Loading...
CC - Item II.B - Central Plan AmendmentL-) 1l 5 E M E ftRA 0'~e staf epor TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER J~ DATE: .TUNE 13, 2000 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02; ZONE CHANGE 00-212 - 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD RESOLUTION 2000-27 - AMENDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "PUBLIC FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL" ORDINANCE NO. 805 - AMENDING ZONING MAP FROM "A-1; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO "C-3 D; MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY" On May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relative to the subject items. A copy of the staff report providing a detailed analysis of the subject general plan amendment and zone change is attached for your review. After hearing all testimony, the Commission voted- 5-0 to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 00-02 and Zone Change 00-212'- The proposal includes a zone change from "A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial _ with a Design Overlay", and an amendment to the General Plan to change the existing land use from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial" located at 8518 E. Valley Blvd. This is a request from -Dennis Lin to facilitate the development of an auto sales dealership-.- Staff has also included copies of the minutes and resolution pertaining to this proposed development. JUN 113 2000 ITEM Rosemead City Council April 11, 2000 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: -1. ADOPT- -Resolution -2000-27-- APPROVING General Plan Amendment 00-02, AMENDING the Rosemead General Plan land use designation from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial"; and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 805 APPROVING Zone Change 00-212, AMENDING the Rosemead Zoning designation from "A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay". ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Resolution 2000-27 EXHIBIT B - Ordinance No. 805 - - - - - ' -------EXHIBIT C -Planning Commission Staff Report; dated May 15, 2000- - EXHIBIT D - Initial Study, dated April 18, 2000 EXHIBIT E - Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 15, 2000 EXHIBIT F - Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-16, dated June 5, 2000 Z ;s RESOLUTION 00-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 AMENDING THE LAND USE AREA DESIGNATION FROM "PUBLIC FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL", LOCATED AT 8518 E. VALLEY BLVD. (APN: 5371-010-800,-801,-803). WHEREAS, on March 22, 2000, Dennis Lin, 650 E. Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel , CA, -91776, filed an application requesting a general plan amendment to change a land use area designation from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial" on property located at 8518 E. Valley Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is part of a development to include an auto sales dealership; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promote commercial development; and .WHEREAS,-the General Plan Amendment 00-02 would designate the subject property "Commercial" allowing commercial type of uses; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2000, an initial study for the proposed general plan amendment was.completed; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, 90 notices were posted in 10 public locations and sent to - property owners withina 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearings to California Government Code ----.Section-65091(a)(3);-and - - WHEREAS, on M4y_15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised ' public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 00-02; and LL WHEREAS, on June 13, 2000 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on General Plan Amendment-00-02:-The City'Council reviewed all correspondence that had been received for and against the project. The City Council reviewed and considered the previously prepared Initial Study and Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 00-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. EXHIBIT "A" F) Resolution 00-17 General Plan Amendment 00-01 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: -SECTION 1. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were previously prepared pursuant to CEQA assessing the potential environmental impacts that might result from the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-02. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that there would not be significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The Planning Commission certified the proposed Negative Declaration for the project, and recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment request; and SECTION 2. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES General Plan -Amendment 00-02, amending the land use area designation of the general plan from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial" for the subject property, is in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed general plan amendment, in that the change to the General Plan Land Use Area will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the neighborhood where the development is-- proposed.-- SECTION - - 3. That based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the testimony and evidence received at the public hearing, the Ci_ty_Council hereby-approves_General SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be processed as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 13'_ day of June, 2000. -MARGARET CLARK,-Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERAMA, City Clerk Resolution 00-27 General Plan Amendment 00-02 Page 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) - - COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF ROSEMEAD I, Nancy Valderama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 00-27 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 AMENDING THE LAND USE AREA DESIGNATION FROM "PUBLIC FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL", LOCATED AT 8518 E. VALLEY BLVD. (APN: 5371-010-800,-801,-803). was duly adopted at a regular-meeting of the City_Council on the 13th day of June, 2000, by the - - following vote, to wtt: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: - A-BSTAIN': COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: - - - - NANCY VALDERAMA, City Clerk i ORDINANCE NO. 805 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 00-212, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP- FROM. "A-1; AGRICULTURAL" TO "C-3_ D; - MEDIUM IUM_ COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY", FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTO SALES DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 8518 E. VALLEY BLVD. (APNs: 5371-010-800,-801,-803). WHEREAS, on March 22, 2000, Dennis Lin, 650 E. Las Tunas Drive, San Gabriel, CA, 91776, filed an application requesting an amendment to the Rosemead zoning map from "A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay" on property located at 8518 E. Valley Blvd.; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and - - ---WHEREAS; Zone Change-00-212-would designate the subject-property "C-3 D; Medium----------- Commercial with a Design Overlay" allowing commercial types of development such as auto sales dealerships; and WHEREAS; State Plddhirig and-Zoning-l:aw,-Title 7-Chapter 3, Article•8, plus-Sections- - 17.116 & 17.124, of the Rosemead Municipal Code, authorize, and set standards for, the preparation - - of specific plans (zone change) governing the development-of private property; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17-.12'4-of-the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to-considerand recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and- WHEREAS. Section 65454 of the California Government Code requires that specificplans__--_ (zone change) be consistent with the adopted general plan; and - WHEREAS, City Council policy encourages the preparation of these zone changes because ---`of the superioYlevel of planning and protection they offer to the quality and character of area where' = - - they are located; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2000, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that all potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, 90 notices were posted in 10 public locations and mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearings pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 00-212; and - - EXHIBIT 111111 Ordinance No. 805 Zone Change 00-212 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on June 5; 2000 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00-16, recommending City Council approval of Zone Change 00-212; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2000 the City Council held a hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 00-212; 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 of the City of Rosemead as follows: 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 - 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 CE_QA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered any comments received during thepublic review prior to the approval of this zone change. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in reaching the above conclusiod:_ 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 that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed--_ project will havethe potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which- - - the wildlife de ends. 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 71-1.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations; Section 7-35.5(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 proecf: - - - Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that placing the property in the "C-3 D; Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay" zone is in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the change to the zoning district will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the area where the development is proposed. - Ordinance No. 805 Zone Change 00-212 Page 3 of 5 Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that Zone Change 00-212 meets the City's goals and objectives.as follows: A. Land Use: Zone Change 00-212 consists of amending Rosemead zoning map from "A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay". This amendment will allow for this commercial development to be compatible with the surrounding area that is designated "Medium Commercial". B. Circulation: This development is adjacent to Valley Blvd. and Walnut Grove Avenue, both - arterial roadways.- Ingress/egress driveways at the west and south property lines provide access from Valley Blvd. C. Housing: Although a portion of this site is currently zoned "A-1; Agricultural", the proposed zone change and general plan amendment will not deplete available land for housing. D. Resource Manasement: Development is required to provide landscaping areas in the overall site plan. - - - E:=Noise: This development willnot generate any siTnnific`anfnoi'se levels fTr the surrounding - - area. An initial study was completed and its findings have determined that this development could-not have a significant effect on the-environment. - - - - " _ F.___ Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans: The site is not located in any special study zones: The-entire City ofRosemead is free from any flood - -l-T - ---------hazard designations: G. CEQA;The City staff has prepared an initial study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).-This -study has determined that the-proposed-zoning amendments---- - could have adverse impacts on certain aspects of the environment. However, these impacts_ can be mitieated to aTevehof insigi3ifcance.-Therefore; staff has prepared and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 00-212, amending Rosemead zoning map from A-1; Agricultural to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay", for the development of an auto sales dealership located at 8518 E. Valley Blvd. (APNs: 5-)71-010-800,-801, -803). Ordinance No. 805 Zone Change 00-212 Page 4 of 5 Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any -reason held to be_invalid,by a court. of competent jurisdiction,-such decision shall not-affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 805, and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance PASSED AND APPROVED, this 27th day of June, 2000. MARGARET CLARK, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Ordinance No. 805 Zone Change 00-212 Page 5 of 5 _ STATE OF.-CALIFORNIA-.. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 805 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF - - - ROSEMEAD- APPROVING- ZONE- CHANGE 00-212, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM A-1; Agricultural TO C-3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL", FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A AUTO SALES DEALERSHIP WITH DRIVE THROUGH ACCESS LOCATED AT 8518 E. Valley Blvd. (APNs: 5371-010-800,-8011,-803). was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on thel3th day of June, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: - - - - - _ ABSTAIN: _ COL-NCIL- MEMBERS: - ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA,-City-Clerk' staf epor ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION May 15, 2000 CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 00-212 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-212 -APPLICANT REQUEST: LOCATION: To change the-existing-zoning district from "A-1;--- Agricultural" to "C3-D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay"; to amend the General Plan land use designation from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial"; to operate an auto dealership in the C-3 D; Medium Commercial in a Design ---Overlay-zoning district.------ 8518 N. Valley Blvd. (APM: 5371-010-800; -801; -803) APPLICANT: Dennis Lin 650 E. Las Tunas Drive San Gabriel, CA 91776 -`PROPERTY OWNER. Southern Califomia-Edison° = _ - - - - - --100 Long Beach Blvd:; Suite 1004 = :Long-Beach, Califomta=90802.,_= s ---PUBLIC-HEARING NOTICE:-- 90 Noticeswere mailed_to-property-owners within_ 300 feet of the subject property on April 20, 2000. EXHIBITS: A. Conditions of Approval B. Site & Elevation Plans C. Assessor's Map D. Zoning Map E. General Plan Map F. Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist G.- Applications, dated 3-22-00 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project consists of the following: changing an existing zoning district from "A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay" , amending a land use designation in the General Plan from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial", and to operate an used auto dealership in the - C-3 zoning district: - - In accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local environmental guidelines, an initial study and environmental checklist form was completed. The findings to this initial evaluation have indicated that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environriierif The adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended as part of this request. - II. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Zone.Chanse - Chapters 17.116 and 17.120, of the Rosemead Municipal, Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are 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. EXHIBIT "C" -ROSEMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT/ i Zone Change 00-212 General Plan Amendment 00-01 Conditional Use Permit 00-794 Mar 1. 2000 Page 2 of 7 General Plan -Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long-term - - physical development goals and objectives of the city.- Government Code.Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day-to-day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivision should be consistent with the general plan. Conditional Use Permit- Section 17.112.028(g) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows an auto dealership use in the C-3 and M=1 zones upon the granting of a conditional use permit (CUP).-- Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria that must be met: the use is deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; the use is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan; and the use will not be detrimental to surrounding property. III. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION History: The subject site is located on a vacant parcel of land under the Southern California Edison power lines -on the south side of Valley Boulevard. -The parcel has a total area of 128;974 sq-ft7 (296 acres). The street frontage of this lot is 154 feet wide. There has never been any development _at-this, site since the-city. incorporated. Background: Southern California Edison has maintained the subject site for the operation of its - power lines. The company wishes to lease-this street-facing-portion of an-existing vacant-land to -Den is Lin,.who in turn would-operate-a used auto sales dealership with-an-ancillary auto rental use.--------_. - =This project-includes the construction of a new building and-site-improvements: -There _are-three entitlements (zone change, general plan amendment, conditional use permit) that must be approved - -----by the city's governing bodies-in-order for this development to.advance.T_.__ Land Use. In the General Plan, the land use designation is presently"Public'Faciliiies" and-in the zoning map, the zoning district is for "A-1; Agricultural". General Plan Amendment 00-02 is a request to amend its current land use designation to "Commercial" and Zone Change 00-212 is a request to change its current zoning designation of `:A-1; Agricultural" to "C-3 D; Medium - Commercial in a Design Overlay". The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Public Facilities - Zoning: C-3D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay Land Use: Vacant lot 'South: General Plan: Public facilities Zoning: A-1; Agricultural Land Use: Vacant lot East: General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: P-D; Planned Development Land Use: Residential West: General Plan:. Commercial - Zoning: C-3 D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay - Land Use:------Empire Center- Zone Change 00-212 General Plan Amendment 00-02 Conditional Use Permit 00-794 May 2. 2000 Page 3 of 7 IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS _ The three entitlements for this request will allow the applicant to develop a currently vacant lot into an auto sales dealership with anew structure. There has been no previous development at this location. As shown in Exhibit B, the layout for this proposal includes numerous parking spaces, an office structure, and a rear area for auto storage. Site Enhancements - Landscaping will be installed along the street front, the west property line, and - -along Hidden Pines Place adjacent to the residential area. There will be 19 commercial light posts- - - throughout the site. Only three light posts will be located 53 feet from the nearest residence and its glare will be deflected away from the residence. A detailed landscaped plan indicating the types of plants and irrigation, plans for new signage, and other exterior improvements to this site would require a design review before the Planning Commission and is not part of this approval at this time. This entitlement cannot approve these elements due to the fact that the applicant is not far along - ' enough with the design process for this project. Office Structure - A 3,000 sq. foot I -story office structure will be built at the front of the subject site: -The height of the new-building.will-be-22-feet-The-exteriorfagade=ofthe building-reflect-s-a - - modernized style in its reverse trapezoid-shaped roofing and the medium green tint at its glass _ storefront. As shown in the color elevation, these modern architectural elements will complement - the subtle shell white and light blue_stucco exterior. The buil ding layout will be 50 feet from the _ street front; 50 from the west property line, 427 feet from the rear property line, and 39 feet from the east property line (5 feet-from-the wrought iron-fence). - - - --Parking/Circulation -There will-be a.total of 122 parking stalls created as-part of this _development:-- The parking ratio for an office use is at 1 parking space per 250 square feet of building area (1:250). With a-3,000 sq. ft. of office --space, the required number of parking stalls is. 12 stalls.. This- _ development will set aside twelve parking spaces for customers and employees. The remaining 110 parking stalls will be utilized fo- display of vehicles for sale:` - - - - There are two driveways proposed: one fronting Valley Blvd. and a second one just off Hidden Pines _ Place at the east property line. The main driveway for this project will be on Valley Blvd. Southern California Edison will periodically use the driveway off Hidden Pines Place as access to existing service lanes to the power line. Hidden Pines Place is a private street to a planned development consisting of 12 single-family residences. In conclusion, staff feels that this project will benefit the existing business district and will enhance a currently vacant site. In addition, the design of the site gives proper consideration to the goals and objectives of the general plan and zoning district for this area. The applicant and Southern California 'Edison have been very accommodating to the residents and their reservations towards this project. Therefore staff recommends that the Commission approve this project with the attached conditions. - - - - - - - - - V. RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. Approve Zone Change 00-212, General Plan 00-02, Conditional Use Permit 00-794 subject - - - to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A": - - - - - ' - 2. Adopt a Negative Declaration for GPA 00-02 and ZC 00-212; and -3. Recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-02, changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and 4. Make the findings required under Sections 17.116& 17.120 of the Rosemead Municipal Zone Change 00-212 General Plan Amendment 00-02 Conditional Use Permit 00-794 Mav 2. 2000 Page 4 of 7 Code in order to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change (ZC) 00-212, changing the zoning designation from A_l.to C73. EXHIBIT A ZONE CHANGE 00-212 GENERAL AMENDMENT 00-02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-794 8518 E. Valley Boulevard CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL May 15, 2000 1. Approval shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 2. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. detailed -lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review-and T - _ - approval. Said plan shall incorporate decorative parking lot light standard details. 4. Prior to construction the contractor shall schedule a pre-construction meeting with the City of -.--Rosemead-Planning-Department.- - - Prior to the issuance of building permits, all fees payable under State Law shall be paid. - The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(5) of the Rosemead-Municipal Code. " - - - 7 Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to - - monitor progress. - - - -8-- All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall b'e rewlarly cleaned, and inspected and _ maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition.- - 9. Ali roof top appurtenances_and_equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 10. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland cement or asphaltic concrete, and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition per plans-dated March 22, 2000. - 11. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be prepared, submitted to and approved by the Building Official, and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan. 12. The numbers of the address signs shall be of least 6" tall with a minimum character width of - 1 /4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 13. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right-of-way. 14. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but-not- - - -limited to street, curbs gutters sidewalks, handicap ramps, and storm drains, along the entire street frontage of the development site as required by the Director of Planning. " T -f5."-- Prioi to issuance of building permits, the Planning Department shall review and approve all electric underground utility transformer locations for compatibility with the site design. All portions of the transformers that are above ground shall be adequately screened with landscaping and/or screen walls. Landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 16. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves and other equipment), shall be screened by screening walls and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 17. Prior to issuan cc of Building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. It shall include an irrigation plan with automatic timers and moisture sensors. Fifteen (15) percent of the landscape area shall be planted with 24-inch box trees. 18. A permanent maintenance program of all landscaping shall be provided insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. . 19. Automated. irrigation shall be installed, and approved by the Planning Department. - - - 20. The applicant shall install approved street trees in a location chosen by and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. All open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped with turf and'-T`_. " maintained on a regular basis per plans dated March 22, 2000.. 22. No trees shall be removed other than those shown on the approved plans. 23). Landscape materials _and irrigation systems are to be inspected by a City representative prior to final release of utilities. - - - 24.---NO OCCUPANCY will be granted until ALL IMPROVEMENTS required by this approval. --have been completed, inspected, and approved by theappropriate department(s). - - 25. No finals will:be given until all-as-built site irn rovement_plans_ha-,te-been submitted to the=__ - - All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with,prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 27. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 28. Decorative light standards shall be provided and installed by the developer. The design and location shall be provided to the Director of Planning. 29. The conditions listed on this Exhibit shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 30. Pursuant to Section 8.36.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, the public address system must comply with the following allowable exterior noise levels adjacent to residential units: 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. and 60 dBA 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 31. The property shall be kept cleared of weeds, debris and abandoned vehicles, and maintained - pursuant to the County Fire and Health codes until it is developed. All trash shall be contained in dumpsters and removed on an as-needed basis. No trash shall be visible from outside the dumpster. Surplus construction materials shall be stored so as to be screened from public view when not actually in use. 32. A 6'-high fence, composed of chain link or other approved material, shall totally enclose the - - perimeter of the property when vacant, under construction, or under demolition, and said fence shall remain until Occupancy is granted. 33. Any existing structures to be demolished shall be boarded until such demolition takes place. 34. No auto repair or auto painting shall be conducted on-site. 35. The rear portion of the lot shall consist of a combination of gravel and soil, compacted to City Engineer requirements. California Environmental Qua/itV Act INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 00-02 Zone Change 00-212 Conditional Use Permit 00-794 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 E. Valley Boulevard - - - - - - - - - - - Rosemead, CA 91770 - 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Bradford Johnson, Director of Planning (626) 569-2140 4. Project Location: 8518 E. Valley Boulevard County of Los Angeles, State of California Assessor Parcel-Number(s):: n -4i 5371-010-800, -801, -803 - 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dennis Lin - 650 E. Las Tunas Drive San Gabriel, CA 91776- r- - _ 6f General Plan Designation: Commercial- - - - 7. Zoning: C-3 D mss- - - - " ' --'(Medium-Commercial-with-'a Desigrt Overlay)-'= - Description of the Project:. This project will include an amendment to the General Plan to change a land use area from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial", a zone change from A-1; "Agricultural" to C-3 D; - "Medium Commercial with Design Review", and a conditional_ use permit to operate an auto rental (ancillary to the auto sales dealership) in the C-3; "Medium Commercial". 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel,-on the west by South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The city is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 56,664 people. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or -participation agreement).- - - - - - - ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below 1 ✓ ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water Recreation Quality Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology/Soils Population/Housing DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). - - On the-basis of this initial evaluation:-- - = I find that the proposed project COULD_NOT.have a significant effect on the=environment,- -and a-NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -1-find that-although-the proposed project could have a-significant effect on the environment,- there will not -be-a.significant effect.in.this-case because revisions in:the-project-have-been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.-- I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL°IMPACT REPORT-is required:'-'~ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been -adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to-applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although.the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., nothing further is required. S' nature Date esSi~~ . w i ;V1 Ros-evvieud Pl aoo vi.j b q+, Printed Name For 2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 11 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project.falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one-or more," Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is - made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly ---..explain how. they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section- 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) "(D)-Earlier-analyses-are-discussed in-Section--17-at-the-end-of-the-checklist` 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for - - --potential impacts (e.g_ general_ plans, zoning ordinances).--Reference,to-a-previously- plrepared. or - - - outside-document_should, where- appropriate, _include. aref erence'to the page or pages where the- statement is substantiated. 7) .-.-.-.Supporting Information TSources: _A_source list -should _be_attached,=and other sources used or____ individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)_-_ This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate --each-question; and (b) the mitigation measure- identified, if any,:-to.reduce=the=impact to less-than=---=--- 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Comment: Though there will be new construction to this project, it is expected that there will be less than significant impact on the scenic vista to the surrounding area. b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic ✓ highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ✓ the site and its surroundings? Comment The new construction for this project will slightly modify the visibility for neighboring areas. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comment: This project will include the installation of commercial lighting that will be positioned so as not to adversely affect day of nighttime views of adjacent properties. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental -'effects lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared . _6 1by4he Cali_f6imiaDepartment-of Cohseryatlo_n_as an optional model to use in assessing=impacts-on-agriculture and=-- i farmland. Would the project: a)°Convert-Prime=Fa rmland; Unique•Farmland,-or-Farmland of=-~"" - _ - Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (TheFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for. agricultural use, or.a. Williamson - - - - - Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result ✓ in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comment: The site is zoned for agricultural, however, it has never been utilized for farmland and is currently vacant. 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air ✓ Quality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? Comment: The proposal could affect the area's air quality in the short term during construction activities, as well as during tong-term project operations as a result of increased vehicle emissions. Such source emissions fal . b lo_ w the e l _ _ screening-standards set in the current-South Coast Air Quality Management District handbook. b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or ✓ state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ✓ (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant - ✓ concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ✓ people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat any endangered rare or threatened species as modifications , , , --listed'in-Title "1"4 of-the California Code of Regulations (Sections- ✓ 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50_, _Code of Federal Regulations _ (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? - b). Have a-substantial adverse impact, eitherdirectly or through - - habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate - " sensitive, or-special-status•specles in-local or regional plans, - - ✓ ,policies,,or regulations, or. by_the-California-Department-of Fish-- - ' - and Game or U Wildlife Service?- - - - S - - . c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or -other sensitive _natural communityidentified in local or_regional - - - - plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of _ - Fish and, Game.or.U.-S.-Fish -and Wildlife Service? _ " - - d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable " " - _ _ ✓ impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident ✓ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ✓ ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,- Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved ✓ local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? - - - - 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which may be listed or eligible for listing on ✓ the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact; object or site about - ✓ which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically - recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ✓ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ✓ formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project - - a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent`Alquist'Pfiolo°Eaithq`ake FaulfZonrng Map issued by the ✓ State Geologist for.the area or based on other substantial. evidence of a known fault? _ i)__Strong seismic ground shaking? - ✓ iii)-Seismic=related=ground-failure, including liquefaction? LL ✓ ~rv) -Inundationby_seiche-tsunami;-or mudflows7 v)- Landslides?- - ' - - vi)-Flooding,-including..flooding.as a-result-of the failure-of a levee or - - dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with - - -wildjands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ✓ d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ✓ result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ✓ to life or property? f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or ✓ alternative. waste water disposal systems? 7. HAZARDS AND-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials? 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ✓ involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ✓ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government ✓ Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? private airstrip would the - roject the vicinity of a F r a within f) - . : . . o , _p _ _ - project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in ✓ the project area. - g) Impair implementation of or"physically interfere with an adopted emergency-response plan or emergency evacuation plan? -hl Expose people or structures"to the'risk of loss-, injury or death --involving wildland fires; including where wildlands'are'adjacent- to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with-=_ 8.-HYDROLOGY-AND WATER QUALITY. -Would the project:- a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ✓ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing ✓ nearby wells would drop to a level which-would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,.including through the alteration of the course of a stream ✓ or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or - siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ✓ or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to ✓ _ control? . - - f) Place housing -within, a 100-year.floodplain, as mapped on a - federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or. ✓ other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100=yearfloodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ✓ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ✓ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Comment: This proposal includes changing the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation to be consistent with the requested use and surrounding areas. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ communities conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ~ the loss-of availability of a known mineral resource -a)-ResuIF in classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist 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: - J' e)'Ezposure 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? Comment This project will not expose nor generate noise levels in excess of the city's noise ordinance standards. b) Exposure of persons to-or generation of excessive groundborne - - ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ✓ project_ vicinity above levels existing without the project? Comment: There will be a an insubstantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels since the site is currently vacant and does not project any noise level whatsoever. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ✓ project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the - - project expose people_residing_or working in the project ar_e_a to ✓ excessive noise levels? 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ✓ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?_ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantially adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable -service-ratios-,-response-times-or-other performance objectives;for-any. of_the_public_services a) Fire protection? ✓ b) Police protection?._ _ ✓ _ -c) `Schools - - - _d)_Parksz--- - _ - - _ _ e) Other public facilities? _ ✓ . 14. RECREATION. Would the project: - a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or - - - other recreational facilities such that substantial physical - ~ - - - " ' - deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or - expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse ✓ - physical effect on the environment? - 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ✓ trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at _ intersections)? Comment: This project will cause an increase in traffic but not substantial enough in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service - - - - - - - -n- standard established by the county congestion maagement - ~ - ~ - agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in area traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ✓ substantial safety risks? _ Comment: This project will result in a change in area traffic patterns but not significant enough to result in substantial safety risks. 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e. g. ✓ farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) -Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ✓ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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=faclities_orexpansion-of_existmg,facilities,-the= ✓ construction of which could cause-significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water --'-,v drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction-of_which could_cause significant environmental - - - - - - - - - effects? _ d)-Are sufficient water supplies avalleble=to-serve the protect-from - existing entitlements and-resources, or are new or expanded - - " - ✓ entitlements needed? - - - e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or.may - serve the project determined that"if Fias adequate"capacityto=- - ~ - serve the project's projected demand in addition to the - provider's existing commitments? - f) Is-the-project served-by a landfill with sufficient permitted- capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal ✓ needs? 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? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ✓ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means _ that_the.incremental effects of a projectare considerable-when- ✓ viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause _ -substantial adverse-effects on human beings, either directly or - - indirectly? 10 City of ~Rpsemead 8838 East Val-fey Boufevard q;~qsemead, Cahfornia PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ortiz at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard,:Rosemead- - - - - - - - - _ , _ _ _ Vice=Chairman Breen led the Pledge of Allegiance. 77 _Commissioner Ruiz delivered invocation: ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Ortiz, Vice-Chairman Breen, Commissioners Alarcon, Loi, _and.Ruiz_ - °-=ABSENT' .None-- - '-EX OFFICIO: -Crowe, Price, Johnson,-_Alvarez, and Romanelli g 1~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meetin of May 1 2000 -Vice-Chairman "Robert" Breen brought to-the--director's attention the '"William'- - - - - Breen"misprint as -documented within-the "REORGANIZATION" section of the May - - - - 1 minutes. (MO) Motion by Vice-Chairman Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 2000, be -APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: _ ALARCON, BREEN, LOI, ORTIZ, RUIZ NO: NONE - - -ABSTAIN-- - `NONE = --ABSENT:. - NONE- - - - - " - Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 2-. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: - Deputy City Attorney Stan Price explained-the public hearing_process and the -rightt_o appeal.. _ . - - planning commission decisions to the city council. --3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH: _ The commission secretary administered the oath-to members-of the-audience-wishing-to speak- - = before the planning commission. - EXHIBIT "E" 5/15/00 MN=S, PACE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. ZONE CHANGE 00-212/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-794-8518 Valley Boulevard A request by Dennis Lin to change an A-1 (Light Agricultural) zoning district to C-3D (Medium Commercial with Design Overlay), to amend the General Plan designation from a "Public Facilities" to "Commercial" land use, and to conduct a used auto dealership within the newly-designated C-3D, Medium Commercial with Design Overly zone. Presentation:_ - Staff recommendation: Planning Director Johnson APPROVE-Conditional Use Permit 00-794 for a period of One [11 year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." ADOPT-Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 00-02 and Zone Change 00-212. RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL-General Plan - - - - - - = Amend ment 00=02 and Zone Change'00=212`'--'------- Applicant(s): In the audience. - - - Questions from the connnuss mners-- to the=staff - - - - - - - -----Commissioner Alarcon inquired whether a condition relating to "no automotive repair - - - or maintenance" has been incorporated- - - ='Althou' h the=-a licant=is aware-.-of -the1- re pair/maintenance- exclusion ` Planning- g PP P _ - - .Director Johnson stated-he-would be.happy__to stipulate- the-ban -in-writing within the. - cnnriitinncr nf-annrnva] Fnrtharmnra tha rlirartnr riar•] ...ri Fnr rha rP,nrrl tho Jtolor:.,,, ..F - - provisions:.__.. i Condition #5-",4 six (6) foot high decorative concrete black wall shall be - - - coitstr:lcted along the-south- east-and west property lines s:::.<'-- _ _ : . 7 _ Condition #10-"772e perimeter property litnes...shall be fenced with -a six_. (6) foot high masotny wall.... " 2 Condition #13 Only the first-half of this clause- shall -be deleted:. "The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but itr no case shall such drainage be allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk.... " Nevertheless, grading and drainage plans must still be submitted. i Condition #19-"All utilities shall be placed undeigronund... " Condition #23 "The applicant shall install approved street trees... on each newly-created lot.... Condition #24-"All open area not covered by concrete or asphalt shall be landscaped.... Moreover, the director mentioned the following addendunr ~--Condition #30="... the public address system must- comply- with the following allowable exterior noise levels.... " In answer to Chairman Ortiz' operational hours question, Director Johnson confirmed the piojected -hours of 8:00 a.m: to-10:00 p:m.; however, the director assured -the chairman'df decibel level-c6rrplidree to residential zoning code standards.- - - Chairman Ortiz opener! the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: _ By reason of community aesthetic enrichment, the.. property owner's: (Southern California Edison) representative, Mr. Michael Orduno of 100 Long- Beach Boulevard, Suite 1004, Long Beach, voiced his endorsement of this venture. In - particular, Mr. Orduno attested to having met with the neighboring Hidden Pines community on May 12 to address project concerns. 5115100 MW=-S, PACE 3 - - Commissioner Ruiz asked whether the conditions of approval would emulate the residents' concerns; whereupon, Mr. Orduno acknowledged landscaping, traffic congestion, and parking as being among the primary issues discussed and of which every effort will be made to accommodate. Chairman Ortiz questioned possible hazardous "drip- line". consequences,. at which point Mr. Orduno corroborated Edison's absolute scrutiny and adequate grounding of all drip lines. ' The project's architect, Mr. Simon Lee of 140 West Valley Boulevard, Suite 215, San Gabriel, approached the podium to reaffirm his client's commitment to and acceptance of all stipulations; likewise, Mr. Lee expressed his appreciation for the director's guidance and assistance. Thereafter, several viable features were promoted including extra city revenue, building safety design, and power line height buffer---In-conclusion, Mr. Lee proposed reducing operational hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; thereby, cutting back loudspeaker noise levels. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: _-___--___•__Ms.--Nancy-Whitehurst-'of-8536-'Ralph Street;"Rosemead, stepped up to the microphone to express her apprehensions involving sound levels, zoning designation, project perimeter, ingress/egress location, and current block wall status. -=In--response;-Planning-Director: Johnso n"regofted.-the periphery would encompass - - Valley Boulevard to the first-set of towers near Whispering Pines Place; however, the development's rear-half will only be utilized for excess vehicle storage. Moreover a - - Valley-Boulevard-access will-be established; and the present block wall abutting_the___. `private viclmty wwill remain.-- Su bsequently_a_Mr. PaulyShen _of 8520 Whispering Pines Place,-Rosemead; briefly-- - - --recapped the co_mmunity.meetmg with Edison, wherein; he reiterated unease relating to- safety;; _noise and traffic issues. Similarly;-Mr. Shen wished further- clarification on weekend operating hours and permit modification/appeal procedures. Whereas an auto- body- shop is prohibited in_a C-3_ zone,---Director. Johnson explained that any substantial alteration to the nature of a business-i.e.,_paint & body-shop-_ would. require a CUP reapplication. By the, same token, a city council appeal is not _ automatic;, hence the petitioner would have ten (10) days in which to-formerly. file a - - - - - request.- In closing, the director restated that business hours would extend to Saturdays and Sundays, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.- There being no one further wishing to address the coniniission; Chairman Ortiz closed the public hearing segment far this project. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Vice-Chairman Breen, to APPROVE Zone Change 00-212, General Plan Amendment 00-02, and Conditional Use Permit 00-794-all subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A"; ADOPT Negative Declaration for the Zone Change 00-212 and General Plan Amendment 00-02; and RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL _of Zone-Change_00-212-and General-Plan Amendment 00-02. Vote results: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI, RUIZ - NO:- - - NONE..:__ - - - - ----'---ABSTAIN:- ---NONE'--- ABSENT: -NONE,... _ Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-797-4428 Bartlett Avenue A_request_by the Kenneth Ta_to.construct a single-family-residence with a living area of over - - 2,500 square feet located in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zone. Presentation: Assistant Planner Alvarez 5/15/00 M[NUrES, PACE 4 Staff recommendation: Applicant(s): APPROVE--for a period of one [I) year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff.• Forasmuch as municipal regulations dictate a three (3)-car garage for living areas of over 2,000 square feet and vehicle parking is a major dilemma within the intended neighborhood, Commissioner Alarcon, Vice-Chairman Breen, and Commissioner Ruiz questioned the applicant's preference to erect a two (2)-car garage. Consequently, Vice-Chairman Breen and Commissioner Ruiz ordered two (2) supplementary conditions mandating the following: - -1) Three (3)-car garage 2) Off-street parking Equally disconcerting, Commissioner Alarcon discerned _ a home-based business _ -motive-for.the-proposed first-floor-office/study: - " - - ` ` - Chairman Ortiz opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: rebuttal,-.the .respondent Mr.--Kenn eth_Ta-of-4428-Bartlett Avenue;"Rosemead " - - advanced to the podium to allay the-commissioners'. doubts. Disaffirming a home-.. . - T based business inteniiori and citing an exorbitant expense of an extra five thousand dollars .($5000) to build -a--three-(3)=car'garage`M-r-Tii explained his preference to ---utilize the-saved space and cost-for the-dre-ation`of"his children's playground. Lastly, - the-.commissioners-were informed of an_expansive= driveway-adequately-designed for-- parking; - parking; therefore, off-street stalls would be redundant._ "°Public=hearing=ivas opened to7hose inho ivished7o-OPPOSE"tire application None: - _ _e - - - Th"ere being no one fiirtlier finishing to arlrlress the commission; Chairman Ortiz closed the -Public hearing segmentfor this1proJecG - - (MO)- Motion by Vice-Chairman Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 00-797 for a period of one year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." - - Vote results: - - YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI, RUIZ NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE - Chairman`Ortiz eleclareel said motion ?hdj, "ciirried and so ordered C. DESIGN REVIEW 00-82-3940 Rosemead Boulevnrrl . A request by Alan Kao, dba "Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages," for a design review of an - existing site for exterior improvements-including new signage, paint, and landscaping- located in the CBD-D, Central Business District with Design Overly zone.. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson Staff recommendation APPROVE--for a period of one [t) year, subject" to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): - In the audience. _ 5115/00 MDRMS, PACE 5 Questions from the commissioners to the staff.• Planning Director Johnson disclosed the following conditional addendums: ➢ Condition #21-"Trash enclosure gate shall be replaced with a self- closing, commercial grade metal and shall be painted to match exterior - stucco. " ➢ Condition #22-"Parking lot shall be slurry-sealed and restriped to city standards.... Condition #23-"There shall be no outside material storage or work out Expo-related decorations. " Advocating proportionate English/Chinese fonts, Commissioner Loi- deemed the - bilingual sigriage design objectionable alluding to Asian clientele preferentiality. Accordingly, the commissioner instructed the inclusion of a further restriction- equitable characters. Whereas, this company deals predominantly with the Asian community, Commissioner-. Ruiz commented that-perhaps "common sense" dictates emphasis on the Chinese idiom. Chairman Ortiz opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: The• projects-designer,-Mr::-Charlie-Shen._of 1845=So"uth°Califo`rnia=Street° San " ` - Gabriel, consented to full compliance of all stipulations.-.Alternatively, with reference. to the __enhanced_ Chinese lettering, Mr. Shen explained that while the calligraphy- _ _---consists of-four-(4) smaller,-haider fo read characters; the enhancement is appropriate: _ - - - - ""At-any rate,-both-Mr: Stien-arid the sign contractor, Mr. Eddie Shieh, of 423 South California-Street, San. Gabriel; agreed to-reduce the scale- _ to those who ----N- _ - - None: - - - - - - - - _ There being no one further wishing _to_address..the-commission,-Chairman-Ortiz closed-the public hearing segment for this project - - - - - (MO) Motion by-Commissioner Alarcon, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE- - Design Review 00-82 for a period of one [1] year-, -subject-to-the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: RUIZ ABSENT: NONTE Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 5. OTHER BUSINESS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-635 (ENTENSIONI-3514 North Rosemead Boulevard _A request by Rasheed and Qasar Khan, dba "Love's Restaurant," to extend a permit allowing an on-sale general (Type 47) ABC license in conjunction with an eating - establishment. " Presentation: Assistant Planner Alvarez. - Staff recommendation: CONTINUE--for a period of thinY 130)-days. Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions front the commissioners to the staff: None. 1 . i, 5115100 MrNurss, PAGE 6 In consequence of outstanding conditional violations and pending relocation, staff and commissioners recommend that Conditional Use Permit 95-635 (Extension) be CO rMI/ D to the M819, 2191919 Planning Commission Regular Meeting. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-729 (EXTENSION)-8534 East Garvey Avenue A request by Luke Cua to extend a permit for the development of a mini-mall. Presentation: Planning Director Johnson Staff recommendation: APPROVE--for a period of one [1) year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: None. __-(MO)-Motion by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Vice-Chairman Breen, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 97-729 (Extension) for a period of one [ll year, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A."_ Vote results. - - =YES: __ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON,-LOI, RUIZ - - ----NONE----- - - NONE - - 7-- AB TA)N: _ _ ABSENT:` , - - NONE Chairman Qrtiz'declared;said;motion-(Iulycarried:anrl sd=orrlererL C. CONDITIONAL=USE PERMIT-96-678.(EXTENSION:}-2518.&.2530-North-.San_Gabricl Boulevard - - A=,request by Peter Ngai dba "Firth Alliance-Church,""to 'extend a perm it'allowing-the operation of a church facility. - - Presentation: - LL Assistant Planner Alvarez_ Staff recommendation: APPROVE--for a period of two (2) years, subject to the - - conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s):" In the audience. - Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Taking into account the generally lengthy demolition permit process, Commissioner - - - - ° Ruiz inquited whether two (2)-weeks would be an adequate contracting timeframe for the_applicant.---- Whereby, - -planning staff will be working concurrently with building staff and applicant, Assistant Planner Alvarez assured the commissioner that adequate time would be provided. - (MO) Motion by Corirmssioner Ruiz' seconded by Commissioner Alarcon, to APPROVE - - Conditional_ Use Permit 96-678 for a period of_ two 121 years, subject- to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." - Vote results: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI, RUIZ N0: _ NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 5/15/00 MINUTES, PACE 7 Chairman Ortiz declared said motion duly carried and so ordered D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-741 (EXTENSION)-2714 Stingle Avenue A request by Wen Yu, dba "Perfect Star Fashion, Inc.," to extend a permit to operate a sewing factory. Presentation: Assistant Planner Alvarez Staff recommendation:-- APPROVE--for a period- of-one [I) Vear,-subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. ----Questions from the commissioners-to the-staff•--- None. (MO) Motion by Vice-Chairman Breen, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE - - ----__---Conditional-Use Permit-98=741 (Extension) for-a -period of one [I] Veal',-subject-to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: - - YES:_ ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI, RUIZ _N0: - NONE - - - - _ T^ _ = =-ABSTAIN:-_ ---NONE ABSENT: - NONE --Chairman-Ortiz-declare( l. motion,duly-carried-and-so. ordered OR MODIFICATION OF ROSENIEAD"MUNICIPAL- CODE`SECTION &15.04.040-3639 Ellis Lane - - - - - `A requesi fiy the property owner, M'r. Steve Taylor,-to waive ttie-installation 'of-street Presentation: Assistant Planner Alvarez - - - - Staff reconmeendation:.. _ _ DENY - - - - = - - - Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the strafj. Whereupon, Vice-Chairman Breen noticed Ellis Lane to be deficient of sidewalks, the vice-chairman advised waiving this requirement and "tabling" this item until contiguous neighbors-install same improvement. Accordingly, the vice-chairman recommended appending a sidewalk instatement clause for a subsequent date. - - - For the reason that no mechanism exists by which -to - "track" residential sidewalk - installations,- Planning Director Johnson conveyed this recommendation's _ unfeasibility: Chairman Ortiz put forth an "assessment district" proposition; whereby, residents could "petition"- the improvement when favored and costs could be equally apportioned among.the"entire"neighborhoodblock.._-_ In retrospect, Commissioner Ruiz reminded the commission of prior waive denials. In _the commissioner's opinion, approval would be-unfair-to past applicants and reflect poorly upon the City of Rosemead; moreover, the commission must abide by city - = - guidelines. -To-that-end, Commissioner Ruiz and-Deputy--City- Attorney Stan-Price called for postponement pending legal consultation and deliberation. 5/15/00 MN=s, PACE 8 The property owner, Mr. Steve Taylor of 3639 Ellis Lane,. Rosemead, expressed disappointment concerning the commission's indecisiveness. In his estimation, surrounding neighbors have renovated their homes without improvements; furthermore, an ample twelve (12) foot walkway is already provided. Likewise, a commission "continuance" will detrimentally affect contractor-scheduling prearrangements. By reason of further deliberation, commissioners recommend that Rosemead Municipal Code Section §15.04.040 (Modification) be CONTINUED to the 10//06 5, 21980, Planning _ Commission Regular Meeting. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC RESOLUTION 00-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF --.-------THE-CIT_Y_.OF_ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS_ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA, --APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25891 ALLOWING THE SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO TWO (2) RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9328 GUESS STREET(APN: 8594-012-001). - B. - -PC RESOLUTION-00-15:--A-RESOLUTION. OF THE-PLANNING-COMMIS SION- OF- THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-573 AND ZONE VARIANCE 00-295 ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS-FACILITY-WI-TH-LESS-THAN=THE' REQUIRED-PARKING-FOR-PROPERTY-~ -Y--~ LOCATED AT 7833-35 EMERSON PLACE (APN:- 5287-020-039). -Deputy Attorney Stan_Price presented-the-resolution(s) by Utle only _ _ (MO)- Motion by Vice-Chairman Breen, seconded by Commissioner-Ruiz;--to waive further -==s`reading•and•adopt-said-resolution(s)r _ Vote results - - - YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI I2UIZ - NO.-•=--_> =NONE - - _ _ ABSTAIN: NONE -T - - - ABSENT: NONE Chairman Ortiz rleclarerl said rni(ition drily carrier! and so orrlererL-------- - - - - 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE: This is the time for-the public to address the planning commission on any matter not presented on the. agenda. No response. 8. MATTERS FROM CITY-OFFICIALS AND STAFF: A. Comnussioner Ruiz feported' persistent violations-at "Fashion Star Garment Company," located at 2727 Stingle Avenue. Said violations consist of ➢ Strewn debris/diapers in parking lot Disuse of trash enclosure Discarded auto hood leaning against trash enclosure Planning Director Johnson vowed to dispatch the code enforcement officer to investigate. B. Recalling the last commission meeting in which Vice-Chairman Breen recounted insufficient - handicapped parking stalls at-Ralph's Grocery-on _8815-East Valley Boulevard, Planning Director Johnson notified the commissioner of his investigation outcome; whereby, four (4) disability-designated spaces have been counted. Nonetheless, parking bay dimensions do not conform to state regulations; therefore, the property manager will be contacted to comply. 5/15/00 NtNu as, PACE 9 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. The next meeting will occur on MONDAY, June 5, 2000, at 7:00 P.M. BWJ/aer PC RESOLUTION 00-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 00-212, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-794 TO CHANGE A ZONING DISTRICT FROM "A-1; AGRICULTURAL" TO "C-3 D; MEDIUM COMMERCIAL IN A DESIGN OVERLAY", TO AMEND A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE FROM "PUBLIC FACILITIES" TO "COMMERCIAL", AND TO OPERATE AN AUTO SALES DEALERSHIP IN THE "C-3 D•, MEDIUM COMMERCIAL IN A DESIGN OVERLAY", LOCATED AT 8518 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 5371-010-800,-801,-803). March 22, 2000, Dennis Lin, 650 E. Las Tunas Drive, San_Gabriel,-CA--- - 91776, filed zone change, general plan amendment and conditional use permit applications allowing a zone change from "A-1; Agricultural" to `C-3 D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay", an amendment of the general plan land use from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial", and to operate a used auto dealership in the "C-3 D; Medium Commercial in a Design Overlay" located at 8518 E. Valley_Blvd_z and - WHEREAS, 8518 E. Valley Blvd., is in the "A-1; Agricultural" Zoning District; and - - WHEREAS, Sections-17.11617.120_set forth-procedures=and-requirements-for-zone--- changes and amendments; and - ---WHEREAS, Sections 17.112 set forth procedures and requirements-fora-conditional use"~ - permit; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 inclusive, of the California_Government.Code, and= - Section-17:112.010 offie Rosemead Muriicinal Code (RMCI authorize the Plannine Commission to ___approve,.conatuonauy approve or aeny temauve parcel maps, zone vanances,.ana (resign reviews;- - - - - - and - - - --WHEREASrthe City_ofRosemead has an.adopted General Plan,-zoning ordinance and map ~ =-T- including specific development standards to control development; and ' - WHEREAS,-the-General-Plan Amendment-00=02-would-de§ignate tfie.subject property _ "Commercial' allowing the operation of _ an auto sales dealership;.and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the - - Planning Commission to consider and recommend p;oposed_zone changes to the City Council; and= _ WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, 90aidfices were posted in. 10 public locations and sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Conditional-Use Permit 00-794, Zone Change 00-212, and General Plan Amendment 00-02; and - - ..WHEREAS, on May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised - public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Zone Change 00-212,. General Plan - - Amendment 00-02 and Conditional Use Permit 00-794; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative " _.----Declaration shall be-adopted for Zone Change-00-212; General Plan Amendment 00-02 and Conditional Use Permit 00-794. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental 0 EXHIBIT 171 impacts pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study found that there would not be potential environmental impacts. The initial study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that - placing the property in the Zone Change 00-212 and General Plan Amendment 00-02 are in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the change to the General Plan Land Use Area will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the-quality and character of residential neighborhood where the development is proposed. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 00-212 and General Plan Amendment 00-02 are consistent with the Rosemead General- - Plan as follows:-- A. Land Use: General Plan Amendment 00-02 consists of amending the existing land use designation from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial". This amendment will _ allow for this commercial development to be compatible with.the surrounding-area - - _ that is designated "Commercial". B. Circulation: This development is located at Valley Boulevard, a major arterial road _---_way_., Access to Valley_Blvd _is.provided by_two.(2)_ingress/egressdriyeways=atahe~ - ~ = west and south property lines. _ C Housings Since no part-of the subject-site consists "of housing -units,e proposed - - - zone change and general plan amendment will not deplete available land for housing. - - D. Resource Manaeement: Develo ment re wired to_ royide.landsca in areas-in-the----~ _ _ P_ E.. _ Noise:_. This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the - J suirounding area: An initial st! dy was completed and its findings have determined _---that this _development-could not have-a significant effect•on-the environment. F. Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead. is - free from any flood hazard designations. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ofZone Change 00-212, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "A-1; Agricultural" to - " - - "Medium Commercial in .a Design Overlay", and approving General Plan Amendment 00-02, amending the General Plan land use designation from "Public Facilities" to "Commercial", located at 8518 E. Valley Blvd. (APN: 5371-010-800, -801, -803), pending City Council approval. General Plan Amendment 00-02 is approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. This action shall become final and-effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Article IX : Planning and Zoning of the _ Rosemead Municipal Code. - SECTION 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on - - - -_-..._May_15; 2000, by the following vote:---- YES: LOI, ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, RUIZ- - 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 the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 5th day of June 2000. Merced Ortiz, Chairman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 5th day of June, 2000 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: William Crowe, Secretary