAD, PLANNING DKPARTHENT
8838 VALLrr BOULEVARD
ROSEHEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
NOTE:
The information furnished must be as it appears on the latest assessment roll
of the Los Anceles County Assessor. An inaccurate or incomplete list may cause
invalidation of your case. Attached is a list of providers of this service. A
listing does not constitute a recommendation from the City.
TNSTRUCTIOKS -
Submit the following with application:
a. one (1) man showing each parcel within, or partially within, a
300-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the property under
consideration. Number each parcel within the 300-foot radius on the
map (i.e., fl, f2, f3...).
one (1) list of assessor's parcel number, property owner's name, and
property owner's nailing address for each parcel numbered (i.e., fl,
f2, f3...).
three (3) sets of summed labels with the list copied onto them.
d. one copy of this form with the affidavit shown below signed and
items listed above.
notarised by the :reoarer of the three
S;!:e Address: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street Date: 7/1-A/04
Description of Request/Project: A 9 Lot Planned Dev 1
AFPiDAVIT
City of Rosemead )
County of 7-os Angeles )
State of California )
*****Brenda Jong***** , hereby certify that the
I,
vanes and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they
appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Lou Angeles
within the described and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the
exterior b--undaries of property described as:
Street Address(es):
Assess' s Parcel ,29 7r-631-oo7 02-2,
S'-cne:-:
Print Name(s): - ci,uc
802 E Mooney Drive phone: 626-280-0098
!;ailing Address,.:
city/state/zip: Monterey Park, CA 91754 Daze: 7/13/04
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of JULY, 2004 VOL.
, t5 245~~-
NOTARY PUBLIC, HSIANG C UANG
HMAING CHI HUANG
COMMkSlon # ) 483463
NokuY Pubbc - Calnomw
Los Anpelss County -
OMv Comm. Expkes Apt 28, 2008
Fi/RADIUS
• •
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (5)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPAR'TMEN'T
8838 V7tT-T-= BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
(818) 288-6671
The applicant, not the representative, should read this sheet and then si4n.and
nctari:e signature at bottom:
Dear Applicant:
NOTICE
you are advised NOT to obtain any loans or loan commitments on the subject
property, or to clear the land, or do anything whatsoever that is dependent on
final approval of your application. Anything you do before final approval will
be AT YOUR OWN RISK. Do not assume that your case will 1,e, or has been finally
approved until you are officially notified of such decision IN WRITING by the
City of Rosemead.
in al approval rern:i.-es favorable action by the Planning Commission or the City
Co_r.cil. Further, final approval alone may not be enough. READ the notice of
decici•on and the RESOLUTION of the Planning Commission or City Council on which
the decision is based. It is necessary that you comply with ALL the conditions
of approval set forth herein before the final approval takes effect-
Sincerely,
PETER LYONS
Director of Planning
Citv of Rosemead
Site Address: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street Date: J7/1-1/04
Description of Recuest/Project: A 9 Lot Planned Development
AFFIDAVIT
City of ?osemead )
Cou,ty of Lis Angeles)
State of California )
*****Brenda,- Jon , hereby
I/we,
certify that I/we am/are the applicant(s) evolved in this request, and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my/our
know'_edoe 4-6d belief. Q\
Sicned:
Print Name(s):
Nailing Address: 802 E Mooney Drive Phone:
•
city/state/^`ip: Monterey Park, CA 91754 Date, 7/14/04
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of JULY. 2004 , 19,_
C141 WANG
CMMMIOn 148346--l
AM #
ND Y PUBLIC, HSIANG C HUANG ~ryPubYc _C(OW-4a
lob Anpsbs County -
AAy Comm. Emhes Apr 28,
FL/AFFIDAVIT
0 0
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (6)
CITT OF ROSEMF.AD, P11.AKTWG DEPARTMEYT
8638 VALI.ET BOULSVARD
ROSEaCRAD, CA 91770
(816) 288-6671
SITF ADDRESS: 7621-7637 Garvalia Street DATE: 7/13/04
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/ PROJECT: A 9 Lot Subdivision for Planned
AFFIDAVIT
City of Rosemead )
County of Los Angeles)
state of California )
I/he, *****Brenda Jong***** . hereby
cert-fv that I/we am;a=e the owner(s) of the property involved in this request,
and that the foreoc-ng statements and answers herein contained, and the
info-Mation herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best
of my/our Y.no41e ge anq belie
Sicned:
?r int Nafne (s) : _
railing Address
: 802 E
Mooney
Drive
Phone:
626-280-0098
re
M
t
Park
CA 91754
Date:
7/13/04
city/state/zip:
e
on
,
y
subscribed and
sworn to be
fore me
this 16th day of
JULY 2004
1//y7-.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
,Q F HSIANG CHI HUAMG
Zi-/ ! rat ~ Commisslon N 1493463
;C-P.R:' PUBLIC , HSIANG C Hl1ANG y NoloryPubAe-Comomla
Los Anprrirrs county
pAy comm. Apr 29,
FOR OFFICY USE ONLY - DO NOT WRS:E RKLOW TSIS LINE
?-led with Case No.: on the day of 19-
FL/AFFIDAVIT
•
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 6, 2006
CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East
Valley Boulevard, Rosemead.
Commissioner Kelty led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioner Breen delivered the invocation.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice-Chairman Kelty, Commissioners, Breen,
Herrera, and Loi
ABSENT: None
EX OFFICIO: Bermejo, Johnson, Price, and Trinh
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of October 2, 2006
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, SECONDED BY COMMISSONER KELTY, that the
minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 2, 2006, be
APPROVED as submitted.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS:
Chairman Lopez introduces City Attorney Stanton Price, and invites him to speak.
City Attorney Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning
Commission decisions to the City Council.
Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step
forward.
EXHIBIT D
•
None.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
•
A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 066501 - 2512 Earle Avenue. Joan Hang has requested to
subdivide two residential, conventional lots into a flag-lot development. The proposed
subdivision will create two parcels, one with an existing single-family residence which will
be maintained, and one with a proposal for a new single-family residence. The subject site
is located at 2512 Earle Avenue, within the R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone.
Presentation: Planning Director Brad Johnson
Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - subject to the conditions, for two (2) years.
Planning Director Johnson stated the applicant and designer were present and asked
Commissioners if they had any questions.
Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners.
None.
Chairman Lopez closed the hearing to the Commissioners and opened it to the public.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application:
Mr. Kamen Lai of 8748 E. Valley Blvd., #K, the designer for the project, stood up and stated
that the owners want to thank staff for all their time and effort in preparing the Staff Report.
He also stated that the owners feel that split-face block fencing is expensive, but they have
agreed to accept the conditions and ask for Planning Commission approval.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application:
None.
There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the
public hearing segment for this project.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, to
APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 066501.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
•
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. ZONE CHANGE 04-218 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02 - 7621-7637
Garvalia Avenue. Peter and Brenda Jong have submitted a Zone Change application and a
Planned Development Review application for a request to change the existing R-2 (Light
Multiple Residential) zone to a P-D (Planned Development) zone for a proposed subdivision
of two (2) lots, into eight (8) lots for the construction of eight (8) new single-family
residences located at 7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue. The total proposed lot areas range in size
from 5,226 to 7,243 square feet. Three (3) different floor plans and four (4) different
elevations are proposed for the single-family residences. The living areas proposed for the
new homes range between 2,348 and 2,499 square feet.
Presentation: Associate Planner Sheri Bermejo
Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - subject to the conditions, for two (2) years.
Associate Planner Bermejo stated the applicant and designer were present and asked
Commissioners if they had any questions.
Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners.
None.
Chairman Lopez closed the hearing to the Commissioners and opened it to the public.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application:
Mr. Kamen Lai of 8748 E. Valley Blvd., #K, the designer for the project, stood up and stated
that the owners want to thank staff for all their time and effort in preparing the Staff Report.
He said the owners have agreed to accept the conditions and ask for Planning Commission
approval.
Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application:
None.
There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the
public hearing segment for this project.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, to
APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 04-218 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 060212 (EXTENSION) - 3213-3215 Burton Avenue. Lap
Nguyen has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two (2)
parcels into three (3) residential lots for the development of three (3) new single-family
residences; one of the three units requires a Conditional Use Permit for having more than
2,500 square feet of living area. The proposed residences will range from 2,489 - 2,734
square feet of living area.
Presentation: Associate Planner Sheri Bermejo
Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - subject to the conditions, for one (1) year.
Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners.
None
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN to
APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 060212 (EXTENSION), for one (1) year subject to
conditions listed in "Exhibit A".
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR - These items are considered to be routine actions that may be
considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an
item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately.
A. Resolution No. 06-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1060, REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT
A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH WILL RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY
3,100± SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA, TO BE LOCATED AT 1828 GLADYS
AVENUE IN THE R-1; SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN: 5371-003-029).
Chairman Lopez asked the members of the Commission if there is any reason why
Consent Calendar should not be accepted.
0
•
None.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
HERRERA, to waive further reading and adopt said resolutions.
Vote results:
YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, AND LOI
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: LOPEZ
6.
Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Herrera questioned the UCLA Extension workshop.
Planning Director Johnson stated that he will continue to search for their website, and as soon as
he gets more information, he will forward it to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Loi said there was one last month.
Planning Director Johnson said once he locates their website, he will update the Planning
Commission of any upcoming workshops.
Commissioner Loi then said, the maps were incorrect and he feels maps should have names on it.
Planning Director Johnson said he will verify that the maps are correct.
MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND STAFF
Planning Director Johnson welcomed City Attorney Stanton Price back to work.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
B WJ/LT
0 0
PC RESOLUTION 06-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONE
CHANGE 04-218, TO CHANGE THE CURRENT R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO THE P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) "ZONE;
AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02 (CONCEPTUAL), FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT (8) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
WITH A PRIVATE STREET; AND THE ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT, LOCATED AT 7621-7637
GARVALIA AVENUE. (APN: 5285-031-005 AND 5285-031-022).
WHEREAS, Peter and Brenda Jong, filed an application for a Zone Change to
change the current R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone to the P-D (Planned Development)
zone, and a Planned Development Review for the development of eight (8) single-family
residences alia Avenue; and
with a private street, located at 7621-7637 Garv
WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for Medium Density
Residential uses; and
WHEREAS, Rosemead's Zoning Map designates the site for R-2 (Light Multiple
Residential) Zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.76.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code set forth
procedures and requirements for Zone Changes and Planned Development Reviews; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and zoning ordinance,
including specific development standards, to control development; and
WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the
Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2006, an initial study forthe proposed Zone Change and Planned
Development Review was completed, finding that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and a negative declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006; notices were posted in eight (8) public locations and
eighty-eight (88) notices were sent 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
NNIMEREAS, on November 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
EXHIBIT E
0 0
receive testimony relative to Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review 04-02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented 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 RECOMMENDS that the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration for Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development Review 04-02.
Section 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council
change the land use designation from R-2; Light Multiple Residential to P-D; (Planned
Development) zone.
Section 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone
Change 04-218 and Plaruled Development Review 04-02 are consistent with the Rosemead General
Plan as follows:
A. Land Use: The General Plan designation will remain Medium Density Residential and will
allow for the proposed residential properties to be consistent with City codes and land uses in
the surrounding area. The density allowed in the General Plan is 0-9 units per acre. This
development is designed at seven (7) units per acre, which is a low density design.
B. Circulation: Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development 04-02 may result in an increase
in vehicle traffic deriving from the increase in population size. However, the project
includes the construction of a new two-car garage for each unit and a private street, which
will reduce the number of cars parked on Garvalia Avenue.
C. Housing: The proposed project will not result insubstantial growth in the City's population.
The existing site is currently developed with eleven (11) single-family and multi-family
dwellings units. The proposed project involves the construction of eight (8) new single-
family residences. Therefore, the project will provide three (3) dwellings units less than the
number of units onsite today. Although, the applicant is proposing to change the zone of the
subject site from R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) to P-D (Planned Development), the use of
the lot will not change. The P-D zone is designed to support a variety of uses, including low
density. single-family residences. This project is proposed to meet the needs of current
homeowners and potential buyers.
The proposed project may displace some existing residents on the project site who might not
be able to afford the new units. However, adequate housing exists within the City and
surrounding communities. Therefore, the project would not result in the need to construct
new housing elsewhere to accommodate the displaced residents.
0 0
D. Resource Management: No resources will be impacted, because the use of the subject
properties is for single-family residences and will remain residential in nature with the
adoption of these entitlements.
E. Noise: This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the
surrounding area. The proposed project will result in additional pedestrian and vehicular
traffic noises, but is not considered to be substantial. There will be a temporary increase in
ambient noise levels above the existing levels due to construction activities. All construction
work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the
City's Noise Ordinance. (The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal
holidays without prior approval by the City.) An initial study was completed and its findings
have determined that this development could not. have a significant effect on the
environment.
F. Public Safetv: There will not be a significant increase in population or density as a result of
the Zone Change and Plarmed Development, so the need for more public safety and public
areas is not impacted. The entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C (flood
insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard designations.
Section 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on
November 6, 2006, by the following vote:
YES: KELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERA, LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Section 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit
copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20`x' day of November.. 2006.
Daniel Lopez, Chairperson
•
•
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 20"' day of November, 2006, by the
following vote:
YES: KELTY, LOI, BREEN, HERRERA. LOPEZ
NO: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Johnson, Secretary
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Paqe 10 of 11
EXHIBIT "A"
ZONE CHANGE 04-218
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 04-02
7621 - 7637 Garvalia Avenue
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
If the City Council approves Zone Change 04-218 and Planned Development
Review 04-02, an application for approval of a Development Plan and a Tentative
Tract Map shall be filed with the Planning Commission within two years after
classification of the property as P-D. Prior to submitting for approval of the final
development plan, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions of
approval.
A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review, reflecting preliminary approval of landscape/site plan, commonly referred
to as Exhibit "B". Irrigation plan shall include automatic timers and rain sensors.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed and completed prior to final
Planning Department approval.
3. A wall and fence plan will be required if any perimeter fencing or walls are
proposed. The perimeter walls surrounding the development shall be
constructed of decorative split face block with pre-cast concrete caps or a stucco
wall matching the exterior color of the proposed homes. Proposed block walls in
the front yards of Lots 2 -7 shall be either eliminated or defined separations
between residences shall be created with built-up landscaped planters, not
exceeding 3'-0" feet. All 6'-0" block walls that encroach into any required front
yard setback shall be reduced to 4'-0" in height.
4. All stamped concrete along the common driveway shall be a medium to dark
tone of gray.
All proposed foam details under the fascia boards shall be redesigned to create
18" eave overhangs.
All windows on the front elevations shall be recessed a minimum of four (4)
inches and all other windows on side and rear elevations shall be recessed a
minimum of two (2) inches.
7. All front entry doors shall be brown, as indicated on the colored elevations.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 6, 2006
Pape 11 of 11
~J
8. The color of the garage doors shall be the exterior color of each dwelling unit or
dark brown, to accentuate the Spanish architectural style.
Details of all materials to be used on the dwelling unit, as well as, details
(preferably in pamphlet format) of the decorative lighting, garage door, front door,
windows and chimney cap shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
10. The minimum interior of the garages shall be 20'-0" X 20'-0" clear, with no
obstructions, such as water heaters, washers and/or dryers. Sinks shall not be
located within garage interiors.
11. All dilapidated shed structures on-site, without permits, shall be removed.