Loading...
CC - Item 5B - Public Hearing on Design Review 16-02 Conditional Use Permit 16-01 and Zone Change 16-01 - Hampton Inn & Suites diserm City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 2 of 16 ("D"). The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-04, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "E", "F", and "G", respectively. On March 8, 2017, the applicant informed staff that they have hired a consultant to work on the Pedestrian Route Circulation Study. They are hoping to have this information available at the City Council Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt Resolution 2017-10 with findings subject to seventy (70) conditions; 3. Approve the first reading of Ordinance 972; and 4. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and file the Notice of Determination for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant environmental impacts, unless mitigated; therefore, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from February 3, 2017, to March 6, 2017. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway, just west of Rosemead Boulevard, on the southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The project area consists City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 3 of 16 of one parcel totaling approximately 1.83 acres. The site is currently developed as an asphalt paved surface parking lot. r 1 Glendon Way i .1 . i ... 4 e _ % ,� d ... , • . . # • r SUBJECT LOT ..1 . s — UFC GYM 3 la 6 r -------:-----,___,- --- Aerial ___,- Aerial View of Project Site As illustrated in the aerial view of the project site, the subject lot is adjacent to the UFC Gym lot. Historically, the subject lot and the UFC Gym lot were operated as one business. However, in 2005, a Lot Line Adjustment was completed to create a new lot (subject lot), which totals approximately 1.83 acres. This lot was then sold to a different owner. There is an existing recorded Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements between both lots, which imposes certain restrictions on the development and use of the parcels and provides for maintenance and control of easements for the benefit of the property owners of both lots. r City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 4 of 16 I III.I I I"JAM frt..sx.. ; -. .-- _ ".. - -►:s .., �' — }, — _"I nigiliati _- -, North View SITE& SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the Zoning Map, it is a single lot designated as both C-3/D-0 and P-D, however, there are no City records on why the subject lots were classified as dual zoning. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning:R-3(Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use:Residential South General Plan:I-10 Freeway Zoning:I-10 Freeway Land Use: I-10 Freeway East General Plan:Commercial Zoning:P-D(Planned Development) Land Use:Commercial West General Plan:Commercial Zoning:C-3/D-O(Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use:Commercial City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 5 of 16 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct and operate a new five-story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms totaling 71,250 square feet. The hotel will be operational twenty-four (24) hours a day, 7 days a week with a maximum of six employees per shift. The project will require the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and other site improvements to allow the construction of the hotel. The hotel is proposed to include a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. Complimentary breakfast will be provided for hotel guests. There will be seven rooms on the first floor, along with an office, hotel lobby, breakfast area and snack shop with twenty-nine hotel rooms on each of the floors 2 through 5. The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces including 95 standard spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV spaces, five handicap spaces as well as 20 bicycle spaces. Design Review 16-02 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior façade or landscaping. The proposed project is located in a Design Overlay zone, therefore, a Design Review shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.16.020.1, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish a hotel use in the C-3 zone. Zone Change 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.020, amendment to the City's Zoning Map may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council, whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action. In 1967, the City Council adopted Ordinance 199 (attached as Attachment "H") approving Zone Change 25. Zone Change 25 reclassified all R-1, R-3, and R-3-D zones within the highlighted area (outlined yellow) in Figure 1 (page six) to P-D. The C-3/D-0 zone within such area was not affected by Zone Change No. 25. As described in Ordinance 199, Lot 19 and the western 40 feet of Lot 20 remained as C-31D-O. Zone Change 25 created the dual zone of the subject property as illustrated in Figure 2. To resolve the dual zone classification, the applicant is requesting the Zone Change. City Staff supports this Zone Change as it is consistent with good zoning practice and will resolve an issue that should not have existed in the first place. Zone Change 16-01 will amend the Zoning Map by eliminating the dual zone classification from C-3/D-0 and P-D to a single zone classification of C-3/D-0. v 4 City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 6 of 16 MARSHALL I ST •:4: City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 7 of 16 One space per guest room plus applicable requirement for additional Parking uses,plus one space per three employees 125 parking spaces 123(guest rooms)+2(6 employees)= 125 parking spaces Hotel Specific Re t'gid. Requirements Number of 50 123 Rooms Floor Area Per 400 s.f.(minimum) >400 s.f. Guest Room LandscapeTen Percent of Gross Lot Area 19%(14,985 s.f) 79,813 X 10%=7,981 s.f. Hotel Amenity Standards Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.30.130(C)(4)(a) and 17.30.130(C)(4)(b), the FAR of a hotel or motel development must be consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan. Hotels located in the Commercial or High Intensity Commercial land use designation in the General Plan may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if the projects meet the required hotel amenities and a minimum of two additional hotel amenities identified in Table 17.30.110.2. Business Center Service" Required Complimentary breakfast Required In-room wired or wireless high speed internet Required Additional Amenities: Multi-function ballroom/meeting rooms Optional Restaurant or bar or lounge Optional ✓ Concierge desk Optional J Convenience store/snack shop Optional Daycare services Optional Day spa/salon Optional Fitness Center Optional ✓ Florist or gift shop Optional Laundry Service Optional Pool or spa/Jacuzzi Optional J Room Service Optional ✓ Self-service laundry Optional Valet Parking Optional City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 8 of 16 Proposed Floor Plan The first floor plan includes a lobby, concierge desk, breakfast area, swimming pool, kitchen, fitness center, meeting room for hotel guests, business center, laundry room, restrooms, employee break room, offices, and seven guest rooms. The second through fifth floor plans include 29 guest rooms. As illustrated on the floor plan (attached as Attachment "J"), there are five types of guest rooms (King Suite, Double Queen, King Studio, Accessible King Suite, and Accessible King Studio). Proposed Landscaping and Fencing A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Attachment"J." New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas and landscaped islands within the surface parking lot areas. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. New decorative perimeter block walls are proposed along the east and west property lines. Parking and Circulation Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV parking spaces, and five handicapped parking spaces. In addition, the proposed project will also include 20 bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Stantec, dated December 21, 2016, was completed for the project. The study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: 1. Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue(1-way stop); 2. Glendon Way and I-10 Westerly westbound On/Off Ramp (2-way stop); 3. Glendon Way and Rosemead Boulevard(Signalized); 4. Glendon Way and I-10 Easterly westbound On/Off Ramp(1-way stop); 5. Marshall Street and Rosemead Boulevard(Signalized); and 6. Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized). Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 9 of 16 relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Proposed Architecture The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the City Council Meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 'h" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Lighting New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. A photometric study was completed by the applicant. The photometric analysis shows that the project will have sufficient levels of exterior lighting at the hotel entrance, public sidewalks, open space areas, and throughout the parking lot. For this reason, the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." Soils Report The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site as one subject to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to the consequences of liquefaction. For this reason, a soils report was prepared for this project by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. The City's independent geotechnical and engineering geology consultants have reviewed the report and have deemed it acceptable. On August 3, 2016, the report was sent to the State Department of Conservation. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 10 of 16 Comment Letters Received Staff has received two letters from members of the public on the proposed project. A copy of both letters are attached as Attachment "I". The first letter was from a nearby resident, Ms. Marianne McDonald, who expressed her concerns and objections for the new hotel. The second letter was from 8920 Glendon Associates, LLC, property owner of the UFC Gym property. 8920 Glendon Associates, LLC expressed their concerns regarding the most southern drive aisle along Ivar Avenue and the safety of truck delivery for their tenant. To alleviate this concern, the applicant has been working with their Architect to relocate the most southern driveway. A draft of the revised site plan is attached as Attachment"K". MUNICIPAL CDE REQUIREMENTS Design Review Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior façade or landscaping. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C), the Planning Commission where authorized, may approve may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application based on the following criteria: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 11 of 16 project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a new hotel development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate ' " horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 12 of 16 materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-31D-O zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV parking spaces, and five handicapped parking spaces. New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Conditional Use Permit Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.16.020.1, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish a hotel use in the C-3 zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.132.040, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 13 of 16 also find that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof, not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. All of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit: A. Approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed use will not be incompatible or injurious to the other properties as a hotel is a use that may be conditionally permitted within the C-3 zone. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as traffic, noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 14 of 16 C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D-0 zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design Guidelines in the overlying district. The subject site is not located in an overlying district with Design Guidelines. However, the proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2"horizontal reveals along all elevations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 15 of 16 Zone Change Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the Official Zoning Map may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed amendment is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. The proposed amendment is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,or welfare of the City; and The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The subject site is currently zoned C-3/D-0 and P- D. The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C-3/D-O, because it promotes good planning practices. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The proposed amendment is physically suitable for the subject site as a portion of the site is already zone C-3/D-O. Staff has verified that the proposed hotel would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. In V City Council Meeting March 28,2017 Page 16 of 16 addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. FISCAL IMPACT- None STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT—None PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to twenty-three (23) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on March 16, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: 4Sd (iukdke Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director Attachment A: Resolution No. 2017-10 with Exhibit"A" (Conditions of Approval) Attachment B: Ordinance 972 Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment E: Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 6, 2017 Attachment F: Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-04 Attachment G: Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated March 6, 2017 Attachment H: Ordinance 199 Attachment I: Letters from Ms. McDonald and 8920 Glendon Associates, LLC Attachment J: Site/Floor/Elevation Plans Attachment K: Revised Site Plan AM '9 � CIVIC PRIDE hLIrn °' /NCORPOR ��9 Attachment A Resolution No. 2017-10 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval) RESOLUTION 2017-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16-02 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HAMPTON INN & SUITES WITH 123 GUEST ROOMS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8900 GLENDON WAY IN A C-3/D-0 AND A P-D ZONES (APN: 5390-018-036). WHEREAS, on February 24, 2016, Ivar Eagle, LLC submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a new Hampton Inn&Suites with 123 guest rooms,located at 8900 Glendon Way; and WHEREAS, 8900 Glendon Way is located in a C-3/D-0 and a P-D zones; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(A)(1) and 17.28.020(C) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 provides the criteria for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800&65900 of the California Government Code and Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(C) and 17.132.040 authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the Design Review or Conditional Use Permit applications; and WHEREAS,on February 2,2017,an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, twenty-three(23)notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, recommended that the City Council consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01; and 1 WHEREAS, on March 16, 2017, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01,pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3);and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 28, 2017, to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council fully studied the proposed Design Review 16-02, Conditional Use Permit 16-01, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, environmental findings, and considered all public comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY FINDS,DECLARES,AND RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01. SECTION 2. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-02 in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise,vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 2 specifically addresses mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a new hotel development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan,precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials,a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 3 E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D- 0 zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces,20 compact spaces,five RV parking spaces,and five handicapped parking spaces. New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting,the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/i"horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed,the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. SECTION 3. The CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 as follows A. Approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare; FINDING: The proposed use will not be incompatible or injurious to the other properties as a hotel is a use that may be conditionally permitted within the C-3 zone. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts,if any,to less than 4 a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection.All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as traffic, noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan; FINDING: The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation.Per the Land Use Element of the General plan,businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code; FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D- 0 zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. 5 E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design Guidelines in the overlying district. FINDING: The subject site is not located in an overlying district with Design Guidelines. However, the proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2"horizontal reveals along all elevations. In addition,the proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2,Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. SECTION 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01 for the construction of a new Hampton Inn&Suites with 123 guest rooms, subject to the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED,APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2017. Sandra Armenta,Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk 6 r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2017-10, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 28th day of March, 2017,by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Marc Donohue, City Clerk 7 EXHIBIT"A" (RESOLUTION NO.2017-10) DESIGN REVIEW 16-02 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01 8900 GLENDON WAY (APN: 5390-018-036) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 28, 2017 Standard Conditions of Approvals 1. Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01 ("Project") are approved for the construction of a new Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms, in accordance with the preliminary plans marked Exhibit "C", dated February 23, 2017. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. The following conditions must be complied to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 3. The conditions listed on this exhibit shall be copied directly onto any development plans subsequently submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions. 4. Approval of Project shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant(s)have filed with the City of Rosemead("City")a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions within ten(10)days from the Planning Commission approval date. 5. Project is approved for a period of one(1)year.The applicant(s)shall commence the approved project or request an extension within 30 calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the City Council approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as theproject is not abandoned. If Project has been unused, abandoned,or discontinued for a period of one(1)year,it shall become null and void. 6. The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications to the project and to these conditions of approval. 7. Project is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit,including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to,the modification of the use,a change in scope,emphasis,size,or nature 8 of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Project. 8. The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The applicant(s) 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. 10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees and all other applicable fees are paid in full. Prior to issuance of building permits, any required school fees shall be paid. The applicant shall provide the City with written verification of compliance from the applicable school districts. 11. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six(6)inches tall with a minimum character width of 3/4 inch, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Community Development Director,or his/her designee,prior to installation. 12. The Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall have access to the project site at any time during construction to monitor progress. 13. All requirements of the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, and Engineering Division shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow prevention devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way. 15. All new roof-top appurtenances and equipment shall be adequately screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. 16. The parking area,including handicapped spaces,shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear,visible,and orderly manner to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 9 17. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti-free state. Any graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four(24)hours. 18. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. Project Specific Conditions of Approval 19. The on-site public hearing notice posting shall be removed within 10-days of Project approval. 20. 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 federal holiday. The applicant shall abide by the noise control sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 21. A final wall plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All walls and/or fences height shall comply with the requirements in the Rosemead Municipal Code and shall match or complement the commercial building in color, material, and design. 22. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 23. The new trash enclosure shall comply with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 24. All parking spaces comply with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code. All covered parking spaces shall be free and clear with no obstruction. 25. Prior to the issuance of Building permits, the Developer shall develop a comprehensive Construction Management Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division, Building and Safety Division,and Public Works Department. The Construction Management Plan shall address security of site and equipment, noise, vibrations, traffic control, parking, debris removal, staging, dust control, sanitary facilities, and other potential construction impacts, as well as other details involving the means and methods of completing the project, including the construction equipment route. The City has the authority to require modifications and amendments to the Construction Management Plan as deemed necessary throughout the course of the project and until the final inspection. 26. A construction notice shall be mailed to residents within a 300' radius from the project site to inform them of the commencement of construction. 10 27. The development shall comply with the recorded Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements between 8920 Glendon Way (APN: 5390-018-034) and the subject lot (8900 Glendon Way, APN: 5390-018-036). 28. Any exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and directed downwards as to not project over the property lines of the subject site. 29. Planning Division approval of sign plans must be obtained prior to obtaining building permits and/or installation for any signs. Engineering Conditions of Approval GENERAL 30. A Topographic survey indicating the existing property lines,existing easements and proposed site plan layout.This should indicate right of way dimensions, existing sidewalk dimensions, street dimensions, street cross sections at Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way, utilities, etc. if a proposed structure encroach into Caltrans easements,an approved letter from Caltrans should be submitted to the City. 31. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained if the improvements are not installed. Otherwise,the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 32. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees. 33. The catch basins fronting the proposed project shall be modified, to provide automatic retractable screens to screen storm water from trash, etc. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All new on-site storm drainage systems shall be designed to retain the first 3/4 inches of storm water runoff and to prevent cross lot drainage and comply with all storm water regulations. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain catch basin or inlets immediately downstream of the project for retro-fitting were necessary pursuant to Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements. 34. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Division. Submit grading and drainage plans per the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 35. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or by means of an approved drainage easement. 36. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. 11 l 37. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post development versus pre development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Method. 38. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 39. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the City's review,please include the NOI and the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)number. ROAD 40. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 41. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property line. 42. Remove and replace sidewalk from property line to property line, minimum five feet wide. Sidewalk shall be Barcelona Brown per Scottfield Products or approved equal. 43. Remove and replace existing curb ramp per ADA compliance. 44. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 45. All proposed and existing parking area shall be paved. 46. Parkway and parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 36-inch box. 47. Submit civil plans prepared and stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer for offsite improvements along Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way including sidewalk, landscape parkway, curb and gutter, driveways, ramps, lighting, sewer connections, etc. for review and approval. 48. A Pedestrian route circulation study of commercial businesses and neighborhood which addresses pedestrian travel and indicates any needed improvements shall be developed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. At minimum, a shuttle van shall be provided for transportation of hotel guests during the duration of this permit(Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017). 12 SEWER 49. Prepare and submit a sewer calculations analysis for sizing of proposed laterals including capacity conditions of existing sewer trunk line.The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Guidelines. This sewer analysis shall be submitted to Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Sewer Division for review and approval.Any existing deficiency or future deficiency on the sewer line found by this analysis shall be mitigated by the applicant at his/her own expenses. 50. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. Proposed laterals shall be connected to main line along Ivar Avenue. UTILITIES 51. All power, telephone, and cable television shall be underground. 52. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 53. A street lighting plan and parking lighting shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development. WATER 54. To provide fire protection for the proposed development,the project shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approval. 55. Water hydrants, water meter boxes, and utilities boxes shall be located eight (8) feet away from parkway trees and three(3)feet away from driveway approaches. Mitigation Measure Conditions Aesthetics 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies. • A combination of the above. 13 Air Quality 57. During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Cultural Resources 58. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards.The training session shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 59. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities,ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. 60. The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional 14 Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities,proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation,and if found,the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. 61. The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed,if any,evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 62. The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 63. The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities,proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial 15 fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. 64. In the event that paleontological resources and/or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities,ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist,who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. 65. Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the project developer, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. 66. If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site,they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains,the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision(k)of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 16 I � Geology and Soils 67. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.950 as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Hydrology and Water Quality 68. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 69. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3Aa" of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer (Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017). 1 70. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project developer shall install a dry well system with capacity to filter the first 3/4" of project generated storm water prior to its discharge into Ivar Avenue(Modified by the Planning Commission on March 6,2017). 17 Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions of Approval CIT-I O /2 &iE 4 0:, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax(323) 890-9783 PROJECT: Rosemead CUP 16-01 & MAP DATE: FD 01/31/2017 Zone Change 16-01 LOCATION: 8910 Glendon Way, Rosemead PLANNER: Lily T. Valenzuela REVISED CONDITIONS: Supersedes Fire Dept. Comments 11/30/2017 THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS CLEARANCE OF THIS PROJECT TO PROCEED TO PUBLIC HEARING AS PRESENTLY SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—ACCESS 1. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads for this project are Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. On-site is not required as long as access is reached to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 2. When the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road is more than 30 feet high, and or the building is more than three stories, the public street may be used for ladder truck access when the building wall is within 20 feet of the public street and there are no obstructions such as street parking, power and telephone lines, trees, etc. 3. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 4. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1 5. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words"NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code 503.3 Reviewed by:Wally Collins for Claudia Soiza Date: January 31, 2017 Page 1 of 3 18 c,„ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax(323) 890-9783 PROJECT: Rosemead CUP 16-01 & MAP DATE: FD 01/31/2017 Zone Change 16-01 LOCATION: 8910 Glendon Way, Rosemead PLANNER: Lily T. Valenzuela 6. A minimum 5 foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the fire department access road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1 7. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Fire Code 503.4 8. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Fire Code 504.5 9. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—WATER STSTEM 1. All required PUBLIC fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 2. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this project is 2000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two (2) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3& Appendix B105.1 a. The fire flow is adequate for this proposed project per fire flow tested dated 10/27/2016 by California American Water. Reviewed by:Wally Collins for Claudia Soiza Date: January 31, 2017 Page 2 of 3 19 w D.: All+ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT i FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION • Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 PROJECT: Rosemead CUP 16-01 & MAP DATE: FD 01/31/2017 Zone Change 16-01 LOCATION: 8910 Glendon Way, Rosemead PLANNER: Lily T. Valenzuela 3. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the proposed buildings within this development. Submit design plans to the Fire Department Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. For any questions regarding the report, please contact FPEA Wally Collins at (323) 890- 4243 or at Wally.Collins@fire.lacounty.gov. Reviewed by:Wally Collins for Claudia Soiza Date: January 31, 2017 Page 3 of 3 20 4 E M F iii '9 4- C.\ . .') CIVIC PRIDE /NCCPORATEO -9'° Attachment B Ordinance 972 ORDINANCE NO. 972 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 16-01 CHANGING THE DUAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 5390-018-036 AT 8900 GLENDON WAY (FORMERLY 3520 WAR AVENUE) FROM MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (C-3/D-0 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/D-O) ZONE. WHEREAS,the City of Rosemead has an adopted Zoning Ordinance and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 16-01 would designate Assessor's Parcel Number 5390-018-036 to C-3/D-O zone; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 authorizes and sets standards for approval of Zone Change applications and governs development of private properties; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.050 authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS,on February 2,2017,an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS,on March 6, 2017,the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after hearing all testimonies from the public, the Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Zone Change 16-01; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 17-04, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 16-01; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2017, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader, specifying the availability of the application,plus the date,time,and location of the public hearing for Zone Change 16-01,pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and 1 WHEREAS,on March 28, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 16-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as the environmental clearance for Zone Change 16-01. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 16-01 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change,in that the amendment to the Zoning Map will correct the dual zoning of C-3/D-0 and P-D to only C-3/D-O. SECTION 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Change 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 as follows: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; FINDING: The proposed amendment is located within a Commercial land use designation.Per the Land Use Element of the General plan,businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. The proposed amendment is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,health, safety,convenience, or welfare of the City. The subject site is currently zoned C-3/D-O and P-D. The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C-3/D-0, because it promotes good zoning practices. 2 The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures C. The affected site isPhY Y sicall suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s)and/or development will not endanger,jeopardize,or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The proposed amendment is physically suitable for the subject site as a portion of the site is already zone C-3/D-0. Staff has verified that the proposed hotel would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. Based on the traffic study,the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby AMENDS the City's Zoning Map to change the zoning of Assessor's Parcel Number 5390-018-036 from C-3/D-O and P-D to C-3/D-O and DIRECTS City Staff to make the appropriate change to the official zoning map. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to certify this ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. 3 SECTION 7. Effective Date. This ordinance will be effective 30 days after adoption. PASSED,APPROVED AND ORDAINED this 11th day of April, 2017. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Marc Donohue, City Clerk 4 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Marc Donohue, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 972, was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rosemead held on the 28th day of March,2017 and was adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held the 1day of April, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Marc Donohue, City Clerk 5 7EM > CIVIC PRIDE 11111111107 '~CC .PORATED 1og9 Attachment C Mitigated Negative Declaration MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Hampton Inn and Suites Conditional Use Permit 16-01 Design Review 16-02 Zone Change 16-01 110 RV/ MEM _ N Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 (626)-569-2142 Project Proponent: Ivar Eagle, LLC 1264 San Gabriel Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 823-3235 Environmental Consultant: Phil Martin & Associates 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (714)454-1800 February 2, 2017 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites—Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Location 1 1.3 Project Description 1 1.4 Intended Use of This Document 5 1.5 Environmental Setting 5 1.6 Cumulative Projects 13 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 15 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 18 3.1 Aesthetics 18 3.2 Agricultural Resources 24 3.3 Air Quality 25 3.4 Biological Resources 33 3.5 Cultural Resources 35 3.6 Geology and Soils 40 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 42 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 44 3.9 Land Use 48 3.10 Mineral Resources 53 3.11 Noise 54 3.12 Population and Housing 63 3.13 Public Services 64 3.14 Recreation 65 3.15 Transportation/Traffic 65 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems 78 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 80 4.0 REFERENCES 82 Appendices Appendix A —Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis Appendix B — Geotechnical Report Appendix C — Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix D — Hydrology/LID Report Appendix E — Noise Report Appendix F — Traffic Report Page i V City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01,Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 LIST of FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Location Map 2 2. Local Vicinity Map 3 3. Aerial Photo 4 4. Site Plan 6 5. Building Elevations 7 6. Building Elevations 8 7. Landscape Plan 9 8. On-Site Photographs 10 9. Off-Site Land Uses 11 10. Photo Orientation Map 12 11. Cumulative Projects-Aerial Photo 14 12. Photometric Study 21 13. Land Use Plan 50 14. Zoning Map 51 15. Noise Measurement Locations 56 16. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels 62 17. Studied Intersections 67 18. Trip Distribution 69 19. Year 2016 with Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes 72 20. Year 2018 with Project 24-Hour Traffic Volumes 75 LIST of TABLES Table Page 1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) 25 2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013) 26 3. Daily Emission Thresholds 27 4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet 28 5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) 28 6. Daily Operational Impacts 29 7. Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage Per Equipment Type 30 8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) 30 9. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) 32 10. Operational Emissions 32 11. Required Hotel Amenities 49 12. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits 55 13. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) 56 14. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 57 15. Project-Related Noise Impact (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) 58 16. Estimated Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities 61 17. Project Trip Generation 66 18. Existing 2016-Study Area Intersection Levels of Service without Project 70 19. Baseline 2018 - Study Area Intersection Levels of Service without Project 70 20. Existing 2016- Study Area Intersection Levels of Service with Project 71 21. Baseline 2018 - Study Area Intersections Levels of Service with Project 74 22. Estimate Project Water Consumption 79 23. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation 79 Page ii City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites—Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The City of Rosemead ("Lead Agency") has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with proposed Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02 and Zone Change 16-01 for the construction of a four-story 123 room Hampton Inn and Suites hotel project. The project is located on approximately 1.83 acres and includes 123 guest rooms and 125 parking spaces, including five handicap spaces. It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the demolition of the existing asphalt paved parking lot and other site improvements, and provide feasible mitigation measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Approval of the site plan is required by the City. 1.2 LOCATION The project site totals approximately 79,813 square feet (1.83 acres) and is located in the City of Rosemead. Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site consists of one parcel (APN 5390-018-037) and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of lvar Avenue and Glendon Way as shown in Figure 2 — Local Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3 —Aerial Photo. The project site is currently designated by the Rosemead General Plan as Commercial and the zoning is C-3 (Medium Commercial), D (Design Overlay) and P-D (Planned Development). The project is requesting a zone change to remove the P-D zoning for the site. The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Commercial to the west, and east, High Density Residential (0-30 du/ac) to the north, and Interstate 10 to the south. The adjacent zoning includes C-3 (Medium Commercial), D (Design Overlay) and P-D (Planned Development) to the west, P-D to the east, R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) to the north and Interstate 10 to the south. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed hotel is located in the northwest corner of the site. The site is developed as an asphalt paved surface parking lot and provides parking for the adjacent UFC Gym. Although the Hampton Inn site is a legally distinct parcel from the adjacent UFC Gym, in the past the UFC parcel and the proposed Hampton Inn parcel have been treated as a unitary site. The project will require the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and other site improvements to allow the construction of the proposed five—story hotel with 123 guest rooms. The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine, fitness center, meeting rooms, swimming pool and snack shop. Complimentary breakfast will be provided for hotel guests. There will be seven rooms on the first floor, along with an office, a hotel lobby, breakfast area and snack shop with twenty-nine hotel rooms on each of the floors 2-5. The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces including 95 standard spaces, 20 compact spaces, 5 RV spaces, 5 handicap spaces and 20 bicycle spaces. Page 1 iistar .a.at PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. HAMPTON INN & SUITES I CITY OF ROSEMEAD inland La Cre ta-Montrose La Cadada Veraucto lintridge mountains Ns N ' bank r",,. nal's Bunq•bw Gwmn Perk gena I Pak •® ne•.en • Madre C moi• Glendale 0 Pasadena E,:, Arcadia Duane .� Eagle Rock Pasadena Azusa Gle,vi –� - - Atwater South San Mann° ��M• - row., Cams °� Pasadena Vrpage •^+ 1-1 Northeast as Temple City Los Angeles4'4' 4 Vincent B Moore Covina fna ren park dwin Edendale ® Rosemead City �°It Park ./'''LAQjj µaj Monterey —~&MonWe–irovine m N--- eP Park Los Angel e'"O"..1 - ;MIN`I/ Vahnda � — e 1E„p, a"e, ; m P�" Site Loeatibtfd Galster Park Roser {Gtgt6 East Los � r Angeles Montebello La Puente South San Walnut \ ,rn Jose rolls • Commerce Hacienda 0 pwnm`•t'ry SOUth LOS `" Heights sr Huntington Pica River 144i- *.i Angees Park Bell Whittier Rowland V Florence-Graham Heights Giiiiell Gardens `R a ruD.a � a&:`� South Gate E \Santa Fe South k¢r' „/ 1 �S� ins Whittier En estmont Downey g " we --Lynwood r La Habra A,Dens CID Willowbrook rte" La Mirada ® Brea Centur,Fer7� r,gn+y�r Norwalk a Fullerton" ty • aT Compton N, y Arboretum y ` I I I /I 1 / I / ! I I I / I / I fin - / -`V / n / O / I 7.--, .4r.,„c:),T ,.... ) 0 r Source:Phil Martin&Associates, Inc. N Figure 1 Regional Map PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. HAMPTON INN & SUITES I CITY OF ROSEMEAD n Financal Center Rosemead Library -, ,,-;a, Steele St Stmt--SI Sea Harbour Seafood t1 °- co 1 Community '-1,p•,i.::Sr Ceder Park G_essSt GJess St 19 El Ralp-t St Ralph St l rn of \ o f] b ,D Esta Vila Dr °'`/ De Adalena St Ue 4dalr St \ o S \ A mF'o re - . . -":.I .' - n Marshall St . a n it all St Mao'''' S s Starbucks O Bokal Garden a t Evangel cal _ fog T Mob�'e Rose mad A Rosemead Square rch of San Gabriel o� Shopping Center a Janson ry School - Target rm Y1 IHCP Project o - Location • _ • • UFC ■LA Fitness t1 TGI Fridays - Gym 0 Dummy Bwin EMI San Bernardino I-wy m A, rty m 10 San Bernardino Fwy m 6 o� Ma Bake-I B Amarillo Mutual Water Georg Fischer Siy-rl `.Shi&Liu Family -s ABC Trafllc lesucr„o Child Care - 'os, h DUI Program nor 'nperial Pro ■ - G \ a c;. •O, 1, O . 4 w :..f). WIS Inter' ■ ...r€1(`. C.” O ti Source: Google Maps, 2016 N Figure 2 (!) Local Vicinity Map l PMA Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. HAMPTON INN & SUITES I CITY OF ROSEMEAD v. � i � • 1 1 ev l:r Bodh Vegq e'Cwsine .2,,,. • il m . :• -Awl i 0. . . .1 .,,,..t :t . 79 8 r- r -....,, . :. t .. i _ 1) r • 111111 : :! ) . n T.4: _ ::.. 111 - -ii • ip= •T-TNj.� \A. u Glendon Way ._:.,qf,,_: CD - - I_ .V f atuaionsa, Project Nr,41111i,\ 11 L• ocation UFC tiiii,,- :. ,:-,1‘. ,.iota,'46 t't-r,rvo • j o Gym 1 \ srw r 1-10 San Bernardino Fwy. Be a i,. ------- --- -_._-. G . c - i Bemar,i 0C .,v rill. a. ;,,..� -N-:ul,u� Iyi1,,`tjrC�J ti R ,� ti r L-:�iih:r i� 4, t . is11 ali �� - - : - 0 .r % Google J Source: Google Maps, 2016 N Figure 3 (1_9 Aerial Photo City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 New landscaping will be provided along the north. west and southern project boundaries to buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A 3-foot tall block wall and landscaping will be constructed along the east project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC Gym adjacent to and east of the site. The proposed hotel is 67' 9" in height. There are three points for site access. Two, two-way driveways are provided on Ivar Avenue along the west project boundary. A single driveway is provided from Glendon Way at the north project boundary. Indirect site access is also provided via a joint drive aisle with the UFC Gym site that extends along the north side of the gym and connects with Ivar Avenue at the west project boundary. A second driveway for site access and project surface parking is proposed from Ivar Avenue near the southern project boundary. This southern driveway and associated drive aisle will also allow vehicular access to parking south of the UFC Gym adjacent to the site. A proposed reciprocal access agreement will allow legal access between the project site and the adjacent UFC Gym. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building are shown in Figures 5 and 6. A conceptual landscape plan showing the types of landscape materials proposed for the site is shown in Figure 7. 1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's environmental impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code §21000 — 21177, and California Code of Regulations §1500 — 15387). 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, the west by the City of San Gabriel and the County of Los Angeles, the south by the City of Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South El Monte is to the east. The City of Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with an estimated 2016 population of 55,2311 people. The project is located in an urbanized area that is entirely developed. Interstate 10 is adjacent to and south of the site, a self-storage facility and a hotel, that is under construction to the west and further west are single-family detached homes, multi-family residential to the north and the UFC Gym and parking lot to the east. Further east are the Rosemead Boulevard on- off ramps to Interstate 10. Photographs of the project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Figure 10 is a photo orientation aerial showing the locations of the photos in Figures 8 and 9. The land uses surrounding the site include: North General Plan — High Density Residential (0-30 du/ac) Zoning — R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use — Multi-Family Residential 1 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/ Page 5 H I �t• 'i . O 4.9 • I • �M s •..,:i... • to N jY ::: . : a..i:. t o 1. Y I— �% V •L.P tun i :, v) iiV74k ONO -I ',kyr - (:. — .0-.CL ..0-.C1 "41 —' i ea z --.-,r ...........: t ,--1 03 4 xi/F+ ♦ firitA + + ►' ' i j 07 4 `TZ 'Weft o-.r1 s. , lw Pi P Q F 44;- l.o to g z• t .�. V :t0 ev iN - — avFYM1a ; ' i-.- o x,11 ✓ u w f .ala a� 1 MANNER-.HEAD may, + ,,��y , -tn i{ 'z1 i■t� d 9 Cr T • 1 IN A fpf _L . I '1 II ; Q ♦ + ii+ , ° ._ .o-.BL •- C 1- 0.6 0.O 1� 4g' 2 ,I :r-----� ■=.4^ 01 o::iv 4. 1 .! + + T A C ° 0 Z•; smarm -. g q LfM !I'i _eL — Z .r-c--) :1 _1 ire ,• ‘ 11--Fi.. iz.r .s oc :.) C vi rt oa o g F � 1 - - ::�c t : ' !IF; A "� fli "\ i CS O 1 6 s °?;'9' ,I ■� ;,^r Q : R(■tlt I _.$R rt S \ mom. L . ____ ~ v, a e i 3 — ..L.. — ; i 9 )' ? crannvwI - t e z (1111) Cl— — 9 — — — � -.- /L ,,,,,„A 11 /11 Al/1/7.41177,1 =6 CD p in vi Q v C LU D O LU cts v) O O cc W LL a1 O C LU . .1- .0 I— • o -•-_ -• F • • ..� • .0-.0. .0-.0 . -- • II' g IJP /O� V) 3 `o 1 1/I KJ . . 13 A-< C \.. i , i - -._ _ tg, 03 �.ir •. fi - t Z . • ++ O I 0 H f ! • � — Z z -- - 11 11 I—I1 I I U I � N. =I • I 1 CB IT I • t I{ Mimi o, o . 1 L Zaa "I _N ® h1LI I II 0` w � J � wU_ 0o iU • IrI . ., 1 n Ell I—T1 l 1 i I o w L II [—Tl 11 I I I ■>•1 t -LI ' i 1 ® • 11 _I 11 FIT n-I It ■1.1 - u }" 'a .41:.. __ - - II 11 5 • .o i� • .o-a� •_A-a. • .o.o. • .o.o. • a-s. • V • . o ' h V vi ,==illEME Y 1- ..-s ; A-11 C +.a • i.) v - 0 h Zi Ci Q z a ' a 0 --z r a ° Q 4 0 kr) 111 Q v C Lu = 0 Lu ra O DC W O c_ >- ---.- .NL • ..-as 15 • ¢.a •• .Y-.vc 7. i4n i§ n n P ¢,tl r ?.r. u '�� (/1S D — L1.1 `` A g M --I "Ell l 1 11 1:=0._0:1to i ' i ZSaS -- El CB LEI CD 1:n: c CB Iii_ mil I '1 ea Z _ 4.. Z 1 1 , r1 II II -Mil 1•!N FR 1 IIEJJEIII I 1 AI o -- i I111I -fiPEI 1I1Fri Q1 4 FLEE 11 ,1:C: 2 LI:_;; �: 1- nu II I 1 IIIImo mu inn En 1:C: o I I L' I= I 1_:'. 1 II 1 i I ISI 1 I -- • ,y im lob r� .il� 1 i j ' z1m moi' tl ( z Qi►,it o r . •; _ 1 "It -Iik 4; w iA -- lulu-- , 1,-- -I > u) 0 . , i I i- cr '1. < cn O I ,==. w mom I l i E1 .. J 1'1!!' w w u.. I U1 11 X11 11 1 I 1�11 [�C1 D mil 1:.: I ❑ CO ® DJ 1:=: I •. i . . • . I. • 11_[-Il-1-f11 1: 11 1:=: li I Ii =I i �1 --� ill—I'I• ® � 1 II I I �- : v .a ,� t 1 r---EUf7[ rI� 1 � ob / V I /- h C I a O � = CL Q U v R w � a , LL a, L1J Q. V 0 RP CC y LU 73 13 I— . ¢) ,'41.44,-10: ,4 is 44 P i IsY 1 0 ; J 11 P@ i 6 4 d III el � ��e , z `O , 11 P i: ! O ;0n, i eIN ! B ' O • •: tz J _ I ` tK I ' # 4 O q . it 0 ♦ Imilreiti i t CL • 711(::\ Z 4 4 4 Q 0 41(4?,09 CDU I o a << L_ , 4 ;1; , f O . k.$ 1. g g g u.�i11', € i i i 6 1t i5 15 : 13 1 s J{I�\ 3 ime)go1)1\ to I F _ e Sn:i s i 2 % t tc . e t . .. $ $ l i1- gg �P�. • ,�,1.� \ k' -- E. Bd E © � ; i 3 1 3 3 t s ..b. ' C 9 G ,O'I 3 I P I } €. 1 1 34 , I d JJJJg Y f i' t. ' lig �i� ' 3 Y 3 S S t Ilk Pt'n.td�%:. ''igiJ ! 3 _-� r am ;!'! � �=1::auk" t ; : it ! LL O * * • U '3Ur�� a s I 1000e t a t �FII ® l `ill Ai--7 LE ,1 `:O Bo. tF),asw' Q t i�� �. € " Z6 CEM a e t�f1 o Y app o a a a 66 111 ® ` I 1, I,it:, rte. G 3 r 1 i 1 d1 1g y Wet.—. • e` d ��l' 2•'.��C,,W' Fill t _ y C • = i}frf] E 3 ` ,,� 1 ,—t ftI�• �I t i E ! f11 . I# ¢ i11 ' a + •t •t I )•O�.`- O° "',O 0- yam;' I 5 $ � i v0 $r ■ � , ��c,i.r,.::, -..c.,.-:..a,' e.,Ati:�;s•�at�/►' .fat L�s/7//.4 _ # ocoaEoEoEoao dSIF Q 1 /140,- 1 — 10 (/)0 ® 0°(),®® tn-• O a a Er Z-,' Ej f QW +0+ LL/ 0 ci O i (A(Jix l j E C V_ fit --- ` _ E o �__ I- � CL0 o Z • v Z ' ( N P 4 T Z j, v o O t crs -0 a. : o ma O / D 2 y N IitC +r f6 (6 Q1 .T i :: 07 0 CA Q o IA r N I . r F 404 It"; I • 0 L_. QJ p r• i Y': ; y >. QJ a _ C Rilik v J 111 ) „. N ' / ‘..,.. 4.s 1rV I *y V- A' y._ `C ,+. kr) / a CU 0 -0 . N 0 �• w 1 N ;' O y +� • Q ;•, \ 0 C �, r / V i A. C 1 ,i- r6 e_r ' y C .4 ' _ _ a a _. z ,, r i C C Q 41.( 1 _`� \. / I o O G o f, o iiiJ °- iiiill r � M �° Nt p ON N + r t I CI) L1JGi V' .• LL �z 0.'2 1.1.J1.4zz cc .4 • :...iri..,_ . .Ocr-11 —1 0 a 4- 1V) ° t nr 7 r: O i a W >. 4_ ' • Z - 1 a }• i 4-4 CL ` ,..NF 1 I `� O ` ;� V)Q a > c i., i.. (', 14" cn , i/ fir, • ; c ca ` Y F.` ti F • y O i O a 0 O a J J w t 1. a:) Q w. I � O v, a i i - ,•,,, ... a) a tr tl, - - CU N si i t ° 1,----_-„:",..--;:24-::.7.....,.:1,1____ _ , 4r,^,E: M VI (i) 7. ..... .. 01 , • v O i I J ° ' 6 c vi• 4-, : cu c .. .,, a I V .., I a) ,41( _ I 4 01 o t tft "� I { c Ci Q a M ..c At Ja'' a C f +J a. Q O i .< 1 C O C 0 5, .O V C .. _ PMA Phil Martin&Associates,inc. HAMPTON INN & SUITES I CITY OF ROSEMEAD •-01. -, w:, .,,; 4;iii! . . ',. , '," ,..,..,-,:., .. -.0 :4- - • , ! ?IR, , - .t : r. P.-:.; I? -' ) r i. . • ...0 A.,,,dnt Vegi;Co,s,r7e0-, be .174:1 1 .. i•*' ' ' F. .!F . . .— I nil -.it W"141111111 ilk' . •• .4 :. 11 , i 1 • . "11111 • 4 t' . : -;manr-J., i . • l ' ..., r .. • - .;-.• ' P . n ir . i mi.. -. . . • _. i - ,%. . • .. — N.,, P.. -gap , . . • - - .- - '', .,. -' *7-17-... 114!....lauzi. .i.u..„,..-:;....-__ --- Glendon WayS!endo,,Wav • II— 1C: 1 1 i• 7 .4" e• '7,frif- __ , . 6f •" ..- . .. ., . .. . . ..• bartiogo . : •• > . -. .. ., 11F'a ! - -. ... 0 UFC _ .. ,...,.._ • . .. Gym . ... , • - - ..., • . . . 11/6. -.r-e-.' --1 '.- • , •• i''''). ' - -.---- iiiiii . sr- - 1-10 San Bernardino Fwy. 3e • wY --:-..---- " 1_ ,-- aa,.03110AIIiI3Aqi ,,. -• . ;'=-1'- or •--- ' Rarion•fil...i.,,1 ... .., ,arroa. :Bird 6- -,,,, ..,-.., .Ir. - - "P''''i.S,, - , .... . . . -,-.. , . . . >. r If' z. •,--`'' - il, -. ,..---- Google , I i, - .. --.. : . . Source:Phil Martin&Assoc./Google Maps 2016 N Figure 10 (!) Photo Orientation Map City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 South General Plan — N.A. (Interstate 10) Zoning — N.A. (Interstate 10) Land Use — Interstate 10 East General Plan - Commercial Zoning - P-D (Planned Development) Land Use — UFC Gym and parking lot West General Plan - Commercial Zoning - C-3 (Medium Commercial with Design Overlay) Land Use — Commercial 1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS The City of Rosemead identified two projects that, along with the proposed project, could have cumulative impacts. The two projects include: A. 9400 Valley Boulevard — Develop a 5,645 square foot commercial project. B. 9048 Garvey Avenue — develop 48 residential units and 6,500 square feet of retail space. An aerial photograph showing the location of the two cumulative projects is provided in Figure 11. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project could have potential cumulative impacts. Page 13 'N tfilliMMNIA. I 7 iL, — 0:3 4,,,, . ' �`�, °li • - < .w aV' ♦ i. „c rT• 1_ D W LU �' ow,eD a ,,..,,Li .I '. , : r i; any SP�o{w u_ ,. I -' ro i,'E).' a(61 `-, c co•.s.* s Me ++ • 1 y U r '11 ? \,a Ave 'tea U _ :lie i�;'-/-n ++ I' .. 'w - .93,c14,rfAve e . `�p.� l • r• se -;.•••i.J. u •• , ,• ,; t/) ,j • F � aldv --:.,...?•,',.," \;. e l • Po'trerZ O . •'c - , r' , til' • t' • 1. a Ave !.r! AO ` • r- •J{{ Jill r T QJ • ,�"s +a;'�ir • t- '�, ,� 't • 't ►ts i,. • ;umberCF >_ t `� •, V ' .Vrcick i•-e-te • , e i. ,' '":1r"' .'aka '1:l_° giggg Ca />t l ` . --"Adella Ave------ - r � f Z Lii. .�-.---Te •e i' rf • Ir, t - ��Chr . 3 Z �Tl' C°' -. "r 4-'9 �S-`-r , 1 t• ';U? °i..?' E M-•m i• Epi s _ . . ,-- __ , , T.. - Z '''''Y /ft, 111 fa.O _ '� Tco ai J _ v C ' ' / a).0 -+ . - 1; rM ,`' N any-u,n;6 i. 1 c."..-'.'il-.•''..'f• ;, : :'... • ''• ' 1 ::,:.-•.—v %il I -4 ...-..... ,/1 i '.., ,-.:.c , . - .....-: 'and eliu�cu3 s 11L12I • •:� }� •r � �.�, ,,,,,,,‘',?. .":)‘• � H � MI , Ol spa.44O. L�0 • c� - `' '0 it .. ;OL 1. ;7,.• ' Nr h.nild • ,cbt • r - rE �1 f1 0 1= '-444411 t' .1 c i .'.�- Q .►_ ij 'YE • .' � '.;;--' 'osemead P., ` -,,.,-Ft we w i;;.,•19:.4. ' ;.;• N. V ,, Y - p . : • - , - - ;• .1 L scar u E S _ o 1..'n.,'' .':. .:%:45.,11°,,;IL-;;• . it Burton iwe ---.---"-__„ -L}a presa , ' �• r rt�M• 1 ,L ' .., i anyti'aa__^o,J Inu ter K 1eN�S .,, - C \. 1/4 . !II te. , ,T: 1 �: a"VPouvoo'Esu . �i ' '� .,.: ,� 4V liar�•q o r • 1 . aPl Earle�Av o� !' A igen { DeltatA� C - sAve t 6• - • , v t,AF' all01Je C 7 ° Sa LeGaby�Fi'e�.glvd a .a Z e a- o _l t /N►ba •:', r e.Blvd--...�._C�' t 11 .Gladys,' ' ' :. I City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project 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 Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: n I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. �J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signed Date Page 15 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than. Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. Page 16 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Page 17 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.1 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ni•httime views in the area? 3.1 AESTHETICS a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated a scenic vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range that is located approximately 8 miles north of the city. The proposed hotel will not significantly block or interrupt any existing views south across the site of the residents north of the project. There are no city designated or recognized aesthetic resources south of the site that would be blocked or interrupted by the project of the residents north of the site. There are no existing residents adjacent to and south, west, or east of the site that will have views of the San Gabriel Mountains interrupted or blocked by the project. The project will not have any significant scenic vista impacts because there are no City adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area adjacent to or surrounding the site that would be significantly impacted by the project. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or eligible scenic highway.2 The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently an asphalt parking lot that provides parking for employees and patrons of the UFC Gym adjacent to and east of the site. The project site, which includes an asphalt parking lot, light poles and landscaping, will be demolished for the construction of the project. There are three existing trees in the parking lot that will be removed. None of the trees that will be removed are oak trees. The project proposes to plant 57 trees within the landscape perimeter and throughout the site, including the proposed surface parking lot. Most of the 2 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/ Page 18 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 existing landscaping along the west and north project boundary will be replaced with new landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover. However a few existing mature trees will be preserved and incorporated into the project landscaping. Two oak trees along the west project boundary, adjacent to Ivar Avenue, will be preserved and incorporated into the project landscaping. The landscaping that is proposed along the east project boundary includes trees, shrubs and groundcover to buffer the hotel from the existing UFC Gym and surface parking lot adjacent to and east of the project. Landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover is proposed along the southern project boundary to buffer the project from the freeway traffic to the south. In addition, the project proposes landscaping along the east and south perimeter of the hotel itself. Landscaping is proposed throughout the surface parking lot south of the hotel. Compared to the existing landscaping, the landscaping that is proposed by the project will improve the aesthetics of the site for motorists and pedestrians on the roadways adjacent to the site and improve the aesthetics of the site for the residents in the project vicinity, especially the residents north of the project that have direct views of the site. Building elevations of the proposed hotel were shown previously in Figures 5 and 6. As shown, four levels of hotel rooms will be constructed on top of the ground floor. The first, or ground floor, is 15' in height, each floor of hotel rooms is 10' in height and the parapet is 12' 3" in height for a total hotel height of 67' 9". The project will change the existing aesthetics of the site from a paved parking lot to a five- story hotel, asphalt surface parking lot and new landscaping. The hotel will be visible to area residents and businesses compared to the existing paved parking lot. As stated previously, the hotel is five stories in height compared to the existing surface parking lot. Because of its height, the project will also be visible to existing residents in the area further from the site. While the project will be more visible compared to the existing parking lot, there are existing two and three story buildings in the immediate project vicinity. There is a three-story hotel under construction adjacent to and west of the project along the west side of Ivar Avenue and an existing three-story hotel approximately 250 feet northeast of the site. In addition, there are two-story multi-family residential developments west and north of the site, including elevated two-story townhomes directly north of the site. Therefore, the proposed five story hotel will not be unique and completely out of character with other multi-story buildings and is not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of the site, or the area surrounding the site. The building architecture includes design and relief features that will positive aesthetic benefits to the immediate community. Although the proposed building is 67' 9"feet in height compared to other buildings in the area that are up to approximately 30 feet in height, the C-3 Medium Commercial zone for the site allows structures up to 75 in height. Therefore, the proposed hotel is 7' 3" shorter than the maximum height allowed for the site by the zoning. The project will change the privacy of the residents north of the project by constructing a five- story hotel that will allow views of the residential units to the north from the north and some east facing hotel rooms. The project will allow hotel guests to have views of the areas surrounding the site, including views of the residential units north of the site by some hotel guests. While hotel guests in the upper levels will have elevated and direct views of the residential units north of the site, there are no backyards or private open spaces associated with any residential units adjacent to the site that will be in direct view by hotel guests. The closest private open space in direct view of the hotel guests in the upper floors of the hotel are two residential units approximately 360 feet north of the site, along the south side of Marshall Street. A few residential units approximately 300 feet west of the site will also be in direct view of hotel guests with west facing units. However, the three-story hotel that is under Page 19 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 construction west of Ivar Avenue will restrict views of the residents west of the site to the upper two floors of the proposed hotel. Thus, not all of the rooms on the west side of the hotel will have views of the residents to the west, only the guests in the rooms in the top two floors. While some hotel guests will have views of existing residential units west and north of the site, the same existing residents west and north of the site will have direct views of the rooms and guests in the upper levels of the hotel. Due to the height of the hotel west of the project that is under construction, residents west of the project and west of the hotel under construction will have direct views of the upper two floors of the proposed hotel at the most due to their diagonal line of sight. The hotel that is currently under construction will block the views of the residents directly west of the proposed hotel except for the top two floors. Street trees are proposed along both sides of the project adjacent to Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. All street streets must be installed and maintained to comply with RMC Chapter 12.48. The project is located in an area of Rosemead that is designated with a Design Overlay and required to comply and be consistent with Rosemead Municipal Code 17.28.020. As required by RMC 17.28.020 B.3., the project must meet and be consistent with existing city design criteria in terms of good design, compatibility with existing surrounding properties, minimize interference with the privacy and views of occupants of surrounding structures, long, plain, building walls should be avoided by incorporating building articulation (e.g., arcades, decks, material variation, porches, public art, roofline variation, varied setbacks, and windows) and other similar methods, roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened, the design of the structures, driveways, landscaping, lighting, loading facilities, parking areas, signs, solar facilities (except for solar energy systems under Chapter 15.10) and other site features should show proper consideration for the functional aspects of the site (such as, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle circulation) and the visual effect of the development on surrounding areas. Compliance of the project with all applicable development standards in RMC 17.28.020 will reduce project aesthetic impacts for adjacent residents, businesses, pedestrians, and motorists to less than significant. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light and glare compared to the existing conditions with development of the hotel, signage, lighted parking lot, etc. Compared to the existing paved parking lot with no lighting, the project will increase the light and glare in the immediate project area. Project lighting, which will include parking lot lighting, outdoor safety and security lighting, sign advertising, interior hotel lighting and automobile headlights will generate new light and glare to the immediate project area. Although there is light and glare associated with the existing gym, residential units and other commercial uses adjacent to and in the immediate project vicinity the project will increase the light and glare that currently exists. Light In compliance with RMC 17.88.020.A, a photometric study was requested by the City and prepared by the applicant. The photometric study is based on the proposed types and electronic technologies of the proposed outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights to illuminate the site. The results of the photometric study are shown in Figure 12. The photometric analysis shows that the project will have sufficient levels of exterior lighting at the hotel entrance, public sidewalks, open space areas and throughout the parking lot. The project lighting proposes a maximum light of 4.5-foot candles at the north project driveway at Glendon Way. The project will have a maximum of 4.9-foot candles at the southern driveway Page 20 0 (-4 TS < a) LU = n 4., 01 vi .c, e AA_I LT_ LU 1111110antiki.*41427- ? Ar011%.411.74-it.- -7--- t.) t.") f., 1-.,:tpii,70..A-07•-•:^y etit,:-"Itlir•Wk.v ... 0 " I I ' . . .0..• -iii: -Tor- ' 3.• .;. I A CC i ' 1 0 dr.ow ,o; . . _._ /.:- 1 'A • ' ...,_, --;4..0) LL i o ; A3N„. i o; ; ... \-2...f. ; _:-___.2._..> -;--' -•.--••• '70V- 4... I- _----nr-.:•-• ' =IL --logro.,? . - .-- I fi.! ..LP!..,., " .".:-,-: -- 'Ili 7...• _,...-;::-.--, C U ilit " .•-' _ 4;414 , ; ; ;7. .. • -• - i • D 16v- . tr) 1.., , , A . it, ; - ; 'i.: pg., r 41 0 NO ileti , / .-s-......-. ' ' .; - • ; A ' r11111 lilittl • "- ". -- ,/" 1.;!.-11" ID -- _ ..-... -.----:.... " g. • . D<1 Z !§gt ii 6 --s1 •- -1 .4;- __=__ -. •- . • :__-_ __I_1 i i, 1.11.1- • a a x o 11-YZ .7 Vi 4/ i go 3 .411R AAtiii: -'' ' ' 7 es. e te gli i Z 41 YY L.; •".1101'!i, gi. . - - .- . ;ezer-:, ..... . - A . .. le •.? LJ 0 ..;,..:. it f ,, ;ill ;f 0' 1-1! .749.:,. -: ' • . - ' , ....-orAmir- 1 .-,- ----_...„.-- - irt.1 . . _ • Fr h,:,/II, !1;2i .2i 110 -7,--- :- ;--'-...? • ,--W. kp ; A ;V..kl-,.. Ct I tili,10- .7..--A—% , . : .;-169; ; ;‘`;____L•_* .."--)0. ' • '0,1. , annokitAF ; ; ;,,,_-, ,iiliu. .• I 'i 11 --- ; ; ,..; ; ;'•,..ill-,..r ,;.1. ; ; ; c`..---;t-111111"11:1 ;•' ; .2——4" altoL7-• 1i', 1 ; Pao: .PA1711F°31E: ; ; . • *Nil ' . N - ... ..„ s."".7' ' 1 r:-......•, -WHIP i. ' _° I'OW' ,: ; ,1<i, i. •A \',..•___.:... Iv! A- ‘ 1, 3;X•16.." ^,----7.7----....... 7.4.411,Wir.lsi .:-.- &Lai"- vr.-zifi--„.-74marandass— ...1.ta- -ba , ,..i.7,3;%..,,,-,;.‘, -4.-4,7411.1-. v.oinfil.",W 1 1.1 'IV'' ; !. .•1 g 1 . \1.70L' . sib L-••• -."`.:i ^ , pri ,,,,,ii,"..: ..._•i0. ____<e _ -et, ems. C3=3 1110111, ; ; IIP - -- - . _,_ L.,. — et e IV: ill...1.91. -1:,. 1 , -. --- NI o i he o e e. ' ? ;' -4'H:— \ .. - ' r'' • 1 ! • - - ' ,:fr..1 I . ,or .;_,_ ... ., . it . P.,.': ita 1, Att.=!' E..- I A ; 2'. _::'• " 1 ; .i ..w1 71.111.•Ir tri• , -,..., . 14974-• 4/Ila 11/111 i Igi `00.-- - ,-- --,- - ., ; LiJ -11'i- ..: — e„., • .r .-,6- . ,, . , illgv-i; -z so.,_- 0 , 11;41 IND IR-11 .1A V' _ . i 4 'Ili° 111111 1"11 . v)se 8L., . •,..A: ----- -, , ; > : Will if 41 Ilia X"a 2 . .1 t.i,,invj i.,,,_.;:a , t: , _________i, 0 ! , 0 0 h h X 4 4 I\, mg 7.41,r". A ; A 1•,. - ; A 0 -4;,- If !I 11 .1...ap. ,._1 ea so h a pa 'Or ...". 1 Kiev Ai" ; 11 sni., ii,.,istIllr--Tit IN Sit -,4 . .i! ..,-; 1.,74.11".).- i gbii-.... .- .• , ..... ., • _ .,0111110111111 .11,4f. ...:' -- A'''• VI 1 - '#gr- , A . . c ,,.; _ . • iie 1 . •'" - Z -al Ar. .• ..-_Li •i-I.P• ' Si.AF ,t- ' --• .111:, :' C la — I o !,/, ; . : ; ;_Mil - ‘, i, I . 0 • D.0 <0 -,%) cz (. ----- - - - • ' . . ct tO c 0 0 0 . •11..i•Vri..-, A 4.: ..,.1-..gstii. s" 41:- '.--‘411,- .,.. -........ .... ..._ t• 4- *f- - ii.: Tile .7ogy , •'FigN---1 - • g- -,k- • -b. ... •,.., ... ov „ • 0 1 Z3.., GNI1OLV-HcIll i 0 AV" 1:034310 a .1 '5c C., < .. 2 z-_,, /111101 cl_ •-•- ,...) N City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 at Ivar Avenue and a maximum of 6.3-foot candles in the parking lot along the east project boundary adjacent to the sidewalk of the UFC building. Based on the photometric study, the project lighting plan will generate light hotspots on the site that will extend off-site with accompanying glare resulting in a combination of floodlight effects that could impact motorist on both Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact to a maximum of 0.1-foot candles. The implementation of the following measure will reduce potential lighting impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above. There is existing light and glare generated by the UFC Gym east of the site. Once occupied, light and glare will be generated by the hotel west of the site that is currently under construction. While the light and glare that will be generated by the proposed hotel is not out of character or more intense that other similar commercial uses in the area, the height of the hotel will generate light and glare at a higher elevation than any existing use in the immediate vicinity. Thus, the project will increase the amount and intensity of light and glare that presently exists on the site and the immediate project area. While the project will increase light and glare on this portion of the site, project light and glare is not new to the area and is not anticipated to significantly impact adjacent land uses, including the residences north of the site. Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed hotel could impact adjacent land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially the residences north of the site. The hotel design includes recessed windows to reduce glare. The windows will be recessed and somewhat setback in the building with minimal glare from the windows that could impact adjacent surrounding land uses. Overall, glare by the project to area residents, pedestrians, and motorists will be less than significant. Page 22 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.2 Agricultural 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 (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 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 ❑X nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The project site is paved with asphalt and serves as a surface parking lot. There are no agricultural uses either on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore, none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the future. The project site has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural uses on or in close proximity to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland. b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is not requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use on the property. The project site and the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area and not used for agricultural purposes. Neither the project site nor any surrounding property is in a Williamson Act contract. The project will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is in a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The project will not result in or encourage the conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses either on or adjacent to the site and there are no agricultural activities in the city. Page 23 fair City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.3 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 plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable 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) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 3.3 AIR QUALITY An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared for the project.3 A copy of the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix A. a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM- 2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. 3 Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis,Hampton Inn,Rosemead,California,Giroux&Associates,November 1,2016. Page 24 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions Tons/Day) Pollutant 2010a 2015b L 2020b 2025b NOx 603 451 357 289 VOC 544 429 400 393 PM-10 160 155 161 165 PM-2.5 71 67 67 68 2010 Base Year. 'With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. Source: California Air Resources Board,California Emissions Projection Analysis Model,2009 The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air "blueprint" in August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2007 AQMP was adopted June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007 AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone and the smallest airborne particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated plan for both pollutants. Development, such as the proposed project, do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing commercial projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which the impact significance of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation control measures that can be implemented on a project-specific basis, and if the scope and phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth- accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than- significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because the project will not generate new or additional vehicle trips that could generate significant increased quantities of emissions and impact the AQMP. The project will not generate any emissions that will exceed AQMD adopted thresholds. The project will not impact the AQMP. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The air emissions that will be generated by the project are associated with the demolition of the existing on-site improvements, project construction and the operation of the hotel upon completion of construction. Page 25 v. i City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility,while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table 2 shows the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of the data resources. Table 2 Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2010-2014) Pollutant/Standard 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ozone 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 1 1 5 2 7 8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 1 1 6 3 7 8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 1 0 0 0 5 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.101 0.121 Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.092 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 1-Hour> 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0 Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 Nitrogen Dioxide . 1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 Inhalable Particulates (PM-10) 24-Hour> 50 pg/m3 (S) 5/55 8/61 6/61 6/61 21/60 24-Hour> 150 ftg/m3 (F) 0/55 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/60 Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (Etg/m3) 68. 63. 78. 76. 94. Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM- 2.5) 24-Hour> 35 µg/m3 (F) 0/117 1/114 1/119 0/114 0/xx Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (µg/m3) 34.9 41.2 45.3 29.1 35.1 xx-data not available,S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard Source:South Coast AQMD-Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone,CO, NOx and PM-2.5 Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10 data:www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA. Page 26 I City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Table 3 Daily Emission Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PM-10 150 150 PM-2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source:SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev. Construction Emissions Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern that is generated during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per disturbed acre. Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non- reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health hazard. The CaIEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CalEEMod calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4. Page 27 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Table 4 Construction Activity Equipment Fleet Phase Name and Duration Equipment Demolition (20 days) 1 Concrete Saw 3 Loader/Backhoes 1 Dozer 1 Grader Site Prep (3 days) 1 Scraper 1 Loader/Backhoe Grading (6 days) 1 Grader 1 Dozer 2 Loader/Backhoes 1 Crane 3 Forklifts Construction (220 days) 1 Generator Set 1 Welder 3 Loader/Backhoes 1 Concrete Mixer 1 Paving Equipment Paving (10 days) 1 Paver 2 Rollers 1 Loader/Backhoe Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst-case daily construction emissions are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) rMaximal Construction ROG FNOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Emissions 2015 Unmitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 8.4 5.0 Mitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 4.4 3.0 2016 Unmitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 Mitated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times per day during construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. The incorporation of the following measure, as modeled, will reduce project construction emission impacts to less than significant. Page 28 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01,Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction areas. Operational Emissions The operational emissions for the project were calculated using CaIEEMod2013.2.2 for a project build-out year of 2018. The project operational emissions are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Daily Operational Impacts Operational Emissions (lbs./day) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2 Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1 Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9 Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1 Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1 SCAQMD 55 55 550 150 150 55 - Threshold Exceeds No No No No No No NA Threshold? Source: CaIEEMod Output in Appendix In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of "area source" air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project-related emissions. As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less than significant. LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee in February 2005. For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would occur during demolition and construction activities. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Page 29 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01,Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CaIEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5-acre disturbance sites for varying distances. CaIEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment used at the site. Table 7 shows the maximum daily disturbed-acreage for comparison to LSTs. Table 7 Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type Equipment Type Acres/8-hr-day Crawler Tractor 0.5 Graders 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 Scrapers 1 Based on the equipment listed in Table 7 for the project and the CaIEEMod default, the equipment fleet will disturb 1.5 acres daily during peak construction grading activity as shown below: (1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 1 = 1.5 acres disturbed). The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 8. The LST emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As shown in Table 8, all on-site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and construction. The LST emissions of the project will be less than significant. Table 8 LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) LST 1 acre/ 25 meters CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5 S. San Gabriel Valley _ Max On-Site Emissions * 852 102 6 5 Demolition Unmitigated 22 30 2 2 Mitigated 22 30 2 2 Site Prep Unmitigated 19 32 3 2 Mitigated 19 32 2 2 Grading Unmitigated 21 31 8 5 Mitigated _ _ 20 31 4 3 Construction Unmitigated 17 26 2 2 Mitigated 17 26 2 2 Paving Unmitigated 12 20 1 1 Mitigated 12 20 1 1 CaIEEMod Output in Appendix *excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking. Page 30 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Greenhouse Gas Emissions "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation. Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it: • Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or • Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility. Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to "select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate". The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod. The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e) for all land use projects. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for the GHG analysis for this project. Page 31 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Construction Activity GHG Emissions The build-out timetable for this project is estimated by CaIEEMod to be one year. During project construction, the CaIEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual 002(e) emissions shown in Table 9. Table 9 Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) CO2e Year 2017 364.3 Amortized 12.1 *CaIEEMod Output provided in appendix The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project construction activities are 12.1 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less than significant. Operational GHG Emissions The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table 10. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 1,835.6 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which is less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less than significant. Table 10 Operational Emissions Consumption Source Area Sources 0.0 Energy Utilization 676.0 Mobile Source 1,100.3 Solid Waste Generation 30.6 Water Consumption 16.6 Construction 12.1 Total 1,835.6 Guideline Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the project is AB-32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold. Thus, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. c)Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3"b)"above, the air emissions generated by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not exceed any Page 32 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 State air emission thresholds. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions. nor provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project's contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project's specific impacts. Since none of the project's daily construction or operational air emissions will exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called "sensitive receptors". Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. The existing off-site residences adjacent to and north of the site are considered pollution- sensitive to any project related emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during project construction and the life of the project, as presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions, including construction and operational, will not exceed adopted air emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds as discussed in section 3.3 "b)" above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to any substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction of the project the residents adjacent to and north of the construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on- site motorized construction equipment. There will be less than seven pieces of construction equipment operating on the site at any specific time. The potential for all seven pieces of equipment to operate simultaneously is considered low. Therefore, the odors that will be generated by the operation of the construction equipment are not anticipated to significantly impact area residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of the on- site construction equipment will cease. The hotel operations will not generate any odors that could significantly impact area residents. Any odors by the project will be less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.4 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? Page 33 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited 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 'Ian? 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The site is disturbed and developed with a paved asphalt parking lot. There are approximately three introduced, non-native trees on the property that will be removed by the project. There is no native on-site habitat to support native wildlife. There is no classified or considered to be rare or endangered plant species on the property. In addition, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the site would be non- native wildlife associated with urban development, such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on the site that are designated or will qualify as a sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not impact any biological resources, including plants or animals. b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with residential, commercial, freeway and public facility uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities either on the site or on any of the surrounding properties. The project will not impact riparian or sensitive habitat. c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not impact wetlands. d) No Impact. The project is developed with a commercial building, a parking lot and other site improvements. The surrounding properties are developed with residential, commercial, freeway and public facility land uses. There is no native vegetation or bodies of water on or surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site nor adjacent properties support the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a nursery for wildlife. The project will not impact or interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife Page 34 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site that supports wildlife. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the proposed landscape plan, three trees (non- oak) will be removed during project demolition. The project proposes to plant 57 trees along Ivar Avenue, Glendon Way, the east and southern project boundary and throughout the site, including the parking lot. The project will retain and protect in place the two existing oak trees in the street landscape setback along the west project boundary in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, 17.104. The project will not have any significant oak tree impacts. f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community conservation plan. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. There are no buildings on the site that will be demolished. There are no historical resources adjacent to the site that will be impacted by the project. Therefore, the 0 project will not have any historical resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been disturbed due to development activities on both the project site and the adjacent properties. Because the project site has been disturbed in the past associated with grading and paving for use as a surface parking lot, any cultural resources that may have existed near the surface have been previously unearthed or disturbed. There are no records of any recorded archaeological resources either on or adjacent to the project site. Despite previous disturbances of the project site in the past that may have displaced archaeological resources on the surface, it is possible that intact archaeological resources could exist below the surface area of the site that was previously disturbed during grading. As a result, Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-4 have been implemented to reduce potentially significant archaeological Page 35 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 resource impacts to previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during project grading and construction to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 3 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Mitigation Measure No. 4 In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Mitigation Measure No. 5 The project developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction Page 36 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. Mitigation Measure No. 6 The archaeological monitor, under the direction of a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the project developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project site is located in an urbanized area that has been previously disturbed by past development activities. Given that the project site has been disturbed, any cultural resources that may have existed at one time likely have been previously unearthed or disturbed. No paleontological resources are known to exist within the immediate project area. However, two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7701-7702 and LACM 6350-6361) are located within a three-mile radius of the project site. While paleontological resources are not anticipated to occur in shallow areas of the site, deeper on- site excavations may uncover vertebrate fossil remains that could be considered significant. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area, therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any vertebrate fossil remains without impeding development. As a result, the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant paleontological impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify Page 37 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Mitigation Measure No. 8 The project developer shall retain a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Mitigation Measure No. 9 In the event that paleontological resources and/or unique geological features are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may Page 38 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Mitigation Measure No. 10 Upon completion of the above activities, the professional paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the project developer, the City, the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. No known human remains exist or are anticipated to exist on the site. Because the project site has been disturbed, no human remains or cemeteries are anticipated to be disturbed or impacted by the project. Any buried human remains would have been uncovered, collected, and/or destroyed at that time of the initial grading and development of the site. However, these findings do not preclude the existence of previously unknown human remains below the ground surface, which may be encountered during construction and excavation associated with the proposed project. Similar to the discussion regarding archaeological resources above, it is also possible to encounter buried human remains during construction given the proven prehistoric occupation of the region, the identification of multiple surface archaeological resources within a half- mile of the project site, and the favorable natural conditions that would have attracted prehistoric inhabitants to the area. As a result, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potentially human remain impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure C-9 requires that in the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered the contractor shall be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to notify the County Coroner, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, who must then determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper recovery of such remains, if necessary. Impacts will be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Mitigation Measure No. 11 If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the project, the City of Rosemead and the project developer shall comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Page 39 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.6 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- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ ❑ ❑ of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in ❑ ❑ ❑ on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Page 40 Noml City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared for the site.4 A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B. a i) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in southern California, which is a tectonically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site depend on the distance to causative faults. the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The Upper Elysian Park Thrust fault zones are considered to have the most significant effect to the site from a design standpoint. The nearest known active regional fault is the Upper Elysian Park Fault zones that are located approximately 1.5 miles from the site. There are no known active faults crossing the property.5 While there is not an active fault either on or adjacent to the site, a rupture of the Upper Elysian Park fault could impact the project, but impacts would be less than significant. a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The seismic hazard map published by the California Geological Survey was referenced to estimate the seismic ground motions at the project site. Based on the California Geological Survey information, the peak ground alluvium acceleration at the site for a 2% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is approximately 0.948g and 0.552g, respectively (2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive Deaggregation). The peak ground acceleration (PGA), corresponding to USGS Design Map Summary Report, ASCE 7-10 Standard is 0.950g. The expected peak acceleration value at the site of 0.950g and used in all site design criteria. Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.950 as recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone as defined by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California PRC Div. 2, Chapter 7.8, sec. 2690- 2699.6).6 Based on two borings that were drilled on the property to depths of 51.5 and 31.5 feet, the sediments in the borings indicate that the deposits under the site are not susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction.' Therefore, based on the geotechnical report the site would not be significantly impacted by liquefaction. a iv) No Impact. The site is generally flat. The development surrounding the site is also generally flat. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent properties due to an on-site landslide. 4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development. 3520 Ivar Avenue, APN 5390-018- 037, Rosemead, California, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants, March 4,2016, Ibid. 6 City of Rosemead Geological Report Review No. 2,August 1, 2016, Earth Consultants International Ibid. Page 41 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all appropriate erosion control measures prior to the start of any on-site demolition or construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction. The incorporation of all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of sand bags around the project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City will reduce and minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion impacts. c) No Impact. Although the site is currently vacant, the site has been developed in the past with no evidence of any previous unstable soil conditions. The project proposes to construct a five-story hotel and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading and construction activities required to develop the project as proposed are not anticipated to cause any unstable soil conditions either on or off the site. The project will not have any significant unstable soil impacts. d) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any expansive soils on the site or the project area. Based on the geotechnical report, soil tests were conducted and there are no expansive soils on the site. The project will not be impacted by expansive soils. e) No Impact. There is a public sewer system in the streets adjacent to the site. The City will require the project to connect to and continue to be served by the existing public sewer system adjacent to the site. The project will not impact soils resulting from alternative disposal systems. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.7 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? 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) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste? Page 42 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 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 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code? f) Be located on land that is, or can be made, sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as El 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 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) was prepared for the site.8 The report is included in Appendix C. a) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA that was conducted for the site on October 3, 2016, the existing asphalt parking lot does not require the use of or generate any hazardous materials and impact the public or the environment with the use or transportation of any hazardous materials. The proposed hotel project does not propose and will not require the use of, or generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the public or the environment with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. I b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 "a)" above, the project will not create a hazard to the public or the environment from the release of any hazardous materials into the environment. c) No Impact. Mildred Jansen Elementary School is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the project and Savannah Elementary School is located approximately three-quarters 1 mile northeast of the site. The proposed hotel would not emit or handle any hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances that could impact Mildred Jansen Elementary, Savannah Elementary schools or any other area schools. 8 Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at Proposed Commercial Development at 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead California, Quartech Consultants, October 5, 2016. Page 43 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has been occupied in the past by residential dwelling units, a Toys R Us and a Levitz Furniture business.9 The site is currently paved with asphalt and provides surface level parking for the UFC Gym located adjacent to and east of the site. As a surface parking lot, there are no hazardous materials generated from the site. Based on the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System, two Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities are located within 1/2 mile of the site. The two sites include: • 3603 Rosemead Boulevard (Texaco gas station) • 3606 Rosemead Boulevard (Texaco gas station) The two LUST facilities are not anticipated to have any adverse effect on the project site.10 As a result, the potential for the project to be significantly impacted by hazardous materials from these two LUST facilities is less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.7 "d" above, the project site is not located on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase I ESA, the property does not contain any hazardous materials and has not been used as a hazardous waste site in the past. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)'s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known recorded land-use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject site listed in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database. The project does not have the potential to release any hazardous chemicals from the site. f) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA, the site is sufficiently free of and does not contain any hazardous materials. There are no hazards or anticipated hazards associated with the project that would prevent the site from being used as a school, or a hotel, as proposed. g) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport and approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the site. The project will not impact current and on-going airport operations at El Monte Airport or result in any safety hazards for project employees and hotel guests. h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will not impact or be impacted by operations of a private airport. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste El 0 discharge requirements? 9 lipid, page 3. 10 Cal Land Engineering, email October 19, 2016. Page 44 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ❑ ❑ ❑ production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in a 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 storm water drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche. tsunami. or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY A hydrology study and Low Impact Development (LID) Plan were prepared for the project." A copy of the study is included in Appendix D. Hydrology Study/LID Plan for Hotel, 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770. October 12,2016. Page 45 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris with surface water runoff during project demolition and construction, especially if demolition and construction occur during the winter months (November — April) when rainfall typically occurs. The quality of storm water runoff generated from the site is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As a co-permitee to the County of Los Angeles, (NPDES No. CAS614001) the City of Rosemead requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project will be required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction. The project developer will be required to submit the completed Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4" of surface water runoff from the site prior to its off-site discharge. To comply with the law, the project proposes to install two underground dry wells to collect and treat the first 3/4" of surface water runoff prior to its discharge into Ivar Avenue. One dry is proposed for the middle of the parking lot south of the hotel and a second dry well is proposed within the landscape setback at the southwest corner of the site. The two dry wells will retain and treat the first 3/4" of surface water runoff to remove pollutants through a variety of biological, physical, and chemical treatment processes. Any surface water greater than 3/"will be discharged from the dry wells via a drainpipe to the curb and gutter in Ivar Avenue adjacent to and west of the project. The proposed dry wells in conjunction with the incorporation of all required BMPs will allow the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water discharge requirements. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City for approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 14 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to collect and treat the first 3/4" of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 15 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the project developer shall install a dry well system with capacity to filter the first 3/4" of project generated storm water prior to its discharge into Ivar Avenue. Page 46 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 b) No Impact. The project proposes to provide landscaping along the perimeter of the site. The project also proposes to plant trees along the north and west project boundary. The street trees along Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way and the landscaped perimeter along the project boundary will allow on-site water percolation and reduce off-site surface water runoff. The two dry wells will collect and treat the first 3/4" of rain. The two proposed dry wells will collect and treat surface water runoff from the site that is currently discharged untreated into Ivar Avenue and the local storm drain system. The project will have a positive impact to the local groundwater by allowing percolation of more surface water runoff into the groundwater compared to the existing condition, which currently discharges most of the surface water runoff off-site. The project will generate approximately 0.17 cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface water less than the existing condition with the construction of the proposed dry wells to allow more water to percolate into the local groundwater compared to the existing condition. Therefore, the project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, but rather provide two on-site dry wells to collect and allow more surface water from the site to percolate into and recharge the local groundwater than currently. The project will not impact the supply of the local groundwater and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. Rather, the project have a positive impact to the local groundwater by allowing more surface to percolate and recharge the local groundwater compared to the existing condition. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is generally towards the southwest area and eventually discharges to Ivar Avenue west of the site. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, all on-site runoff will be collected by two proposed dry wells that will collect and discharge excess storm water to Ivar Avenue west of the site. The project will not alter the general existing drainage pattern on the site or cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river. The two proposed dry wells will reduce the amount of existing runoff from the site that is discharged into the local storm drain system and allow some of that runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. All surface water is currently discharged to Ivar Avenue. By reducing the amount of runoff that will be generated from the site, the project will reduce and have a less than significant impact to erosion or siltation either on or off the site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "b)" above, the project is estimated to generate approximately 0.17 cfs of runoff less than the existing condition due to the construction of two dry wells on the site to collect the first 3/4" of surface runoff for water quality treatment and percolation. The dry wells will reduce the amount of runoff that is currently discharged to the local storm drain system by approximately 0.17 cfs. By directing the first 3/4" of storm water to the two dry wells, the potential flooding impact by the project would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "d)"above and based on the hydrology report, the incremental increase in project surface water will be approximately 0.17 cfs less 1 and not exceed the capacity of either the existing or proposed storm water drainage system that serves the project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Ivar Avenue along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of Rosemead have capacity to handle the runoff by the project, which is calculated to be approximately 0.17 cubic feet per second of surface water less that is currently generated from the site. The discharge of the first 3/4" of rainfall to the two proposed on-site dry wells for water quality treatment and percolation will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the site by approximately 0.17 cfs. The project will not impact the existing storm drain system that serves the site. Page 47 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 "a)" above, the quality of storm water runoff from the project is regulated under NPDES. The project will be required by law to collect and treat the first 3/" of storm water runoff from the site to remove debris and other pollutants prior to any off-site discharge. The first 3/4"of surface water runoff from the site will be collected and directed to two on-site dry wells. One dry well is proposed for the middle of the parking lot south of the hotel and the second dry well is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Low surface water flows will enter the two proposed on-site dry wells and allow low water flows to percolate into the local soil. Rainfall greater than 3/4"will be discharged by a pipe from each dry well to lvar Avenue adjacent to and west of the site. Because the first 3/4" of rainfall will be collected and pre-treated before it is discharged from the site, the project impact to surface water quality will be less than significant. g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone "X", which is outside the 100-year flood plain.12 The proposed hotel will not be placed in a flood hazard area. h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 "g)" above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone. The project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact due to redirecting or impeding flood flows. i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will flood the site in the event of a levee or dam failure. The project will not be impacted by the failure of a dam or levee. j) No Impact.There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that will impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific Ocean and approximately 284 feet above sea level and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and the surrounding areas are flat and not exposed to mudslides. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact' 3.9 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? ........... c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community's ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? 72 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06037C1665FF, September 26, 2008. Page 48 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact. Examples of "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The project proposes to construct a 123-room hotel on a site that is adjacent to an existing commercial use. The hotel is proposed for a parcel of land that is separate from adjacent uses. The project will not divide the established surrounding community. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as Commercial, as shown in Figure 13. The zoning is dual zoned C-3 (Medium Commercial)/D- 0 (Design Overlay) and P-D (Planned Development) as shown in Figure 14. The project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation and will not require a general plan amendment. The project will require a zone change to remove the P-D zoning designation and change the current dual zoning to a single zone designation of C-3 with a Design Overlay. General Plan The Commercial designation applies to retail and service commercial centers located along major arterials: (1) Valley Boulevard west of Muscatel, (2) Valley Boulevard near and east of Rosemead Boulevard, , (3) Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Charlotte Avenue, (4) San Gabriel Boulevard between Park Street and Newark Avenue, (5)just west of the Walnut Grove and Garvey Avenue intersection, (6) along Rosemead Boulevard from Mission Drive to Valley Boulevard, and (7) Del Mar from the 1-10 freeway interchange to Garvey Avenue. Permitted uses include a broad range of retail, office, and service uses that serve local and regional needs. Prohibited uses include warehousing, manufacturing, industrial uses, and similar uses. The maximum permitted FAR is 0.35:1. However, overnight accommodations, such as hotels, may be developed up to maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards, the "required hotel amenities" and a minimum of two "additional hotel amenities" as identified in Table 11.13 If a hotel project does not meet the amenities in Table 11, they can only build up to 0.35:1 FAR. Table 11 Required Hotel Amenities (a) Required Hotel Amenities Additional Hotel Amenities Ballroom Concierge desk Business center services Convenience store/snack shop Meeting rooms Daycare services Restaurant, bar, and lounge Day spa Fitness center Florist and gift shop Laundry service Pavilion lounge Pool or spa/Jacuzzi Valet parking Note: a)To obtain higher FAR standard (maximum permitted 1.0:1 FAR), projects must provide all of the amenities listed under the Required Hotel Amenities column and a minimum of two amenities listed under the Additional Hotel Amenities column. 13 City of Rosemead General Plan Update,April 13, 2010, page 2-9. Page 49 r i Q - \ T53 W 0-1 tti 4 w ,` ,tiII1111113^111111 and 6u ,ig 111111111 = ;� C Ln 'if 4111111111111 111111 u n :.1111111 L• ao T tv O qui /411111111111111111111111111111 -1111111 ;11_N u) a, a cc `V • ' Iiii111111111118ei1111111111111 :11111: .11. a> .2 c L-1-- 4t% ! 1114; pn18 Apo ajdwaiII p • o a o , ,- • . 1 . o __� io ",. . .CI ��, iiiiiiiiiiiiiii o 0 V) = ihIIIIllliillll M co antl �wu - �= = h..0 .V' a i_i Li No 1111 coDO RS / iTi Inn lu li 111 IUIIIiunu a DO N ` `� `'"' 1Enim.g, I O O �06 N !/1 nd opuoH ola = ill I� M CO ! ♦ eo: r (4 iV m m Zp.. �' ! J■ y m CD _ �� N C ti_ N •UUII • E E• N `b E E ��� E E E Q 0 0 Z y , o C 0 o E m U U Q _ _ U U o E ro 0�, — i 41 _ m m (U N z: N y LL 1�� 1'l Li N N 1111-o I of a a = 1 j I N N N N y Q� • Y41-44 -o -ED ID - -- tn Ali Mall �..A. a S S 2 = x pais ewpm a� „ 111 7 '4;Iv1 r 7 -_ = = .... ,N1 2IItIIIIIIIIII11E1Mill 0 ar= . ....-dl : -I= - llett file Ai (-3 -. 'IS Ire r . r ■nn1 - -r'*' Iq�111� � II nd Iai��snW_11B: 1r li,ot, �,f_ �- _ .M L - _11. ,� a o s- = - C-n / r.`tali - C • c L -_ �.o`� .�'=e Euuu =_ = sI AV-Ball-lee— • Illlllllli+ : �:_a 4 `�= :�"" '11i1I�==hill Cr �' CC r011 > \ >fl..11llZEILLID • a) I ro :1=.1111= .— 111 1 '-AV anoa�inul�� o -='1• „, 1 11, . ._a�! r� � � �1111111 I..r 1111 I�t lO +■ — Ifllll '1111 L IIIIIIII a _ 2 U MEI if juts 111111111 Iii: 1111111 111,93 11uuu1 I1IitinnlIL ,_J 0 , 111 -•- 1ou1111uw= "1111111 I /11111111111111 _ 'ntf a1��3�__ 111111111111 to 111111111 il�{1��i1% Ill Ill Ill7� ��I>t ^IIII(I • I —.— 1111111111111 — 1111 f ■ 11111111111111 a H1111AVeilaa11111111uI111111t►' tri LIU •I)u inn I a II t 11111111) 1 1 Ihi II�11 Illi IIir--wh,, , nv I I .:(111111111 —111111111111 -�1 �;1uia/ -u c .. ... .. . – HI 11111 lfll11111111 III 1 :111111+ o AV aiiolap4a 11 II- r = 111111111 111111111 nd aiiolaeual lailllll9c N. I� Q �i = 111111111 1 1111 c — II1111111111111111111! p Y %Sy; I fl. < ul1I1�111111i1111■11 1 . c il. I _ as 1111122 O!IJI11J�ltfll.111111=-E--,o ; d\, I s cp VI Pit 11101111111101: ring = I ` m u_ c 4/4 /A :C JI ■1111111.11= , 9 0 u- � � IM1■1111■1 = I \ L m N A. O =C E= II ■11a=. - . I } 1 w■a te. r■I1= I Y awe —_ 1111■7 _ z �—' '_ I 1m11r. *. i cc 1'1{x111 ■ ' cn . . w y. O W OVUM IIIU_I _ta :IIIIIP Immo 1— n `•� I o F- -9 v - _.�,- ■F:a J • N o - — 11■. • a V \ f 9 �-�-� 1111...vim W o 0 V) 4 �� i2.1 i�i.s .iGu■�I Z : —•� !1 —mu 4-• O • -__`+'-1 1 Z �, —= , ■ Immor � _ 5 �- ►rte=lmiiNrN � m _ wog 4,/, � iti „0:4,-,A,„,.........„.....,1 =1:„:41/F.111 • 6 a _ g g s__` , f ,r•(/1 Ii ■tg� o E i a 0 ct m. /�f ll/I■ <■1`!1111 IIII, g o�' '{1111111 Il� �� •�-`/l"=11 '11 a "_ --- ��• ••..�•� .111 r°1111:x..11111a O a II �R. , : _ �U-I- .1 l�.._1111t:111: ,1111110:1 r_ o - N o ._ a1111111111==- 4�AMI1111w1111 inn IN �'` IIIIIIL.t��I` a. I 1 I r1 ■ I72 ly:A •► . .. I�� � i. � 1111 -- 1:' ' l:fir. ■um!.._:: _ : ,, 1a Y MP 1 1 1 x(011, - .111.1n 1IN<_1�■�1 upr�, �— - 6 f Is►a A 8 _ � II1-{ ` srm*at:-.41,1= i,'�I, n 1 m a.Q I1u1lulf►,'�.r■ + — I .Ills ...1 1 I , , / AIIi1■':1:11/ s0. ft - 7 iiiiiiiir pip, !I _ .,•..4.11"1 11� �+ A. .�� s I ... c 5 -11..rte _.r�- 2rir'_ IIIM IAUI II II11 Ill \ -E d ati�� —= 11::■1:111:I - E 111111.. •IiiII`,IC 111' IIRE1U1s11111' g CD v_ - E c pi1111111111111111111111:-_IuinIIU11u 1 IQ1�W ■u■f■1■'_ _ A E a o 1 ---- IIIIIIIIIL= —IO milieu — ♦INI� s.• E s E $ m 1 s�,�:ulmmpm.= _1mum 111 ■ HIIIIIIIII .1 ' ' c, L a = IIIIIIiliiuu _ -IIIIIIIl . .; e_ Z nwninuo a- IUlu' ItlulIllll IIII■■111111x:= *P.,o . N C) Z 1 i IH Hutt.. 1 IUIim.111111111111H II■IIIIIIIIIII_ ,, 2 �',ILL n � _m im.=11 ri I, 1111111111 ipuituul um.. '_ 7 1 Iiniiil -, h 11111 F III11111uunnIIII III MIIIII �--� nnrtlm IIImikilur IIIIII m iniiill,lluulis; : Im11Ha1.•: I`se dim _ 111111111111'411{111'',_ ;:-#: °�" �� ■ o111111t1t1.. ..11111111... ■� rs�IIIiI111I1110 w ■ R-11111..111 %. �110-1°I°111 .. .o v ul UWuu111IWiillllII WIIIS%s �;111ijIv%� ° • I °• 111 to �luuui��wuuwir: - -,UI! 1{1111 N Q I ?I1■111 four; ]I'7 �T'.ciIti / .: _ ' � ,=n�l uuIIIiri = _ . ' =: ■ .64 1— IIIIIIIIIII■■u to moi% 1111111011M y1_:I-_�:= 41111M ISI orIII UM =iii' iili�II�'//,_ I li:111:111 s IMIIIIMIII- =11 II I'': i111111'0 — 1— ! 4 ��� , ..r.." miliiiililln_ !lural Q *too p1pA� 111111ulll_ i1111111IIlnIl1I.cl1111111 ' 1— , lti111lllll1_.I111111111=_ - r ■ v nui iiiuuu_SHIM �r�. _•_I — 1111111II,IIIII1:1 11111111 CL ...-=-�� ==�__. 7 F r • It X11 4 X14. 4L z€D City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 The project proposes the following amenities: • Business Center— guest access computer, fax, copy machine • Complimentary breakfast • In room wired or wireless high speed internet • Meeting rooms • Concierge desk • Snack shop • Fitness center • Laundry service • Pool • Reception lounge • Room service As listed above, the project proposes three Required Hotel Amenities (business center services, meeting rooms and complimentary breakfast) and six Additional Hotel Amenities (concierge desk, snack shop, fitness center, laundry service, pool, and reception lounge). Although the project does not propose all of the Required Hotel Amenities, it does propose three of the four Required Hotel Amenities and six of the ten Additional Hotel Amenities. Therefore, the proposed FAR of 0.89 by the project is consistent with and complies with the General Plan in terms of the amount of development allowed for the site and consistent with the Commercial land use designation. Zoning The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the C-3 Medium Commercial zone, including the building height. The height of the proposed five-story hotel is 67' 9" feet and is less than the 75-foot maximum height allowed for development in the C-3 zone. The project meets and complies with all other applicable development standards, including minimum lot area, minimum lot width/depth, and floor area ratio (FAR). Design Overlay The purpose of the design overlay zone is to promote orderly development so that buildings, structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or appearance or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other criteria affecting value.14 The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the precise development plan includes compatibility, architectural design and detail, landscape, lighting, parking, signs and other design details.15 The review and approval of the precise development plan in compliance with the design requirements of RMC Section 17.28.020 would ensure the project meets the City's design requirements for development in the Design Overlay Zone. 14 RMC 17.28.020. t5 RMC 17.28.020. Page 52 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 As stated above, the project is consistent with the Commercial land use designation, including the proposed 0.89 FAR due to the proposed Required and Additional Hotel Amenities for the project. Approval of the requested zone change to remove the P-D zone for the site and change the dual zone from C-31D-O and P-D to C-31D-O will allow the project to be consistent with the C-31D-O zone. The project is not anticipated to have any significant land use impacts. c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation plans since none exists on or adjacent to the project. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.10 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? 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ) designations for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to the State Mining and Geology Board,t6 the project site is within the MRZ-4 classification". As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City limits. There are no mining activities on either the site or the properties surrounding and adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region or residents of the state. b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 "a)" above, there are no locally important mineral resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact any locally important mineral resource. 16 Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties— Part II. Los Angeles County. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. 17 MRZ-4—There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation. Page 53 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact. 3.11 Noise 11 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 ground borne vibration or ground ❑ ❑ ® ❑ borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels existing without the project? 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 area to excessive noise levels? 3.11 NOISE A noise report was prepared for the project.18 The noise report is included in Appendix E. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in an urbanized area and adjacent to Glendon Way, which is a collector roadway adjacent to and north of the site and Ivar Avenue, an undivided roadway adjacent to and west of the site. A freeway (Interstate 10) is located approximately 40 feet south of the site. The existing noise levels on the site are due mostly to traffic on the adjacent roadways, the freeway to the south and the residential and commercial uses in the immediate vicinity. There is also noise generated by staff and members of the UFC Gym parking lot adjacent to and east of the site. However, noise from the gym parking lot is minimal. Noise Standards The City of Rosemead limits the amount of noise that crosses the boundary between two adjacent land uses. For regulated on-site sources of noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The [50 metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is 18 Noise Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn. City of Rosemead,California, Giroux&Associates, November 4,2016. Page 54 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 the noise level that is exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50`h percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time period. The City L55 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 45 dB at night(10 p.m. —7 a.m.). For commercial uses, the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. — 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. — 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses are shown in Table 12. In the event that the ambient noise level exceeds any of the noise standards, the standards shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. The standards in Table 12 apply to "stationary" sources of noise generation. For quasi- residential uses such as a motel, stationary noise generation is normally minimal. Mechanical equipment (HVAC or pool motors/heaters) is generally the only sources of noise affected by Code Section 8.36.060. Table 12 Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits (Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded) Residential Use Commercial Use Maximum Allowable 7 AM to 10 10 PM to 7 7 AM to 10 10 PM to 7 AM Duration of PM AM PM (Nighttime) Exceedance (Daytime) (Nighttime) (Daytime) 30 minutes/Hour 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB (L50) 15 minutes/Hour 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB (L25) 5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB 1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060 The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy equipment not allowed to operate from the hours of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays and cannot exceed 85 dB at any residential property line(8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays. Baseline Noise Levels Short-term on-site noise level measurements were recorded to document the existing baseline noise levels in the immediate project area. The existing noise levels serve as the basis to project future noise level exposure by the project to the adjacent surrounding community and noise from the immediate community on the project itself. Noise levels were recorded on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at approximately 3:15-3:30 p.m. at two locations. The locations of the noise measurement are shown in Figure 15 and summarized in Table 13 Page 55 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Figure 15 Noise Meter Locations .. t - L� � �'.�S �j t • � ':� ,_� .. , ��'�F"t -;4+,.a+� it gyp..' ' . ,41w _ _ . _ .,,---,• AMER, . . 111,111=‘ (- -- I \ \. A''. - i• of 1111121r-. CD \ - Millimit n - u ., ,t - , 1 `-s-: ,�,, i..di ,olhcersDonafaiR a p J '.1.1.1.1.0in 0,i.,, C - __ �Y , ,:, Goo,,le earth a , _ -....0 ..,.2 Si ', I. S-2 ,4 LSI-I a. ...i Ito Table 13 Measured Noise Levels (dBA) Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90 1 62 70 57 63 61 59 58 2 60 75 56 63 60 58 57 Noise Meter 1 represents the noise level that is expected to occur at the south side of the hotel facade that will be closest to Interstate 10 to the south. The ground noise levels of the proposed hotel will be somewhat protected from freeway noise due to the existing UFC Gym building and the U-Haul facility that are located off-site and southeast and southwest, respectively, of the proposed hotel. Measured ground-level noise readings are lower than the noise levels that are directly exposed to the freeway, including the upper level hotel rooms on the southern building facade, which may experience higher ambient noise levels. Past noise monitoring experience indicates that 24-hour weighted Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNELs) can be reasonably well estimated from mid-afternoon hour noise level readings. CNELs are approximately equal to afternoon hour Leq, plus a 2-3 dB increase Page 56 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 (Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 2009). The observed Leq of 62 dB at Meter 1 would translate into a CNEL of 64-65 dB at ground level. An additional 5 dB was added to be representative of the potential noise levels at rooms of the upper levels and the resultant noise loading could be as high as 70 dB CNEL at the hotel facade closest to the freeway. Noise Meter 2 was located at the northern area of the site, south of Glendon Way. Because noise Meter 2 is further from the freeway, the observed noise level was several dB lower than those observed at Meter 1. The City of Rosemead considers CNELs up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for exterior recreational use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Depending on the length of the setback for the hotel, acoustical mitigation could be required at some outdoor recreational space. However, because such space is anticipated to be located within a partly enclosed interior courtyard, neither the City's general plan exterior standard, nor the Code-required interior compliance threshold, are expected to represent a significant development constraint to the proposed project due to the existing noise levels. Future noise levels could increase if traffic volumes were to dramatically increase. However, the area is substantially built out. Any increase in freeway traffic volumes would be accompanied by more traffic congestion with slower/quieter travel speeds. No substantial difference in the existing and future noise levels due to traffic increases is anticipated at the site. Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts The long-term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) from the federal roadway noise model (FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). Table 14 summarizes the calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project area roadway segments. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; the existing conditions "with project" and "without project" and 2018 "with project" and "without project". Table 14 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline) 4 Segment Existing I Existing 2018 No 2018 With No With Project Project Project Project _ Glendon Way/ W of Site 62.4 62.5 62.5 62.6 E of Site 63.8 64.3 63.9 64.4 Rosemead Blvd/ Marshall-Glendon 71.5 71.5 71.6 71.6 S of Glendon 72.1 72.1 72.2 72.2 Ivar Ave/ S of Glendon 50.8 52.9 50.9 52.9 -10/ WB Off-Ramp 65.4 65.4 65.5 65.5 WB On-Ramp 66.7 66.8 66.8 66.9 EB On-Ramp 64.5 64.6 64.6 64.7 EB Off-Ramp 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.5 As shown in Table 14, the increase in noise levels due to project traffic in the opening year will not significantly increase. Because the project area is built out, the addition of project traffic to the area roadways will not significantly increase area noise levels. As shown, the Page 57 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 greatest project related traffic noise level increase is +2.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline on Ivar Avenue at the west side of the project. At this location, Ivar Avenue south of Glendon Way, the calculated noise level with the project is less than 53 dB (52.9 dB) CNEL and less than the City recommended compatibility guideline for sensitive use of 65 dB. The next largest traffic related noise level increase is +0.5 dB CNEL and occurs on Glendon Way adjacent to the project site. The remainder of the studied roadway segments shows no discernable increase in traffic noise levels due to project traffic. A cumulative noise level analysis comparing the future conditions with the project and cumulative projects is shown in Table 15. As shown, the maximum noise level increase with the project and cumulative project development is estimated to be +2.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline on Ivar Avenue, adjacent to the project. Table 15 Project-Related Noise Impact (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) Segment Project Project Cumulative Only Only 2018 Impact Existing Glendon Way/ W. of Site 0.1 0.1 0.2 E. of Site 0.5 0.5 0.6 Rosemead Blvd/ Marshall-Glendon 0.0 0.0 0.1 S. of Glendon 0.0 0.0 0.1 Ivar Ave/ S. of Glendon 2.1 2.1 2.2 1-10/ WB Off-Ramp 0.0 0.0 0.1 WB On-Ramp 0.2 0.2 0.3 EB On-Ramp 0.1 0.1 0.2 EB Off-Ramp 0.1 0.1 0.2 *May differ by +/-0.1 when in excel rounds down to a 10th of a decimal Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until there is a 3 dB difference in noise levels. As a result, a threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial increase." An increase of +3 dB CNEL in traffic noise would be considered a significant impact. Based on the information in Table 15, the maximum noise level increase by the project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +2.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Ivar Avenue. Because the cumulative noise level increase of +2.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Ivar Avenue is less than the 3 dB threshold, the cumulative noise level impact is less than significant. As shown in Tables 14 and 15, the project traffic noise levels will be less than significant. On-Site Exterior Traffic Exposure As discussed earlier, the existing UFC Gym and self-storage buildings located southeast and southwest of the site, respectively, will attenuate and provide some at-grade noise level reduction from freeway traffic. The only exterior recreational use is the swimming pool that is proposed at the southeast corner of the hotel. A 5'-6' wall is proposed around the swimming pool for safety and privacy. The proposed wall will reduce noise levels within the swimming pool area by approximately 5 dB. The resulting 60 dB CNEL at the swimming pool is within and meets the City's recommended exterior noise compatibility guidelines. Page 58 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 An interior noise level of CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards (for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms). Since normal noise attenuation within commercial structures with closed dual paned windows in modern construction is approximately 25-30 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 70-75 dB CNEL is normally the upper limit of desirable exterior noise exposure that can ensure the interior threshold is met. The upper level hotel units at the southern façade with a line-of-sight to the freeway south of the site may be exposed to the full freeway traffic noise impact with a noise level of approximately 70 dB CNEL. Therefore, an interior noise standard of 45 dBA will be achieved with the State requirement to install closed dual paned windows. The project will not be significantly impacted by area traffic noise. Mechanical Equipment (HVAC) Noise The mechanical equipment that is typically associated with a hotel includes heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. Noise generated by rooftop- mounted mechanical equipment varies significantly depending upon the equipment type and size. Based on mechanical equipment noise level measurements at similar hotels and commercial buildings and information from air conditioning and mechanical equipment manufacturers, noise levels of 54 dBA at 50 feet from the external mechanical systems can be anticipated for the project. At the nearest residence at a distance of 75 feet or more from the proposed hotel, noise levels are calculated to be 50 dBA. An additional -5 dBA is estimated for noise attenuation that will be provided by the proposed parapet wall around the roof mounted mechanical equipment resulting in an off-site residential noise level of 45 dB Leq or less. Therefore, the noise levels by the hotel mechanical equipment would be below both the City of Rosemead daytime and nighttime noise standards of 60 dB and 45 dB, respectively. The project applicant will be required by the City to submit engineering and acoustical specifications for the project mechanical equipment for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. The engineering and acoustical information will be required to demonstrate the proposed equipment design combined with the distance separation to the nearest residential use and/or screen walls will not exceed the City of Rosemead noise standards of 60 dB to any adjacent residential use. Parking Lot Noise The traffic report estimates the project will generate an afternoon peak hour traffic volume of 86 vehicle trips. Assuming 50 percent enters the site via Ivar Avenue and 50 percent via Glendon Way, both drive aisles could have 43 vehicles entering or leaving the site during the PM peak hour. This traffic volume would equate to a noise level of approximately 46 dB Leq, which is less than even the most stringent daytime noise standard of 60 dB. Non-peak hour project traffic volumes would be less than the peak hour traffic. Therefore, the traffic associated with the hotel parking is not of sufficient volume to exceed the City's current noise standards. Parking lot activities may be audible from time to time, but are generally not perceived as being loud. Parking lot noise at the nearest sensitive use is below the noise baseline such that people are unlikely to be aware that cars are entering or leaving the lot. The project is not anticipated to have any significant parking lot noise level impacts to adjacent residents. Page 59 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 On-Site Noise Generation The project proposes a passive residential use and will be primarily indoors. The primary noise sources to off-site land uses that would be of potential concern would be any changes with the activity within the parking lot. However, as discussed above, the activities associated with the use of the hotel parking lot and the noise levels associated with those activities will be minimal. The project is not anticipated to have any significant on-site noise level impacts and significantly adjacent residential or commercial uses. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains). Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in the movement of soil. The effects of ground-borne vibration include discernable movement of floors in buildings, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or wall hangings and rumbling sounds. Within the "soft" sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco)rather than to human annoyance. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically, particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB -threshold of human perception 72 VdB -annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events 100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage To determine the potential vibration impacts of the project's construction activities, estimates of the calculated vibration levels generated by the construction equipment that will be used by the project to construct the project at various distances are shown in Table 16. Page 60 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Table 16 Estimated Vibration Levels From Project Construction Activities Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)* Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 65 feet 100 feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 75 Loaded Truck 86 80 78 74 Jackhammer 79 73 71 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 46 *(Federal Transit Administration (FTA)Transit Noise&Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995) The piece of construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration during project construction is a large bulldozer. The vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for a large bulldozer is 81 VdBA at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibrational energy spreading loss, the vibration annoyance standard of 80 VdB for infrequent events is met at 56 feet. Effects of vibration perception such as rattling windows could only occur at the nearest residential structures and not exceed cosmetic damage thresholds. Large bulldozers will not likely operate directly at the property line. A landscaped area is proposed along the north project boundary. The closest residential use to the project is the residences north of Glendon Way and approximately 75 feet from the proposed hotel. At this distance, the calculated vibration levels will be less than 80 VdB. Other types of construction equipment that will be used on the site will generate vibration levels to area residents less than the vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer, which are determined to be less than the maximum annoyance level of 80 VdB. Based on the estimated vibration levels of the on- site construction equipment the project will have less than significant vibration impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 "a)" above, project generated noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the allowable noise levels. The City noise limits that are considered an acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown in Table 12. As shown in Table 14, the project generated traffic noise levels are not projected to increase significantly and impact area residents or businesses. Thus, the project will not significantly change or increase the existing levels of noise that exist on the site. The project will not have a substantial permanent increase in the existing (ambient) noise levels on or adjacent to the site. The potential noise impacts of the project will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the hotel and site improvements such as the parking lot, underground utilities, installation of landscaping, etc. Figure 16 shows the typical range of construction equipment noise during various construction phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Existing buildings and other noise barriers to interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential "noise envelope" around individual construction sites is reduced. The closest residents to the project are north of Glendon Way and approximately 75 feet from the proposed hotel. The Qiao Garden Hotel, which is under construction, is approximately 80 feet west of the site and west of Ivar Avenue. While it is unlikely that the heaviest piece of construction equipment, which in this case would be a large bulldozer, would operate at either the west or north property line, but if a large bulldozer did operate at the property line the City of Rosemead construction noise standard of 85 dB could be marginally exceeded for the time Page 61 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Figure 16 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Generation Levels Noise Level(dBA)at 50 Feet 70 80 90 100 Compactors(Rollers) Front Loaders a co Backhoes wE Tractors N co Scrapers,Graders Num o Pavers ToU Trucks to Concrete Mixers 3 = Concrete Pumps cL Cranes(Movable) C a) Cranes(Derrick) cr w Pumps c s Generators mimm a Compressors C Pneumatic Wrenches . 0 Jack Hammers and Rock Drills E '5 Pile Drivers(Peaks) Vibrator sommommo Saws Source: EPA PB 206717,Environmental Protection Agency,December 31,1971,`Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations° a large bulldozer operated at the west or north property line. For equipment operating closer to the center of the site, noise levels would be 10 dB lower because of attenuation of the noise level due to an increase in distance and would not exceed the 85 dB noise level. The Rosemead Noise Ordinance restricts the hours of construction. As a result, the use of all construction equipment, including heavy equipment, is not allowed to operate from the hours of 8 P.M. to 7 A.M.from Monday through Saturday and not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (RMC 8.36.030.A.3). Furthermore, construction is not permitted on Sunday or a federal Page 62 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 holiday. Compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction activity from 7 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday will reduce potential construction noise impacts to less than significant. e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents, employees or customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or impact operations at the El Monte Airport f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 "e" above. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.12 Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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? 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to construct a 123 room Hampton Inn & Suites on an existing surface parking lot. The project does not include the construction of any housing or other use that would directly or indirectly increase the population of Rosemead. The people that would be employed by the project are anticipated to commute from their current place of residence and not move specifically to Rosemead once employed by Hampton Inn. For the employees that do move to Rosemead once employed by the project, the number of people that relocate to Rosemead is not anticipated to significantly induce a substantial population growth in Rosemead, or any other surrounding area. The project will have a less than significant impact to the population of Rosemead. b) No Impact. The project site is a paved surface parking lot for the UFC Gym. There are houses on the site, thus no existing houses will be displaced by the project. The project will not displace any existing housing that necessitates the construction of replacement housing. c) No Impact. As noted in 3.12 "(b)" above, no existing houses will be removed from the site, thus no people will be displaced by the project. The project will not displace any people and require the construction of replacement housing. Page 63 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.13 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES a) Less Than Significant Impact. Los Angeles County Fire Department Fire provides fire protection services to the site. The project must meet and comply with all applicable California Building Codes (CBC) for a hotel. As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the Los Angeles County Fire Department. b)Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff's Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing surface parking lot, the project would increase calls for police protection due to the presence of the hotel and more activity on the site compared to existing condition. The incorporation of security measures, such as surveillance cameras, proper lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the increase in service calls to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The project will have less than significant impacts to the Sheriff Department. c) No Impact. The project is in the Garvey School District. The project will not directly generate students to the schools in the District. The District collects a development fee for commercial development, which includes the proposed project. The student impact fee is used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate the students generated by commercial development. The project developer will be required to pay the State mandated development fee to the District before a building permit is issued for construction. The payment of the required development fee will reduce any indirect student impacts. d) No Impact. The project will not increase the use of parkland in Rosemead by hotel guests or employees and impact existing parks. The project will not impact City parks. e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities. Page 64 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.14 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.14 RECREATION a) No Impact. As discussed in Section "3.13 d)" above, the project will not impact existing recreational facilities in Rosemead. b) No Impact. The project proposes a swimming pool that will be available for use by hotel guests. The proposed swimming pool is included in the design of the hotel and its construction will not have any physical impact on the environment. The project will not construct new or expand existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.15 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 65 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC A traffic report was prepared for the project.19 The traffic report is included in Appendix F. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate approximately 1,097 average daily vehicle trips, including 82 AM peak hour trips and 86 PM peak hour trips as shown in Table 17. Table 17 Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour S- lit Split ITE Land Use Unit Land Quantity RateDaily Rate In Out Rate In Out Code Hotel Occupied 310 123 8.92 0.67 58% 42% 0.70 49% 51% Rooms Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Volume Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out Total In Out Hotel 123 1,097 82 48 34 86 42 44 Total 1,097 82 48 34 86 42 44 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed in 2018. Baseline 20187 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by factoring existing 2016 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% and then adding traffic from future cumulative development projects in the area. The traffic report studied six intersections surrounding the site as shown in Figure 17. The following intersections are included in the study area for analysis: 1. Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue (1-way stop); 2. Glendon Way and 1-10 Westerly westbound On/Off Ramp (2-way stop); • 3. Glendon Way and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized); 4. Glendon Way and 1-10 Easterly westbound On/Off Ramp (1-way stop); 5. Marshall Street and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized); and 6. Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized). 19 Hampton Inn Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, CA, Stantec. October 5, 2016. Page 66 I pLLI vs 3 z .� LU —► �_ —� ® � o= I.L CD ,..,_ j ___ :-..1% —� cw CC Ln (:::i-,....-I O 7 f f rf x 11J 0 a. U- O O ID y o c40 O £ a o C a V > Q V H a) v CD _ rn o `c N 3 m G1 O. C Z �w d O �/. W O —� ® �— d' N N V/ v N 0 LL i r Cin. \��� • x � O O a zz 11 11o a o u r 3 0 z H �I O K m •I • < ii ,_- „,-,N < N f r v N 3 c - -O o 0 �W �w W� a� T CI. O O `\\ o O Z a p O > -C N \� EE N z 0 m 0 / a I O O O ONo HART AVE J �/ a a4 m eec ncr z >- _ lI 0 W J J ¢ O CO = W > (n (Y7 O w 4 3 j 0 0 0 M Q 0 N a)Hir O ©OSEMEAD BL I© Q Q H 0 N cza U N a cc c- -' F- Z o� CO v CC 0- _e_` 3 0 It.; d ¢ ZcsiIVARAVEo o v I 0z - h O C O Q z 021W _ J _I 1 N:. a s 1D -J L) Q. CO z O 4 \ m 4 ¢ cc O zi€11) City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 The traffic study evaluated the Level of Service (LOS) at the six intersections for both the Existing 2016 and the Baseline 2018 with project conditions using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and HCM operations methods for signalized intersections and the HCM operations method for the unsignalized intersections. The target level of service has been established by the City Rosemead as Level of Service D (or E for CMP intersection) based on ICU analysis. The project site will have three (3) driveways for ingress and egress as shown on the site plan: 1. Full-access driveway on Glendon Way located approximately 170 feet west of Ivar Avenue (proposed) 2. Full-access driveway on Ivar Avenue located approximately 240 feet south of Glendon Way (existing) 3. Full-access driveway on Ivar Avenue located approximately 450 feet south of Glendon Way (existing) Because the driveway at Glendon Way is the main access point and the other two driveways require additional turning movements to access the site, 60% of all project-generated trips are assigned to enter and exit the main driveway at Glendon Way and 40% of the trips are assigned to the two existing driveways on Ivar Avenue. Of those 40%, 30% are assigned to the north driveway and 10% to the south driveway. Trip Distribution and Assignment Figure 18 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated project traffic. As shown, twenty-five percent (25%) of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west, respectively, via the 1-10 Freeway. Fifteen percent (15%) of the traffic is assigned to/from the north via Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way/Muscatel Avenue. Moreover, twenty percent (20%) of project traffic is assigned to the south via Rosemead Boulevard. The in-bound trips originating from the 1-10 westbound have two route options to reach the site; exiting the 1-10 WB off-ramp and continuing west to the easterly outlet, passing through the intersections of Glendon Way/Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way/westerly 1-10 WB off-ramp to the site; or exiting the 1-10 WB off-ramp to the westerly outlet and turning left and continuing west on Glendon Way to the site. The latter route allows drivers to avoid waiting at two additional intersections before reaching the site, thus being the preferable route to the site. Thus, two-thirds (2/3) of the in-bound traffic trips coming from 1-10 WB are assigned to exit the westerly 1-10 WB off-ramp and a third (1/3) are assigned to the easterly 1-10 WB off- ramp. The third of the trips assigned to the easterly 1-10 WB off-ramp account for drivers that may be unaware of the more direct route or have mistakenly taken the wrong exit. Existing 2016 and Baseline 2018 Conditions As shown in Table 18, all of the six studied signalized and unsignalized intersections currently (2016) operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. The Baseline 2018 traffic condition without the project was also analyzed using an ambient traffic growth factor of 1% per year that was applied to the 2016 volumes along with cumulative traffic from other known development projects with traffic that would pass through the six study area intersections. As shown in Table 19, for the Baseline 2018 peak hour conditions without the project, all of the studied intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better with one exception. The one exception is the Valley Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard intersection, which is calculated to have an LOS of E (ICU of 0.91) during the AM peak hour. Page 68 iii 0 oo c w v ,� LU E. .Q ti) OLO t _LLn CC N o ° >- •i 0. �— H U ++ U l/1a) W •- ? \ RIO HONDO AVE a VI oaw Z Z C I-- zcn J 0 w H I— CI- HART AVE J Q I i-- mJ Q i a 4 6 Aer E, (n g W > cc O W ¢ R 2 c' lei ROSEMEAD BLVD N 0 r � c a 0 z Ln o < �� IVAR AVE m 1- W "J' IVAR AVE n o IVAR AVE 0 MUSCATEL AVE d / MUSCATEL AVE ID 4+ o LO m BARTLETT AVE a z 0 a c cx BURTON AVE v a 0 S WALNUT GROVE AVE ul Q colsc a cv t c -c a c Q , •Z'.); ry 2€D City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01,Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Table 18 Existing 2016- Study Area Intersections Level of Service without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections HCM ICU HCM , ICU Delay(sec.) LOS ICU LOS Delay(sec.) LOS i ICU LOS 3.Rosemead Blvd/Glendon Wov 14.0 B 0.74 C 15.6 3 0.78 C ----- 5.Rosemead Blvd/Marshall St 43.8 D 0.86 D 55.5 E 0.88 D -- 6.Rosemead Blvd/Valley Blvd 66.4 E 0.89 D 68.5 E 0.85 D AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections HCM HCM Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS 1.Ivor Ave/Glendon Way 0.5 - 0.8 A --- 2.1-10 WB On-Ramp/Glendon Way 11.0 3 13.0 B - 4.1-10 WB Off-Ramp/Glendon Way 1.9 A 2.7 A - Table 19 Baseline 2018 - Study Area Intersections Level of Service without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Signalized Intersections HCM ICU HCM ® ICU Delay(sec.) LOS ICU LOS Delay(sec.) LOS ICU LOS i 3.Rosemead Blvd/Glendon Way 15.0 B 0.75 C 16.5 B 0.79 C 5.Rosemead Blvd/Marshall St 51.2 D 0.87 D 56.1 E 0.89 D 6.Rosemead Blvd/Valley Blvd 69.1 E 0.91 E 71.3 7 0.86 D AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersections HCM HCM ___ Delay(sec.) LOS Delay(sec.) LOS 1.Ivor Ave/Glendon Way 0.5 ^. 0.8 A 2.1-10 WB On-Ramp/Glendon Way 11.2 3 13.7 B - 4.1-10 WB Off-Ramp/Glendon Way 1.9 A 2.7 A --- Existing 2016 with Project Conditions The LOS analysis for the existing 2016 with the project conditions are shown in Table 20. As shown, the existing 2016 condition with project traffic for the peak hour conditions all of the six studied area intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better based on ICU analysis of signalized intersection. While the intersections of Marshall Street/ Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard have an existing (2016) LOS of E and the addition of project peak hour trip volumes will increase this delay by no more than 1.37%, the current LOS E will not change due to the project. Figure 19 shows that the roadways surrounding the project are calculated to operate below their design capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the Existing 2016 conditions with the project. Page 70 y O 0 0 0 c> 0) m U o a m < a o V co o O O O O = = c Y Y C C C1 x M. y 0- 0 0 CO W W d y L V C '1 U (h m •N (.) u v Z. o 6xa) O ^ *O O _ 0, — h ' t 3 0 3 'O -0 y N O O U O o N O U Ci C� .O U x 0 a CO a L' W = ^O ,O P W p V =. ci O C . . ,yY Y 0 y x 0 o w U a 4 g • — = 0. V u >• x N 0 a) < P -6 >, •6 v .6 a a 'P '° 6 O a CD O U O a d o J to V O a m a a) CV O o V o 0 o c C d +' x = Y Y 0 -0 C a o V L a x C H L *0 m w w —,O a) d - u N 4' N C u m U U o ,. >, p ri ri O orS x N a -0 h h c_ Q) ,O ›, h vi % -O 0 L h N y N 3 Q > > C' O CI d 1:3 Ce y N 4 O CJ a a W C y.+ w 01 O , • V O a m a cc t . n m` V co ,rp O ci O Oo 0 0 -' 0.1c 00 > 0 m a w co c`c) N a on a. 4 o �'Z d XW U u r o — xI) 0 aD o m co c o Q a .c3)--▪ O a 2'a >,C > > 3 O C a > L H > c cU m- 0 no O 3 m R T -O -0 - 07 a o 0 0 c 3 - u) "0 -0 C 0 > c C6 C "0 O a. a. c E E E v "6 U > N N o O O C N m Z M Cr [e co C 0 0O 0 "0 C C .L C Ce O 0) E E E > m m o a N c a 3 3 >,E 0 0 0 o 0 0 U 2 ri vi -6 6 o rn 1/1 Q v w LJ `l O L 0 V ccU- O ra i HART AVE ~ L. V 0 IAa_ I— w ' H o a Q d' cc N V1 m z V Lu w Q •� Z Q = o m 0 Z > m o G. Z `-`J s o - 'O f\ _ o 0 0 eNS 0 N 0 ROSEMEAD BLVD _ °p ea O a _ > .o 01".::- a) U coo• o Q <- << / D -' H e o � > Q N IVAR AVE o a r- o ► o 0 O 3c LLJ •� M• =Z NO p U Ce C.. Lti Oa, O O } a_a) v v, N U Z }= o C m W .a a) Y E Z 0 a) D a 0 J D a) p v0 N Q c+3 00 '�Y i z •O U J Sz Q 2 J Zi€D c, City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hampton Inn and Suites-Conditional Use Permit 16-01. Design Review 16-02,Zone Change 16-01 Baseline 2018 with Project Conditions The LOS analysis for the Baseline 2018 with the project are shown in Table 21. As shown, all studied signalized intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as forecast for the Baseline 2018 condition, with the exception of the 1-10 westbound on-ramp at Glendon Way that will change from LOS B to LOS C during the PM peak hour. Baseline 2018 with Project Conditions The LOS analysis for the Baseline 2018 with the project are shown in Table 21. As shown, all studied signalized intersections will continue to operate at the same LOS as forecast for the Baseline 2018 condition, with the exception of the 1-10 westbound on-ramp at Glendon Way that will change from LOS B to LOS C during the PM peak hour. Study Area Intersections Level of Service All unsignalized study area intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better during peak hours, with the exception of the westerly 1-10 WB off-ramp outlet at Glendon Way that is calculated to operate at the desirable LOS C during the PM peak hour. Figure 20 shows that the roadways surrounding the site are calculated to operate below their design capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the Baseline 2018 with the project conditions. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Traffic signal warrant analysis were conducted for the three (3) non-signalized intersections within the study area, which includes Ivar Avenue/Glendon Way, westerly 1-10 westbound freeway ramp/Glendon Way, and easterly 1-10 westbound freeway ramp/Glendon Way. The traffic signal warrant analyses were calculated for the greatest traffic volumes and included the Baseline 2018 with the project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the studied intersections satisfied a warrant for signalization, with the exception of the Glendon Way/westerly 1-10 WB on- and off-ramp intersection during the PM peak hour. However due to the proximity of this intersection to the signalized Glendon Way/Rosemead Boulevard intersection, signalization of the Glendon Way/westerly 1-10 WB on- and off-ramp intersection is not considered feasible because it would inhibit progressive traffic flow. There are no special circumstances that exist at this intersection to indicate the need for signalization either with the existing or future forecast traffic conditions. Therefore, the traffic signal warrant analysis is not considered appropriate for the signalization of this intersection. This finding is supported by the desirable LOS B and C operating conditions that are calculated for the peak hours for both the existing and future with the project conditions. Traffic signal warrant analyses were also conducted for the three proposed project driveways. Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the project driveways require signalization. Page 73 a ael r. O U 0 0 °' 0) Rs N u O < U < a. a d 0 0 0 o p x x _le U oma. ox 1 N Q d w w d a V r : o ✓ ro ^ ,. • O x 0 _ 0 _T —• _ `" it ✓ N Q 0 0 Ol O I, 3 co a m N W o 4-4 y OJ U 0 N U c c N •0 a U 0 O Q m Q • L m ? = ^ ^N - m a ? o - O O O o x x Y 0 o--P-- 0 o U N d x Cll 0 m 0 w — U a 4 w .- » ,'f? a U ti _ - ��1Dx « 0 �y ✓ V P '� T T - v_J `O G21. O ' 0 a W 80 U 0 C) c J co N 1 U O < a < d r = i UP w 01 N m o - 0 0 0 0 L U U Y - c I- L - N m w w a x O 0 d -. a 6 N. U U O 6 f? c,",4 ie m •� - m w `r d r 'd ^ o L O p 'n O 3 Q N y p d N "0 =„„% N N Q' = 0 O U 0 w 0 a) m m o wo v' o l o 00 VS W m , oo - o 0 0 oo x x d co N 1 Y Y O N oP - g U v CD = i d N > a N N _ p n o 4 a � CO d ZN IUx _n N o. i. 6 - - 03 I0 6 • 0 N P W cy m o N d o °)c O � c 2 La -0 O N 0 0 c c 5.. 0 3 3 fn I := 3 N > 0 o O .p N U o 6 m 9 'O "O T C C N C N N N O N 2 e+�7 gg c c "SD > c C\ C E R N "6 > N o 0 0 D.) c N CO m m 6 0 a' d' O c c o 6 8 0 U O O m m • o N • a E E E < 3 3 O O O TE co U = vi 4 o — Ci v 0 O N Q N a, LU v E LU Lf) L1 O O > cc L U- O = >- 1 H HART AVE / N U- 4-• v IA w n- 4! H > o_ Q �O CC v=i CO I- Q i a z Z LL oJco J Q LL ui Q = O W _Z > CO 0 kO z W < i r"' — N O I sN a Ln N ca CONCU Q o0 11°'..o. -. >- 0 0. ROSEMEAD BLVD �0 \ 0 © i © � o (--) �� Zs I— ®\\\\Oco U � � O 8 re<) E. a Q � nIVAR AVE o O o a o O ` Z 3 ce w •Ln M C 0 -U c_ tri e 0 0 ;- , 0. 0 U v H N U 0 > O 1/4;e ' m LU 0 0 vr ? 0 z ' a v D c 0 , O "v vl > 0 i I h Q O' .-. ozs 0 c ^ 'a a .o O y a r a v 0 ° Z€D Queuing Analysis at Westerly 1-10 WB Ramps A queuing analysis was conducted at the on- and off-ramp movements at the westerly 1-10 WB ramps at the intersection of Glendon Way. A 2-hour PM peak period (4-6 PM, Tuesday, September 27, 2016) in-field observation study was conducted of the existing conditions. Based on this visual observation, there are no concerns with vehicles queuing at the westerly 1-10 WB on- and off-ramps. Only a PM peak period field review was required because traffic data shows greater ramp volumes during the PM peak period compared to the AM peak period. The PM peak period field observation for the more conservative PM peak hour period confirmed the maximum vehicle queue never exceeded the existing queuing capacity for either ramp. A SimTrafficTM simulation, generated from the SYNCHROTM model, also confirmed that maximum vehicle queues never exceeded queuing capacity, including with projected trip volumes. This is consistent with the SYNCHROTM analysis that shows the project queueing impact is calculated to be negligible. The project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service, or their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less than significant traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 "a)" above, the project is estimated to generate 1,097 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report used the opening year of 2018 as the traffic analysis baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and operational. The 2018 baseline traffic volumes were developed by factoring the existing 2016 traffic volumes with an ambient growth rate of 1%and traffic from two cumulative development projects in the project area. The 2018 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2018 traffic volumes shown in Figure 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic and traffic from the two identified cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 "a" above, the project will not have any significant traffic impacts, which includes cumulative project traffic. All area intersections will continue to operate at City acceptable levels of service with the project and the cumulative projects. In addition to the Rosemead General Plan, the standards and requirements of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) provides the basis for evaluating the potential for project traffic impacts within Rosemead. For purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when a proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (v/c> 0.02), causing LOS F (v/c> 1.00) and if the facility is already LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity(v/c> 0.02). The Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard intersection is currently identified as a County CMP intersection. This intersection does not meet the criteria for a significant impact by the project, including cumulative traffic, for either the existing 2016 or the Baseline 2018 with project conditions. Therefore, the project will not have a significant cumulative traffic impact to the County CMP. The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, individually or cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less than significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that will serve the project. Page 76 c) No Impact. There are no existing bus stops on either Glendon Way or Ivar Avenue adjacent to the site. Therefore, the project will not impact any existing bus stops adjacent to the site. The project does not propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project frontage on Glendon Way or Ivar Avenue. The project proposes to install 20 bicycle stalls as a viable alternative for the use of motor vehicles and exceeds the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC 12.32.030 B.) requirement of five bicycle stalls for the project. Thus, the project exceeds the number of required bicycle stalls by 15 spaces. The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by provided 15 bicycle parking stalls more than required by the City. d) No Impact. Ingress and egress for the project will be served by the existing adjacent streets, which includes Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The main project driveway is from Glendon Way. Two additional driveways, which currently exist, are located on Ivar Avenue along the west project boundary. All three driveways will provide full vehicle ingress and egress to the site. The project does not propose to change or modify any of the existing driveways that will serve the project or other existing features to the adjacent streets that would create a traffic hazard. As discussed in Section 3.15 "a)" above, traffic signal warrants were conducted for the three project driveways. Based on the traffic signal warrants, none of the project driveways requires signalization. On-Site Circulation The three project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured for the project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building permit will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must meet City design standards before issuance of a building permit. Based on the traffic analysis, the project will not substantially increase any hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The project will not have any significant traffic hazard impacts. e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 "d" above, the project proposes three separate full service driveways for motor vehicle access into and out of the site. The main full service driveway is located at Glendon Way and two additional existing driveways are located along Ivar Avenue along the west project boundary. All three driveways provide full site access for emergency vehicles, including the police and fire departments and other emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an on-site emergency. The driveways will be required to meet City driveway standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project does not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The site plan was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles County Fire Department to ensure that site access complies with all emergency access standards. Based on site plan review by the City's Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles County Fire Department, the project will not have any significant emergency access impacts. f) No Impact. The project proposes 125 parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, 5 recreational vehicle spaces and 5 handicap spaces. The City Page 77 parking code requires a total of 125 spaces. The project meets the number of parking spaces required by the City. The project also proposes 20 bicycle stalls to encourage the use of bicycles by project employees. As required by RMC 12.32.030 B., the proposed 20 bicycle stalls exceeds the City's requirement of five bicycle spaces by 15 spaces. The project meets the parking requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any parking impacts. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact 3.16 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? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste? 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) No Impact. The project will not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be required to connect to the same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves the area and will not generate a quality of wastewater that will impact the ability of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Page 78 Angeles County wastewater treatment facility to not meet the wastewater discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact wastewater treatment requirements. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more wastewater than the existing surface parking lot. The project is estimated to consume approximately 18,450 gallons of water per day and 15,375 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 22 and 23, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by existing water and wastewater facilities and construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities will not be required. The project will be required to install State mandated low flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The project will not require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly environmental impacts. Table 22 Estimated Project Water Consumption Use Units/Employees Consumption Rate Consumption Hotel 123 rooms/ 6 150 gallons/room/day 18,450 gallons/day employees Total 18,450 gallons/day Table 23 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation ' " nits/Sq. Ft. Generation Rate20 Generation Hotel 123 rooms 125 gallons/day/room 15,375 gallons/day Total 15,375 gallons/day c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 "a", the project will not generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The project will not be required to construct any new off-site storm drain or surface water collection facilities. The first 3/4" of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and discharged to two on- site dry wells in the surface parking lot and the landscaping area at the southwest corner of the site. The two dry wells will treat the first 3/4" of rainfall and allow the collected runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. The project is estimated to generate approximately 0.17 cfs of surface less than the existing condition. Because the project will generate less off-site storm water flows than the existing condition, the project will not require the construction of any storm water facilities and have a less than significant impact to storm drain facilities. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed daily by hotel guests and hotel operations, which includes landscape irrigation. The installation of State required low flow water fixtures for hotels will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on-site. The project will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or expanded water supplies. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate wastewater to the local sewer collection system. The project site can be served by an 8-inch sewer line in Glendon Way. This existing sewer line has capacity to serve the project. The project will be required to install 20 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No.22, Service Charge Loadings,July 1, 2014-June 30,2014. Page 79 State mandated low-flow water fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat the wastewater generated by the project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate approximately 161 tons per year of solid waste based on a rate of 7.17 pounds/day/room.21 The solid waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Landfill. Solid waste collection will be required to conform to RMC Chapter 8.32 Garbage and Rubbish Disposal in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures, screening, etc. The project is not anticipated to have any significant solid waste impacts. g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have no solid waste regulation impact. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Environmental Issues Impact Mitigation Impact Impact• 3.17 Mandato Findin •s of Si • nificance _ 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 impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects ❑ ❑ ® ❑ on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or 21 2014 Generator Based Characterization of Commercial Sector Disposal and Diversion in California, CalRecycle, Contractor's Report Produced under Contract By, Cascadia Consulting Group, September 10,2015. Page 80 endangered plant or animals exist on the site. The project will not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any plant communities because no native plants or animals exist on the property. As discussed in Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory or substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. The project will not have any biological or cultural resource impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that have the potential to contribute to significant cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, air quality, noise. traffic, public service or public utility impacts. The project will not have any significant cumulative considerable impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or expose people to significant environmental effects. The development of the project as proposed will not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects directly or indirectly on human beings. Page 81 4.0 REFERENCES 1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2010 2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code 3. Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, Rosemead, California, Giroux & Associates, November 1, 2016. 4. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Commercial Development, 3520 Ivar Avenue, APN 5390-018-037, Rosemead, California, Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultants, March 4, 2016. 5. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at Proposed Commercial Development at 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead California, Quartech Consultants, October 5, 2016. 6. Hydrology Study/LID Plan for Hotel, 3520 Ivar Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, October 12, 2016. 7. Noise Impact Analysis, Hampton Inn, City of Rosemead, California, Giroux & Associates, November 4, 2016. 8. Hampton Inn Traffic Impact Study, Rosemead, CA, Stantec, October 5, 2016. Page 82 111111P1: 7:: MF CIC '41 141CORPAn AQ54 Attachment D Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM HAMPTON INN and SUITES • Conditional Use Permit 16-01 Design Review 16-02 Zone Change 16-01 Iry I" O t,- 1 N Aft ;11111.01Y�t lfI The ."11•04110.1 Preparedfor. The City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 569-2100 Prepared by. Phil Martin&Associates,Inc. 4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203 Irvine, California 92620 (949) 454-1800 February 27, 2017 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 Introduction This is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Hampton Inn and Suites project. It has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 which, among other things, states that when a governmental agency adopts or certifies a CEQA document that contains the environmental review of a proposed project, "The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation." The City of Rosemead is the lead agency for the project, and is therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements that will be enforced during project implementation and prior to final approval of the project. 1.2 Project Overview The project includes a proposed Conditional Use Permit 16-01, Design Review 16-02 and Zone Change 16-01 to allow the construction of a five-story Hampton Inn and Suites hotel with 123 guest rooms and 125 parking spaces, including 95 standard spaces, 20 compact spaces, 5 RV spaces, 5 handicap spaces and 20 bicycle spaces on approximately 1.83-acres. 1.3 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures This MMRP includes the following information: (1) mitigation measures that will either eliminate or lessen the potential impact from the project; (2) the monitoring milestone or phase during which the measure should be complied with or carried out; (3) the enforcement agency responsible for monitoring mitigation measure compliance;and (4) the initials of the person verifying the mitigation measure was completed and the date of verification. The MMRP will be in place through all phases of a project including project design (preconstruction), project approval, project construction, and operation (both prior to and post- occupancy). The City will ensure that all monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Each mitigation measure is listed and categorized by impact area,with an accompanying discussion of: • The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored; ❑ Project review and prior to project approval ❑ During grading or building plan check review and prior to issuance of a grading or building permit Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration Fcbruary 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 2 0 ❑ On-going during construction ❑ Throughout the life of the project • The enforcement agency;and • The initials of the person verifying completion of the mitigation measure and date. The MMRP is provided as Table 1 (Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program). • Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 3 Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance Aesthetics 1. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit the project applicant shall issuance of a Rosemead submit a lighting plan for approval by building Building the Planning Division that incorporates permit. Department Initial any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more- Date precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies •A combination of the above. Air Quality 2. During construction, the contractor Prior to the City of shall apply water three times daily, or start of Rosemead non-toxic soil stabilizers according to construction Building manufacturers' specifications, to all and on-going Department Initial unpaved parking or staging areas, during unpaved road surfaces, and active construction. construction areas. Date Cultural Resources • Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 4 • Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 3. The project developer shall retain a Prior to the City of qualified professional archaeologist start of Rosemead who meets U.S. Secretary of the excavation Building Interior's Professional Qualifications activities Department Initial and Standards, to conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to Date commencement of excavation activities. The training session shall be carried out by a cultural resources professional with expertise in archaeology, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The training session shall include a handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event,the duties of archaeological monitors, and, the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 1-lampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 5 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 4. In the event that archaeological On-going City of resources are unearthed during ground- throughout Rosemead disturbing activities, ground-disturbing construction Building activities shall be halted or diverted Department Initial away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be Date established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 6 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Compliance Measure No. Milestone Agency 5. The project developer shall retain a On-going City of qualified professional archaeologist, during Rosemead who meets the U.S. Secretary of the construction Building Interior's Professional Qualifications Department Initial and Standards to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to Date determine if construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed or have a high probability to expose archaeological artifacts construction monitoring for Archaeological Resources shall be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications and Standards. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill younger Pleistocene alluvial sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors.The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 7 1 • Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 6. The archaeological monitor, under the Once on-site City of direction of a qualified professional archaeological Rosemead archaeologist who meets the U.S. monitoring is Building Secretary of the Interior's Professional completed Department I nirial Qualifications and Standards, shall prepare a final report at the conclusion of archaeological monitoring. The Date report shall be submitted to the project developer, the South Central Costal Information Center, the City, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. The report shall include a description of resources unearthed, if any, evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register and CEQA, and treatment of the resources. 7. The.project developer shall retain a Prior to the City of professional paleontologist,who meets start of Rosemead the qualifications set forth by the excavation Building Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to activities Department Initial conduct a Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation Date activities. The training will include a handout and will focus on how to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities, and the procedures to be followed in such an event; the duties of paleontological monitors; notification and other procedures to follow upon discovery of resources; and, the general steps a qualified professional paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration Pebruary 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 8 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 8. The project developer shall retain a On-going City of professional paleontologist, who during Rosemead meets the qualifications set forth by the construction Building Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Department Initial shall conduct periodic Paleontological Spot Checks beginning at depths below six (6) feet to determine if bare construction excavations have extended into the Miocene Puente Formation or into Pleistocene older alluvial deposits. After the initial Paleontological Spot Check, further periodic checks will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist. If the qualified paleontologist determines that construction excavations have extended into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits, construction monitoring for Paleontological Resources will be required. The project developer shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The paleontological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g.,grading,trenching,or clearing/grubbing) into the Puente Formation or into older Pleistocene alluvial deposits. Multiple earth- moving construction activities may require multiple paleontological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known paleontological resources and/or unique geological features, the maturgls being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of paleontological resources and/or unique geological features encountered. Full-time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the qualified professional paleontologist. Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 9 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 9. In the event that paleontological On-going City of resources and/or unique geological during Rosemead features are unearthed during ground- construction Building disturbing activities, ground-disturbing Department Initial activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A Date buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue until appropriate paleontological treatment plan has been approved by the Applicant and the City. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. The project developer and the City shall coordinate with a professional paleontologist, who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. Treatment may include implementation of paleontological salvage excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis or preservation in place. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. 10. Upon completion of the above Once on-site City of activities, the professional paleontological Rosemead paleontologist shall prepare a report monitoring is Building summarizing the results of the completed Department Initial monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils I)are collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted to the project developer,the City,the Natural History Museums of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures. Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 10 Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Enforcement Verification of Measure No. Milestone Agency Compliance 11. If human remains are unearthed during On-going City of implementation of the project, the City during Rosemead of Rosemead and the project developer construction Building shall comply with State Health and Department Initial Safety Code Section 7050.5. The City of Rosemead and the project developer shall immediately notify the County Date Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-SCCIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD,or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision(k)of Section 5097.94,if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. Geology and Soils 12. Prior to the issuance of a building Prior to the City of permit, the project shall be designed issuance of a Rosemead for a peak acceleration value of 0.950 building permit. Building Initial as recommended in the geotechnical Department engineering investigation and approved by the City Engineer. Date Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 11 Hydrology and Water Quality 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading Prior to the City of permit, the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead submit a Standard Urban Stormwater grading permit. Building Mitigation Plan to the City for Department Initial approval. All applicable erosion control measures including Best Management Practices to reduce Darc erosion and minimize water quality impacts during grading and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water quality impacts. 14. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Prior to the City of occupancy the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead install a surface storm water collection certificate of Building system to collect and treat the first 3/4" occupancy. Department Initial of surface water runoff from the site as approved by the City Engineer. Darc 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Prior to the City of occupancy the project developer shall issuance of a Rosemead install a dry well system with capacity certificate of Building to filter the first 3/4" of project occupancy. Department Initial generated storm water prior to its discharge into Ivar Avenue. Dare Hampton Inn and Suites-Mitigated Negative Declaration February 27,2017 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Page 12 is M F O 1 CIVIC PRIDE /�C(3RPpRqTED (;g9 Attachment E Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 6, 2017 sow ° 5E MF 9 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION .6?* STAFF REPORT CIVIC PRIDE tf /NCORPORATED`0g9 TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: MARCH 6, 2017 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 8900 GLENDON WAY Summary Ivar Eagle, LLC has submitted entitlement applications to construct a new five—story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms. The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. The project proposes to provide 125 parking spaces. New landscaping will be provided along the northern, western, and southern project boundaries to buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A three-foot tall block wall and landscaping will be constructed along the eastern project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC Gym and its parking lot adjacent to and east of the site. The hotel is proposed to be 67'-9" in height. The property is located at 8900 Glendon Way (southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way) in a Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay (C-3/D-O) and a Planned Development (P-D) zone. Environmental Analysis The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant environmental impacts, unless mitigated; therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 2 of 51 A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 30-day public review and comment period from February 3, 2017 to March 6, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA guidelines, is attached to this staff report for your review. If the Commission recommends this project to the City Council for approval, then the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment and recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. It is anticipated that the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the environmental impacts of the project to a "less than significant" level. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-04 with findings (Exhibit "A"), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10 (attached as Exhibit "B") approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 (attached as Exhibit "C") approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "E") and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "F"). Property History and Description The subject site is located north of the Interstate 10 (1-10) Freeway, just west of Rosemead Boulevard, on the southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The project area consists of one parcel totaling approximately 1.83 acres. The site is currently developed as an asphalt paved surface parking lot. Glendon Way - - r - •" ... D • X. SUBJECT LOT MEE UFC GYM a • Aerial View of Project Site i Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 3 of 51 As illustrated in the aerial view of the project site, the subject lot is adjacent to the UFC Gym lot. Historically, the subject lot and the UFC Gym lot were operated as one business. However, in 2005, a Lot Line Adjustment was completed to create a new lot (subject lot), which totals approximately 1.83 acres. This lot was then sold to a different owner. There is an existing recorded Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements between both lots, which imposes certain restrictions on the development and use of the parcels and provides for maintenance and control of easements for the benefit of the property owners of both lots. 111111111111111111111 immiairv...,*.,:., ..,-...' _ • .2� _ app __ _ _ �,�._. _- North View Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the Zoning Map, it is a single lot designated as both C-3/D-O and P-D, however, there are no City records on why the subject lots were classified as dual zoning The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use: Residential South General Plan: I-10 Freeway Zoning: I-10 Freeway Land Use: 1-10 Freeway Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 4 of 51 East General Plan: Commercial Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) Land Use: Commercial West General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-3/D-0 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) Land Use: Commercial Project Description The applicant is proposing to construct and operate a new five-story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms totaling 71,250 square feet. The hotel will be operational twenty-four (24) hours a day, 7 days a week with a maximum of six employees per shift. The project will require the demolition of the existing surface parking lot and other site improvements to allow the construction of the hotel. The hotel is proposed to include a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. Complimentary breakfast will be provided for hotel guests. There will be seven rooms on the first floor, along with an office, hotel lobby, breakfast area and snack shop with twenty-nine hotel rooms on each of the floors 2 through 5. The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces including 95 standard spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV spaces, five handicap spaces as well as 20 bicycle spaces. Design Review 16-02 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior façade or landscaping. The proposed project is located in a Design Overlay zone, therefore, a Design Review shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.16.020.1, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish a hotel use in the C-3 zone. Zone Change 16-01 Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.020, amendment to the City's Zoning Map may be initiated by the Planning Commission or the City Council, whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action. In 1967, the City Council adopted Ordinance 199 (attached as Exhibit "E") approving Zone Change 25. Zone Change 25 reclassified all R-1, R-3, and R-3-D zones within the highlighted area (outlined yellow) in Figure 1 (below) to P-D. The C-3/D-O zone within such area was not affected by Zone Change No. 25. As described in Ordinance 199, Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 5 of 51 Lot 19 and the western 40 feet of Lot 20 remained as C-31D-O. Zone Change 25 created the dual zone of the subject property as illustrated in Figure 2. To resolve the dual zone classification, the applicant is requesting the Zone Change. City Staff supports this Zone Change as it is consistent with good zoning practice and will resolve an issue that should not have existed in the first place. Zone Change 16-01 will amend the Zoning Map by eliminating the dual zone classification from C-3/D-O and P-D to a single zone classification of C-3/D-O. MARSHALL . I ST. —j'_j GteIO71'Thy n _ 1 _ __ - 1 + I gig, o M i b/S AJ:I. W its i � 7odeA 6C 11) 12'5,.' N - O s CC = Subject Site 'C .-0 • ' i .': APN:5390-018-037 GLENI ON WAY 17''. i) of 0. 1 Q 4S• Al .C' 46 A7 77% i9 . 6 `x iQi $- ,,,,jl:s 1 1 0 . yt 7I – ki- - -- 35 3! .. . Z !7 56 P, G.,.. it D \ E. ' RAMONA BLVD. ul ' Figure 1 Figure 2 Development Standards Staff has verified that the proposed hotel would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code, as demonstrated in the following table: Development Required Proposed Feature Lot Size 39,000 s.f. (minimum) 79,813 s.f. Lot Width 100 feet(minimum) 167 feet Lot Coverage 40%(maximum) 19% Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 6 of 51 Floor Area Ratio 1.0:1 (maximum allowed with incorporation of required hotel 0.89:1 (FAR) amenity standards) Front Setback Zero 15 feet Side Street None Zero to Ten feet Setback Rear Setback Zero >300 feet Height 75 feet(maximum) 67'-9" One space per guest room plus applicable requirement for Parking additional uses, plus one space per three employees 125 parking spaces 123(guest rooms)+2 (6 employees) = 125 parking spaces Hotel Specific Required Proposed Requirements Number of 50 123 Rooms Floor Area Per Guest Room 400 s.f. (minimum) >400 s.f. Landscape Ten Percent of Gross Lot Area 19%(14,985 s.f) 79,813 X 10%=7,981 s.f. Hotel Amenity Standards Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.30.130(C)(4)(a) and 17.30.130(C)(4)(b), the FAR of a hotel or motel development must be consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan. Hotels located in the Commercial or High Intensity Commercial land use designation in the General Plan may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if the projects meet the required hotel amenities and a minimum of two additional hotel amenities identified in Table 17.30.110.2. Required Amenities Hotel Proposed Business Center Service* Required ✓ Complimentary breakfast Required In-room wired or wireless high speed internet Required Additional Amenities: Multi-function ballroom/meeting rooms Optional Restaurant or bar or lounge Optional ✓ Concierge desk Optional Convenience store/snack shop Optional Daycare services Optional Day spa/salon Optional Fitness Center Optional ,/ Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 7 of 51 Florist or gift shop Optional Laundry Service Optional Pool or spa/Jacuzzi Optional J Room Service Optional J Self-service laundry Optional Valet Parking Optional Proposed Floor Plan The first floor plan includes a lobby, concierge desk, breakfast area, swimming pool, kitchen, fitness center, meeting room for hotel guests, business center, laundry room, restrooms, employee break room, offices, and seven guest rooms. The second through fifth floor plans include 29 guest rooms. As illustrated on the floor plan (attached as Exhibit "G"), there are five types of guest rooms (King Suite, Double Queen, King Studio, Accessible King Suite, and Accessible King Studio). Proposed Landscaping and Fencing: A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "G." New landscaping is proposed throughout the site. Landscaping is shown in the form of perimeter planting areas and landscaped islands within the surface parking lot areas. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. New decorative perimeter block walls are proposed along the east and west property lines. Parking and Circulation Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV parking spaces, and five handicapped parking spaces. In addition, the proposed project will also include 20 bicycle parking spaces. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Stantec, dated December 21, 2016, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: 1. Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue (1-way stop); 2. Glendon Way and 1-10 Westerly westbound On/Off Ramp (2-way stop); 3. Glendon Way and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized); 4. Glendon Way and 1-10 Easterly westbound On/Off Ramp (1-way stop); 5. Marshall Street and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized); and 6. Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard (Signalized). Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 8 of 51 Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Proposed Architecture: The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Lighting New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. A photometric study was completed by the applicant. The photometric analysis shows that the project will have sufficient levels of exterior lighting at the hotel entrance, public sidewalks, open space areas, and throughout the parking lot. For this reason, the Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a lighting mitigation measure, which states: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing measures as applicable: • Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control and/or different lighting distribution. • Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures. • Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures. • Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies • A combination of the above." Soils Report The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site as one subject to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 9 of 51 site, as well as any future structures, are subject to the consequences of liquefaction. For this reason, a soils report was prepared for this project by Cal Land Engineering, Inc. The City's independent geotechnical and engineering geology consultants have reviewed the report and have deemed it acceptable. On August 3, 2016, the report was sent to the State Department of Conservation. Municipal Code Requirements Design Review Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade or landscaping. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C), the Planning Commission where authorized, may approve may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application based on the following criteria: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. or Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 10 of 51 C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a new hotel development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building facade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 11 of 51 E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D-O zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and lvar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV parking spaces, and five handicapped parking spaces. New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Conditional Use Permit Per Rosemead Municipal Code Table 17.16.020.1, a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish a hotel use in the C-3 zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.132.040, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall also find that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use so applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 12 of 51 working in the neighborhood thereof, not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. All of the following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit: A. Approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed use will not be incompatible or injurious to the other properties as a hotel is a use that may be conditionally permitted within the C-3 zone. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as traffic, noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D-O zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 13 of 51 the Rosemead Municipal Code. D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design Guidelines in the overlying district. The subject site is not located in an overlying district with Design Guidelines. However, the proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 14 of 51 Zone Change Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the Official Zoning Map may be approved only if all the following findings are first made: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed amendment is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. The proposed amendment is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The subject site is currently zoned C- 31D-O and P-D. The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C-3/D-O. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The proposed amendment is physically suitable for the subject site as a portion of the site is already zone C-3/D-O. Staff has verified that the proposed hotel would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for Planning Commission Meeting March 6,2017 Page 15 of 51 the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On February 2, 2017, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. Prepared by: Submitted by: P ,AA Li/I/tit/0, 4' tit. Lily T. Valenzuela Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-04 B. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2017-10 C. Draft Ordinance 972 D. Project Conditions of Approval E. Ordinance 199 F. Mitigated Negative Declaration G. Mitigation Monitoring Program H. Site Plan/Floor Plan/Elevations fir. .0.1111111111111.1117 E M F Aktit.:.,1 O CIVIC PRIDE ill :H11111..1 - . ,H �1�.rt�� CbRPORpTEp ,C;')‘4 1 Attachment F Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-04 7 ` PC RESOLUTION 17-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16- 02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HAMPTON INN & SUITES WITH 123 GUEST ROOMS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8900 GLENDON WAY IN A C-3/D-O AND A P-D ZONES (APN: 5390-018-036). WHEREAS, on February 24, 2016, Ivar Eagle, LLC submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a new Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms, located at 8900 Glendon Way; and WHEREAS, 8900 Glendon Way is located in a C-31D-O and a P-D zones; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(A)(1) and 17.28.020(C) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 provides the criteria for a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 provides the criteria for amendments to the Official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Rosemead Municipal Code Sections 17.28.020(C) and 17.132.040 authorizes the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the Design Review or Conditional Use Permit applications; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.040 and 17.152.060 authorizes the Planning Commission provide a written recommendation and reasons for the recommendation to the City Council whether to approve, approve in modified form, or deny the Zone Change application; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed project was completed finding that the proposed project would have a less than significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, in accordance with the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, and local environmental guidelines; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, twenty-three (23) notices were sent to property owners within a 300-feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in six (6) public locations, on-site, published in the Rosemead Reader, and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 16-02, Conditional Use Permit 16- 1 01, and Zone Change 16-01, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 16-02, Conditional Use Permit 16-01, and Zone Change 16-01; 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 makes a finding of adequacy with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental clearance for Design Review 16-02, Conditional Use Permit 16-01, and Zone Change 16-01. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 16-02 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C) as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; FINDING: The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. The proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. B. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; FINDING: To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the 2 timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; FINDING: The proposed project will improve the aesthetics of the corner by establishing a new hotel development of high architectural quality. The improvements to the site will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of the intersection of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; FINDING: The property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan or land reserved for public or educational use, so there is no special need to create harmony with the general area. Notwithstanding this, the approved design will create a development that is an aesthetic upgrade over the surrounding area and that has the potential to enhance land values in the general area. This is due to the proposed new building façade with higher quality materials, a design that blends better with the area, and greatly improved landscaping and parking lot area. 3 E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-31D-O zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaires and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: Access to the site will be provided via two driveways along Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue. The subject site will have a total of 125 surface parking spaces, which includes 95 standard parking spaces, 20 compact spaces, five RV parking spaces, and five handicapped parking spaces. New exterior lighting is proposed for the property. New wall mounted fixtures will be placed along the front, side, and rear of the building. New light standards will be installed in the parking lot area. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. The proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off- white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. As proposed, the project will not negatively change the appearance of the surrounding built environment. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Conditional Use Permit 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.132.040 as follows: A. Approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare; FINDING: The proposed use will not be incompatible or injurious to the other properties as a hotel is a use that may be conditionally permitted within the C-3 zone. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed use project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental 4 Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures. The applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in Staff's determination will improve the aesthetics of the intersection. All new lighting will be fully shielded and directed downwards to mitigate glare on adjacent properties. Conditions of approval have been incorporated to eliminate adverse effects on the environment as a result of the proposed project. This development will not generate any permanent impacts to noise levels for the surrounding area. All construction work will be required to comply with the timeframe, and decibel levels indicated in the City's Noise Ordinance. Conditions of approval will specifically address factors such as traffic, noise, construction hours, screening of mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, and the overall maintenance of the property. B. The use is consistent with the General Plan; FINDING: The proposed development is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. C. The use is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code; FINDING: This proposed development meets all of the code requirements for the C-3/D-O zone, hotel specific requirements, and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code. D. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and The City of Rosemead acting as a Lead Agency, has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Initial Study has been undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was prepared and completed by Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., acting as a consultant to the City, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Rosemead has concluded that the project would have significant impact, unless mitigated, therefore a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City as a lead agency per CEQA Guidelines. The project 5 site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The proposed project is not considered a project of statewide, regional or area-wide significance and would not affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation. E. If development is provided for under the Conditional Use Permit, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the applicable standards and Design Guidelines in the overlying district. FINDING: The subject site is not located in an overlying district with Design Guidelines. However, the proposed design of the hotel is consistent with the contemporary design of the Hampton Inn and Suites. The applicant proposes to apply various types of materials to the exterior walls of the commercial building to break-up the building's profile. According to the colored renderings, which will be available to view at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a mixture of earth toned exterior smooth stucco finish throughout all building elevations. The building cornice will be smoothly finished in an off-white color. Shades of brown colored stone veneer will be incorporated into the entry treatment and porte cochere. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate 1/2" horizontal reveals along all elevations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the Goal 2, Policy 2.7 of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for establishing and applying architectural design review to new commercial development. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Zone Change 16-01 in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060 as follows: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; FINDING: The proposed amendment is located within a Commercial land use designation. Per the Land Use Element of the General plan, businesses in Rosemead's commercial districts contribute substantially to the City's tax revenue. For this reason, a hotel may be developed up to a maximum permitted FAR of 1.0:1 if their projects include higher design standards. In addition, Goal 2 of the Land Use Element aims to expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community. The proposed amendment is not located in a specific plan area. B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and FINDING: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The subject site is currently zoned C- 3/D-0 and P-D. The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by 6 changing the subject site to only C-3/D-O, because it promotes good zoning practices. The City has completed an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project pursuant to Section 15070(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document is intended to be used by the City to evaluate the project's environmental impacts, if any, to less than a significant level. To ensure that the surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) specifically addresses mitigation measures C. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. FINDING: The proposed amendment is physically suitable for the subject site as a portion of the site is already zone C-3/D-O. Staff has verified that the proposed hotel would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. In addition, a traffic impact study was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon six nearby intersections. Based on the traffic study, the project traffic will not cause any of the six studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity. The project will have less-than signification traffic impacts to the six studied area intersections. The City Engineer and City's Traffic Consultant has reviewed the traffic study and finds it acceptable and the study has been relied on in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Design Review 16-02, Conditional Use Permit 16-01, and Zone Change 16-01 for the construction of a Hampton Suites & Inn, subject to the Conditions of Approval. SECTION 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: DANG AND LOPEZ NOES: TANG ABSTAIN: ENG ABSENT: HERERRA 7 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 6th day of March, 2017. Daniel Lopez, Chair 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 61h day of March, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: DANG AND LOPEZ NOES: TANG ABSTAIN: ENG ABSENT: HERERRA G Michelle Ramirez, Se APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory M. Murphy, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 8 E M 7S Q 1 Q i O CIVIC PRIDE !Pt/ /NCOPORATED '"''4 Attachment G Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes dated March 6, 2017 • Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Tang INVOCATION—Vice-Chair Dang ROLL CALL—Commissioners Eng,Tang, Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez ABSENT—Commissioner Herrera STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Valenzuela, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. He stated both items are for recommendations to the City Council, so there will not be an appeal from an action but you would want comments to be on the record as the items go on to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 - La Terra Development, LLC. has submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a 21-unit planned development project. The project includes four home designs and three floor plans. The size of the single-family dwelling varies from 1,706 square feet to 2,353 square feet with an attached two-car garage. The proposed development will include three private streets, 19,908 square feet of common open space, and 18,287 square feet of private open space. The subject site is located at 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard in a Planned Development(P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-03-A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1152 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN A P-D ZONE (APN: 5275-015-042). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16- 01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and a power point presentation. 1 Community Development Director Ramirez stated the added condition of approval would be number 31 and the others would be moved down one. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff if this added condition will be under the Engineering Conditions of Approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, it is not an Engineering Condition of Approval, it is a Project Specific Conditions of Approval. She added it will be number 31 and the remaining numbers will be moved down one. She added if there are questions this evening please refer to the numbers presented in the staff report. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant, so if they are please let her know. She asked how long this project will take beginning with grading to ready for occupancy. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated the site is slightly elevated and asked if there are plans for it to be built at that level. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to have a gate at the entrance. City Planner Valenzuela replied currently on the fencing and wall plan there is not and explained it is up to the applicant to choose to have a gated development. Commissioner Eng stated she will confirm that with the applicant and asked if the Traffic Consultant is present this evening. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to page 60 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which indicates that the construction noise level for this project will not exceed the City's noise decibel of 65 and asked how realistic this is for a project of this size and to keep it there. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Environment Document Consultant is present and can address that question. Commissioner Eng referred to page 66 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated they are using Sheriffs Personnel data from the year"2008"and asked if that data is still current. City Planner Valenzuela replied the data is being obtained from the City's General Plan and is the most current. Commissioner Eng asked if the General Plan was updated in 2008. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it was updated in 2010. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows if there are 23 deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that information but there is one sergeant, one lieutenant, and there are deputy teams. 2 Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan, Lot number 7, and stated there is a parcel that looks onto the neighbor's property, which has a swimming pool, and asked what is proposed for privacy issues. City Planner Valenzuela replied a condition of approval has been added that privacy landscaping shall be provided throughout these three residential properties. Commissioner Eng stated she is not sure if the other properties have expanded back-yard areas and she wanted to make sure the property with the pool had been addressed. She referred to Condition of Approval number 21, read the second sentence, and stated there may be a typo because it reads commercial building, but there are no commercial buildings. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a typo. Commissioner Eng asked staff what it will be changed to. City Planner Valenzuela replied it will be changed to residential. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 23, read it, and asked if it is referring to the garages. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there are no carports and if guest parking is out in the street. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24, the comprehensive Construction Management Plan. She asked if there is a standard condition and plans to include security for the site, as well for the construction equipment, and if this is something staff looks for. City Planner Valenzuela replied no, but if the Planning Commission would like that included staff will add it. Commissioner Eng replied yes. She explained that while construction is not taking place there may be trespassing, things may be taken, and someone may get hurt on the equipment. She asked for City Attorney Murphy assistance in the placement of this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated in Condition of Approval number 24, the second sentence list a number of items that need to be addressed in the plan and the word security can be added to the list of items. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 27, read the first sentence, and asked if the common areas include the private streets. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated if streets are not dedicated to the public, then they will be called out in the OCR's as part of the common area. Commissioner Eng asked if this project will have a Homeowners Association. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. 3 Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if it can be stipulated that the Homeowners Association be professionally managed for a project this size. City Attorney Murphy replied he is not sure if that can be required. He stated most Homeowners Associations will contract that out and in terms of having to put a second level of authority on that, and contract with a single manager, rather than dealing with various maintenance, landscape maintenance, or other type of maintenances on their own. He stated he defers this to the Planning Commission and if they would like to recommend to City Council to take that step,they may do so, but that may get into the details of the HOA functions. Community Development Director Ramirez stated any other HOA's within the City. the City does not get involved with the HOA's, they do not review them, they do not give any input, and they are privately ran. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 29 asked if the streets are wide enough for the Trash Disposal trucks to maneuver,to enter, and exit. Rafael Fajardo, City Engineer, replied yes, and gave the width of the street. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 51 and asked if parcel refers to the project or does it refer to each of the individual parcels within the development. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is a typo and where it is stated public driveway it was meant to say per unit. Commissioner Eng confirmed that this is applicable to each of parcels within the project. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 67 and stated there is a typo and there should be a space between the words "relocated" and "as". She asked who will be responsible for the cost of the relocation of that power pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible for the improvement. Commissioner Eng asked if that should be clarified on the condition of approval. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible to contact Edison for the relocation of the power pole and to pay the permit fees. Commissioner Eng asked if that will be at the developer's expense. Community Development Director clarified that it is at the applicant's expense. City Attorney Murphy recommended to not putting that phrase in one condition because all of the conditions have to be satisfied by the applicant. He explained if that phrase is put in one condition, then it will need to be phrased in all the conditions or else it will create some confusion. He stated it is generally understood that the conditions are on the applicant and the applicant must meet them. He recommended that this condition be left as is. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she asked was because she had seen it in other places that is specified that the expense was the responsibility of the applicant. She stated if this is generally understood and staff is satisfied with this, then she is also. 4 r _ Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and stated in the last discussion regarding this lot, there was a question regarding the entrance to that lot. He stated it was mentioned that it was 20 feet wide and it needed to be expanded to 24 feet and asked if that was correct. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, it was 24 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if the only way to get those 24 feet was to relocate the light pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. He explained a transition will take place as part of the condition and referred to Condition of Approval number 60, which requires an off-site improvement plans that the applicant will need to be submit. He stated under the construction plans they will have to indicate how they will do that transition on the sidewalk to achieve the 24-26 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if currently it is at 20 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if there are walls in-between each individual unit. He stated he is trying to get clarification of the wall plan for the entire lot and within the individual units. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the wall plan and pointed out the privacy fences within the power point presentation. Commissioner Tang asked how high those privacy fences are. City Planner Valenzuela replied the fences do vary, some are 6 feet.. or 5 feet 6 inches, and she explained they do have to meet the City's code requirements and they are required to submit a final wall plan. Commissioner Tang asked if that is the wall that is made of vinyl. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the vinyl is the privacy fencing shown in green. Commissioner Tang referred to the property wall and fencing on the North and South side and asked what type of wall will that be. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the North there currently is an existing wall that belongs to the Church and there is a condition stipulating the will have to install a new fence. She explained that it has not been decided if it will be a block wall or what type they will be. She added the applicant is still researching that to make sure the right type of materials will be used. Commissioner Tang asked what will be on the South side. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the South side a tubular steel fence will be used and the colors will match the slump stone they are proposing. Commissioner Tang asked what is on the East and West wall. City Planner Valenzuela replied the East and West will be slump stone. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions for staff. 5 None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Daryl Sequeira, stated he is present on behalf of the applicant La Terra Development, LLC. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help and guidance in this process. He gave a brief summary of their company, the project, and let the Planning Commission know that Public Outreach was completed for this project and they received favorable feedback from the public. He addressed questions asked by the Planning Commission (barely audible). The first question was in regards to the timing of the project and he replied the over-all time frame will take about 12- 15 months. Second question was in regards to the elevation of the pad and he explained it is raised slightly to allow for drainage purposes. The third question was in regards to a gated community and he explained it will not be gated as they would like it to be an extension of the community, not walled off or separated so that it fits better into the neighbor context. He addressed the last question in regards to privacy concerns for the homes that back up to Orange to the East and West property line. He stated most of the homes orient to the North and South, so the windows face the West, they are smaller bedroom windows, and they will have some screening and landscaping along that edge to address those concerns. He addressed the fencing question and stated during their Public Outreach they had met Pastor Wu from Evergreen Baptist Church and he had a concern with the combination fence and privacy issues. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the Civil Plan and Landscaping Plan and asked in terms of the street will it be asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if that is the dark colored one. Daryl Sequeira replied yes and looks like the City streets. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer is the City uses asphalt or does it use concrete. City Engineer Fajardo replied it depends, they are trying to use concrete in the intersections because the life span is about 25 years. He added currently they are using rubber asphalt within the City. Vice-Chair Dang stated the reason he is asking is because dark colored asphalt is very hot and creates a lot of heat. He added per the California Green Building Code it restricts a lot of use of dark asphalt. He asked the applicant if they would consider using a lighter concrete instead of dark asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied they have considered it with other projects, but on a maintenance standpoint, asphalt is in the long term is easier to maintain. He added it is difficult to repair concrete and harder to maintain. He added whereas asphalt is low maintenance and they are conscience of keeping the HOA Fees at a low cost level. Vice-Chair Dang agreed that asphalt blends itself much easier for maintenance, especially if it rains and there is a pot hole it is easier to install asphalt. He stated that concrete will give a longer better life span and asked that they consider. He also referred to the landscaping plan and the pavers at the entrance of the driveway and asked the dimensions of the pavers. Daryl Sequeira replied they are about 20 feet. Vice-Chair Dang requested that the architect add 20 feet to the dimensions. Daryl Sequeira agreed. 6 Vice-Chair Dang referred to sheet L1, dealing with vinyl privacy fencing, and asked clarifications on the locations of the vinyl. Daryl Sequeira clarified where vinyl privacy fencing will be located. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang stated that vinyl does look great, it is easy to install, but it does not have the shelf life and over time it will become brittle. He encouraged the applicant to use something such as metal or CMU. Daryl Sequeira explained reasons why vinyl is being used, which is for space issues, locations of where it will be used, and that the CC&R's would address the issues with the fencing material. (Barely Audible) Commissioner Eng complimented the applicant on the design of the homes, the functionality, and the private outdoor space in each of the yards. She stated she appreciates that public outreach was conducted in that area because this is significant addition to the neighborhood and is glad the feedbacks were positive. She referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated it indicated that during the construction phase for a residential neighborhood the noise levels would not exceed over 65 decibels and asked if that is realistic for a project of this size. Daryl Sequeira deferred this question to Olivia Chan, Representative for MIG, Inc. Olivia Chan, Representative of MIG, Inc., referred to page 61 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report and explained process for noise level measurements, what they are based on, and stated they should be realistic. (Not audible) Commissioner Eng asked if this is a one phase project or will it be completed in different phases. Daryl Sequiera replied it will look like one phase, but generally it will be constructed in two phases. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is planning to have model homes. Daryl Sequeira replied yes,there will be models to some extent, depending on the interest. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and called Brian Lewin to the podium. Brian Lewin, resident, stated that it is good they have improved the access point to the site, but the choke point up there is that it is being the sole access point to the site, and that is what concerns him from a safety viewpoint. He stated it will be better than it was, but it is still very constricted relative to a regular street. He stated when there are 21 residences and only one access point to it, you want to have a standard width street as the access point. He stated that is his primary concern with this project and in terms of aesthetics it looks nice. He also echo's Commissioner Eng's comment of appreciation for Public Outreach because there are too many projects that get dropped unexpectedly on peoples laps and he is glad they actually talked to people. Reverend Chuong Nguyen stated he is the Director/Administrator of Saint Joseph Retreat Center. He stated that this site is the most sacred site in the City because there is a Baptist Church in the North, a Catholic Church retreat in the South, and a school in the East. He stated his concerns are privacy and noise due to the Retreat Home being on the South side and requested this be considered. 7 i Chair Lopez stated while construction is taking place a sound barrier will be used if the machinery is too loud. He stated that staff will have to make sure this is addressed if it is too loud. Vice-Chair Dang requested to look at the Civil Plan, Sheet 1, shown on the power point presentation, looked at Section E. and stated the development is 7-8 feet above the Church, and the Reverend has concerns with privacy. He echo's that concern and recommended that the applicant put a solid mesh or something to obscure the viewing onto the Church's property. Daryl Sequeira stated they looked at that property line and it is proposed that that a new keystone wall with a iron fence on top of that, which is the open wire fence. He stated currently there is an iron fence so they were just replicating that and unless there is an objection by the Civil he does not know why a block wall could not be on top of there. Vice-Chair Dang asked so in lieu of the rod iron it would be a block wall. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang requested that be added as a condition of approval. City Attorney Murphy recommended rather than a condition of approval, when this goes to the City Council with their recommendations that will give the applicant time to update their plans to show it will be a block wall rather than the split wall. He stated the conditions of approval start by saying that the development is in conformance with the plans and that will be the best way to do it because it will actually be on a revised plan. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff agrees and will make sure that happens. Chair Lopez asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng asked in regards to Brian Lewin's concern in the egress and ingress to the site, if staff or the applicant had considered feasibility for a better access point to the site. Daryl Sequeira replied the only access to the property is from Orange Street and regarding the ingress and egress, the plans were engineered and looked at by the City's Engineer and was also reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. City Engineer Fajardo stated there will be a 26 feet clearance, a red curb will be installed, so there will not be cars parked there, and will be clear most of the time. Chair Lopez asked if there were any other comments or questions. None Chair Lopez requested a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan 8 Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 0 Noes vote. She stated there is no appeal process because this item will go to the City Council for approval, which tentatively will be held on Tuesday, March 28,2017. B. DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 - Ivar Eagle, LLC has submitted entitlement applications to construct a new five—story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms. The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. The project proposes to provide 125 parking spaces. New landscaping will be provided along the northern, western, and southern project boundaries to buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A three-foot tall block wall and landscaping will be constructed along the eastern project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC Gym and its parking lot adjacent to and east of the site. The hotel is proposed to be 67'-9" in height. The property is located at 8900 Glendon Way (southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way) in a Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay (C-3/D-0) and a Planned Development (P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HAMPTON INN & SUITES WITH 123 GUEST ROOMS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8900 GLENDON WAY IN A C-3/D-0 AND A P-D ZONES (APN: 5390-018- 036). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 04 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and power point presentation. She added that staff has received two letters from the public. She stated one letter is from the owners of the UFC Gym and is in regards to an agreement between the two owners, which the applicant will address. She added the second letter is in opposition to the project. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commissioners if there were any comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant. She asked staff how many hotels does the City of Rosemead have and what the occupancy rate is. 9 Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff does have that information but it is not available this evening and the occupancy rate is very high. City Planner Valenzuela stated there are 14 hotels. Commissioner Eng asked what the occupancy rate is. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the occupancy rate is generally at 95%. She added having these hotel units busy every night is not an issue. Commissioner Tang asked if this includes motels or is it just hotels. City Planner Valenzuela replied 14 and includes both hotels and motels. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she is asking is because recently it seems like everyone is developing hotel projects. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff sees that and that is why they scrutinize hotel projects when they come in because like the Planning Commission, they want to make sure this hotel comes in and functions, and does turn into something undesirable that they don't want within the community. She added staff looks through it very carefully during this process. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant did a market study. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, they did. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant already has a franchise agreement with Hampton Inn. City Planner Valenzuela replied according to the applicant yes. Commissioner Eng asked what the height of the Qiao Garden Hotel is. She stated she knows it is 3-stories. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is 43 Feet 2 inches. Commissioner Eng stated she noticed as part of the amenities the hotel has meeting rooms and ball rooms and asked if that was accounted for in parking spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied there are no ball rooms and the meeting rooms are only for hotel patrons. Commissioner Eng asked if the meeting rooms they currently have are only for the hotel patrons and it is not like a conference center. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct and it cannot be leased out. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report indicates that there are 5 RV spaces, asked where they are, and are they designated on the site plans. She requested the site plan be displayed in power point presentation. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the power point presentation and pointed the 5 RV spaces out to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng asked if those spaces will accommodate tour buses. 10 I City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a loading or delivery area. City Planner Valenzuela replied that item is something staff is going to request be a condition of approval, because then they can use any of their standard parking spaces for loading. She added they will have to dedicate 12 parking spaces for loading to meet the municipal code. Commissioner Eng asked if a condition of approval will need to be added for that. City Planner Valenzuela replied a Condition of Approval will not need to be added because in the conditions of approval it does state that they do have to meet the parking requirements and off-street parking requirements. She added that is part of the Municipal Code Off-Street requirements. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will have to designate loading spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and it can be put into Condition of Approval number 1, where the plans are revised to call out those loading spaces. Commissioner Eng stated that is direction to staff then. She asked staff if during the traffic study was it taken into account the trips generated by Qiao Gardens. Elie Farah,Traffic Engineer, replied yes,they did take that into account for the 2018 Analysis. Commissioner Eng stated she could not tell from the Traffic Study. She requested the traffic consultant walk the Planning Commission through the study, because she is concerned around the area of the on-ramp and off-ramp of the 10-Freeway and on the side. She stated she found it confusing when she went to do her site inspection and would like to know how the study was conducted. City Planner Valenzuela stated Keith Rutherford, Traffic Consultant from Phil Martin & Associates, is also present to speak on behalf of the traffic study. Commissioner Eng stated when the Public Hearing is opened she requested that the Traffic Consultant speak because traffic is a major concern for this area. She stated in terms of waste water and that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration it indicated it has less that significant impact or no impact and it has 123 rooms with high turnover, laundry area, and the volume seems large to her. She stated she would like to understand how that would not have a less than significant impact. She would like to know what is reviewed for this analysis. City Planner Valenzuela replied that Phil Martin is the consultant and he is present to answer that question. Commissioner Eng referred to the Resolution Finding, on page 22, of the staff report, and stated this is something she learned by attending the Planning Commission Academy, she recommended adding to the second finding to the last sentence "The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C-3/D-0 because it promotes good zoning practice". She added it would just describe the reason for the zoning better and because the Zone Variance will bring the zoning into consistency. City Attorney Murphy asked Commissioner Eng to clarify her request. He stated he has no problem with the change but for clarification it is not a Zone Variance it is a Zone Change. 11 Commissioner Eng referred to the Mitigation Measure Program there are a couple of mitigation measures numbers 14 and 15 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it does not appear that is part of the mitigation monitoring reporting program and she is wondering if that needs to go in there. City Planner Valenzuela stated that was a technical mistake and when she was making copies page 12 was omitted. She added that it has been printed out and number 13, 14, and 15 were added to the conditions of approval and are in the program correctly. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24 and asked if there was any covered parking for this project. City Planner Valenzuela replied no. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 24,which refers to covered parking spaces City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a standard condition of approval in place and it is in case in the future they may request to have a covered structure. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 25. which is the Construction Management Plan, and requested that the following be added: "Security for the site and equipment during construction". She referred to Condition of Approval number 27 and read it and asked how this performance will be guaranteed, is there a MOU, or what will hold both parties to make sure they will perform. City Planner Valenzuela replied they will have to submit a recorded easement, and, staff and the City Attorney will review it. Community Development Director Ramirez stated what ensures that it gets done is that declaration of restrictions,which is already recorded against both properties. Commissioner Eng asked if that is the guarantee of performance. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 48, regarding a Pedestrian Route Circulation Study and asked why this has not already been done. City Engineer Fajardo replied it is to his understanding it has not been done because it is part of his condition from the Engineering Department. He stated it needs to indicate if they need to include any new crosswalks in this vicinity and how the pedestrians are going to go into this shopping center. Commissioner Eng stated this is an important concern for the City and she is curious why this isn't something that has not been required already or is something that is worked with the applicant on. City Engineer Fajardo stated this was a condition that was brought up after the Traffic Analysis was revised for the traffic circulation for both hotels. He added to be accurate another analysis will be necessary to find out the best way to have pedestrians safely cross over to the shopping center. Commissioner Eng asked before the applicant can pull permits a plan will have to be developed and get approved. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is part of the condition of approval and the applicant will have to submit a circulation plan for their approval. He stated suggestions will be made but safety is what is emphasized. He 12 stated there will be other considerations included such as timing of signal lights, new crosswalks,flashings in the crosswalks and intersections of Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue, or whatever is necessary for the safety of the pedestrians and patrons of these facilities. Commissioner Eng expressed this is an important component of this project. She stated you would want to take advantage of the commercial amenities across the way and to be able to have people access it safely. She referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and asked how it will be enforced or checked. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was one of the mitigated measures and the consultant may address that. Commissioner Eng referred to Mitigated Measure Conditions numbers 69 and 70 and the phrase "certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space"and asked what that is. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was just a typo and staff can make that modification. Commissioner Eng asked if that correction needs to be made to make it clearer. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and stated it can just say"hotel". Commissioner Eng stated those two conditions should correspond to Mitigation Measure Conditions number 14 and 15 and staff should do whatever it needs to clean it up. Commissioner Tang asked since this is next to UFC Gym was the parking requirement taken into account for both the gym and the proposed site. City Planner Valenzuela replied UFC Gym has its own parcel, own parking requirements, has 185 parking stalls for that lot itself, which accommodates their project. She added that they do not need any further parking from the side to meet their requirements. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer when street trees are required to be placed. City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and stated Parkway trees will be required. Vice-Chair Dang asked how many trees will be required. City Engineer Fajardo replied that the number of trees that will be planted is decided when Civil Plans are submitted with off-site improvements. He explained there are currently mature trees on Ivar Avenue and he will check with the Arborist to confirm which trees stay and how many more may be needed. Vice-Chair Dang asked if Glendon Way will also have trees planted. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will be the same for Glendon Way. Vice-Chair Dang asked if in general is there a rule of thumb that they are every 20 or 30 feet away from each other. City Engineer Fajardo explained the process. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang asked if it is roughly every 50 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. 13 Vice-Chair Dang asked if that was the rule of thumb. City Engineer Fajardo explained that utilities, such as sewer lines and utility poles, also need to be considered. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang asked if the Utility Plan needs to be reviewed to make sure the trees do not interrupt the infrastructure. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the site plan is a little premature and does not show all the trees. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. City Planner Valenzuela stated the applicant will submit a final landscaping plan and all that information will be called out. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the site plan, pointed out a trash container, and looking at the property line, it looks like it is within the UFC Gym property. He asked if it is serving the hotel. City Planner Valenzuela replied this trash container does serve UFC Gym. Commissioner Eng asked if the two driveways are existing driveways and if they are going to be moved. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes they are existing driveways. City Engineer Fajardo explained that the driveways will be brand new and be replaced,so will the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Commissioner Eng asked if the driveways are being relocated or moved. City Engineer Fajardo replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if there is street parking heading East on Glendon Way. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated this is a very narrow street and for a project of this size he requested that he would like to get the Traffic Consultants opinion on that piece. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Simon Lee, Architect of the project, introduced and requested Patric Pan, Representative for Ivar Eagle, LLC to the podium. Representative Patric Pan stated they feel fortunate to manage to reach this stage thanks to the help and cooperation of the Planning Division and Hilton. He stated this project will not only bring a benefit to Ivar Eagle but to 14 I the City as a whole by bringing in more revenue and provide a use for what was previously an un-used parking lot. He stated he will address some of the concerns of the letters that had been sent. He stated in regards to the easements they do recognize the significance of the existing easement and they take enforcement of it very seriously. He referred to the plan and stated most of the entries are as existing. however if necessary, the southernmost entry where it is the awkward L-shape, they are willing to correct it and make it completely straight to meet ingress and egress easier, but it would require moving the fire hydrant, since it is in that exact spot. He stated as for the second letter he has not had the opportunity to view it and he is not sure what Mrs. McDonald concerns are. He requested a summary and he would be happy to answer to the best of his ability. City Planner Valenzuela gave Patric Pan a copy of the letter. Representative Patric Pan stated if there are any questions in regards to the architecture or traffic study they can ask Simon Lee or Traffic Specialist Keith Rutherford. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to hear from the Traffic Consultant. Phil Martin, from Phil Martin & Associates, stated they are in contract with the City and they prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated in regards to the question Commissioner Eng had regarding waste water treatment, when they started this project he sent service letters to various service utility companies that serve the project, including the sanitation districts of Los Angeles. He said the numbers in Table Number 23, on page 79, are there waste water generation number and it was in the letter that they sent back to him dated August 16th of last year. He stated their letter also did not indicate any impacts or issues with them not having adequate capacity to treat the waste water from the project. He stated in regards to traffic he will not attempt to answer traffic questions so Keith Rutherford, from Stantec, will address those. Keith Rutherford,Traffic Consultant from Stantec Consultant Services, referred to the Power Point Presentation and pointed out the accesses into the site. He addressed and asked Commissioner Eng what part of the Traffic Analysis would she like him to address. Commissioner Eng replied she would like to understand what they look at and her main concern is the freeway on- ramp and off-ramp and the impact of this project. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated in the beginning there was a Scoping Meeting with staff and Caltrans here in the City, to get Caltrans to buy into and provide input on what they wanted them to study. He stated the ramps and intersections they wanted studied were also included in this study. He added Caltrans did review this study and those concerns were identified up front and were addressed. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel was included, new traffic data was collected for this, and is less than a year old. He stated when that hotel re-opens, it will add 53 additional rooms and those were added in and treated that like a cumulative project. He also added in the traffic from identified projects in the neighborhood that would cumulative traffic volumes. He addressed the question on how they generate the traffic, they did use 100%occupancy rate, considering worst case to have the hotel completely full, so the project analysis they do includes the volumes they took, grown 1% until the project is completed, so they fluff up the existing, they add the project traffic to that combined with traffic generated by any local development projects that have been identified. He stated it is very conservative and they do cap a wide net to capture the traffic that could impact these intersections. Commissioner Eng asked if they have a study of that area of the on-ramp that can be provided. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes, and referred to the study area, Figure 3 in the Traffic Study, and it documents the existing lane configurations, existing traffic controls, and shows what the existing network is in their study area. 15 3r � Commissioner Eng requested that figure be pulled up on the Power Point Presentation. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is in agreement with Caltrans and the City, they included Ivar Avenue, the on-ramp and off-ramp of the freeway, and the actual signal light intersection at Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way. Phil Martin, from Phil Martin & Associates, stated it is Figure 18 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is a project trip distribution and shows the site and the all the surrounding area roadway system. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is the exhibit he is referring to. He pointed out the areas on the power point presentation to the Planning Commission, which were discussed and agreed upon in the scope meeting with Caltrans and the City. Commissioner Eng asked if the numbers are the current existing trips. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes,those are existing peak am, and pm, volumes. Commissioner Eng referred to the number 3,618 and asked what that number represents in this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that number is a link volume for the am, peak hour, and that is the two-way link volume. He stated of all the numbers they have up there that is all the traffic they have going both ways on Rosemead Boulevard during the am peak hour. Commissioner Eng asked if the existing number includes Qiao Garden Hotel. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes, with am peak hour. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel is closed currently and not open to traffic, so that is one reason explicitly modeled their traffic and added it into the analysis. He added they could not capture them in existing volumes. Commissioner Eng stated the two-way am peak hour number is currently 3.618 and asked what that number will be once this project is completed. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that would be on Figure 11A, page 3.9, and the number is 3,631. He explained they use that for informational purposes and what they really use is the peak hour analysis and look at the intersection. He added the intersection really determines the level of service of the roadway, because that is where the bottlenecks are. Commissioner Eng asked what the difference in number is. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied it is 13. He added there really is not a lot and Caltrans had wanted them to look at Valley Boulevard and they tried to balance where they go and if they send everyone to the intersection on Valley Boulevard they are not really going to get any impacts down there, so they have to use a reasonable distribution so they sent 50% of the traffic to the freeway and sent 15% up Valley Boulevard. He stated so they are getting 15% of what they get in the am peak hour, which is only 15 trips. He stated when they look at this, they use two tools and Caltrans uses a Highway Capacity Manual Method, which calculates delay and assigns a letter grade based on delay. He stated the County uses a fraction of capacity ratio along with capacity and assigns a letter grade based on that. He added they look at both methods for this report. Commissioner Tang asked how they will anticipate the traffic flow with both the project site and with the opening of Qiao Garden Hotel along Glendon Way. 16 Traffic Consultant Rutherford referred to the Power Point Presentation Figure 3 and 4 on page 2.6, and explained the directions of the traffic flow at intersections. Commissioner Tang stated the reason he asked is that the intersection on Figure 4 does get bottlenecked during peak hours or non-peak hours and he does not want to see it happen at heading on east bound Glendon Way also. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is a non-project move and like it was stated, there will also be people that will want to walk to some of the retail, and then you are talking about an enhanced cross-walk treatment. He explained the traffic flow, delay values, movement, and stated there is no significant impact associated with this project at those intersections. Commissioner Tang stated that is why he asked his initial about parking at the UFC Gym on Glendon Way heading east bound, because if there was a need to improve traffic flow, then they would have to eliminate parking for cars to turn right or entering the freeway. He added then they would still have an access or to have a free lane to do so. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated striping is proposed to allow access on Glendon Way and it would require in the east bound direction or west bound direction on Glendon Way that parking is allowed on the first 70 feet. He referred to a diagram and showed where it will have to be striped red to eliminate the parking for about 3 vehicles. He stated this is the same type of treatment that exists for the UFC Gym access and movement number here is small, the am peak hours would be about 21 vehicles for the left turn, and a pocket of about 40 to 50 feet should be needed for a volume of level. He stated that way they will make sure thru traffic will not be impeded by those vehicles turning left into the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a proposal to eliminate parking on the East side of Glendon Way. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied he is going to call that the north side and does not believe there is any parking here. Commissioner Eng asked if parking will be eliminated on the South side then. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied on the South side yes,just immediately West of Ivar Avenue. He stated there is a small 75 foot stretch that is not red curb, it's allowed, and that will have to be red curbed. Commissioner Tang asked what about the section that is 75 feet closest to the entrance of the 10-Freeway. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that is not their frontage and they will not be proposing any changes to it or be required to make any. He added that is restricted in that area, approaching that intersection too, it has been cleaned out, and that is why they painted a symbol in the ground for the 10-Freeway. Vice-Chair Dang asked for the traffic study the pm hours are from what time. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied pm hours are from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Vice-Chair Dang asked what the am peak hours are. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied they are from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Vice-Chair Dang stated to put things into perspective it would a perfect storm to have the hotel guest leave between 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is what they assumed. 17 Vice-Chair Dang replied of course to have a conservative report. He added they assumed the hotel guest were leaving the exact peak hours when the street is fully congested, which is morning rush hour, and on the flip side, the afternoon rush hours when people are coming home. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied exactly, and they use the ITE, Trip Generation Manuel, they actually surveyed uses and they take the data from those times and they call it a one hour created before 4:00 and 6:00 pm of the adjacent street traffic. He stated they are actually surveying those uses at that time. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they assume a perfect storm scenario in order to calculate this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford agreed, but for example they do not look at the peak hour of the generator,the site may generate the most traffic at 10:00 but who cares because the streets are much more open at that time. He added they do have that data and they do check the on-site flow based on those numbers because they are significant for on-site circulation. Traffic Engineer Fajardo stated he has a clarification and addressed Mr. Rutherford. He stated they are proposing a red curb to adjoin the existing red curb of 76 feet. He added he would like to add another new red curb to the new proposed driveway to the existing driveway of the UFC Gym. Traffic Consultant Rutherford clarified which side and agreed to his request. City Engineer Fajardo stated staff will add a condition of approval for this request. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is something staff will add when it goes to the City Council. Representative Patric Pan stated he has had the opportunity to read Mrs. McDonald's letter and while she has legitimate concerns, they are not significant to this project. He stated her first concern is the height of the building being 5 stories and they made a deliberate design decision to keep it kept at 5 stories because they believe it is the ideal height to maximize the square footage without it having to peer over the private residences. He stated if you look at the site plan you have the UFC Gym to the East,there is the U-Haul, there is a storage area,the Qiao Garden Hotel to the West, and the 10-Freeway to the South. He stated the only residential area is adjacent to the condo/apartments to the North where there are no back-yards or private areas to look into. He stated Mrs. McDonald's address is on the other side of the Qiao Garden Hotel and there is no realistic way for someone from the Hilton Inn to look into her back yard. He added her other concerns such as lights, noise, and air pollution they believe the Mitigated Negative Declaration has all of the mitigating strategies to answer those. He stated she commented this is a cheap motel but this is the Hampton Inn, which is a large and successful hotel chain that is owned by Hilton. He added that is there response to that letter and that he is open to any question in regards to the project. Commissioner Eng asked how long they anticipate it will take from grading to occupancy. Representative Patric Pan replied it will take about 18 months. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 67 regarding the shakiness and asked how is that going to be enforced. She asked if that is a geological concern and if a consultant will address that. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for one of the engineers. 18 Vice-Chair Dang stated he is looking at the conceptual landscaping plan and he recommended it would be a good feature to have pavers within the first 20 feet or so adjacent to the driveway. He commented it would add a more welcoming appeal as you turn into their very nice establishment. Representative Patric Pan replied he will take that into account in the design. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the parking area will be asphalt or concrete. Representative Patric Pan replied asphalt is commonly used and the current parking lot is asphalt, so they are using a similar type. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are re-doing the entire parking area or is it being left as is. Representative Patric Pan replied that it is very likely they will re-do the entire parking area as part of the construction. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are going to replace it with asphalt. Representative Patric Pan replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate the concern about the heat island effect. He requested that perhaps they will talk to their consultants into looking into the Green Code requirements. He added he will leave that to their consultants to address. Commissioner Tang stated they are barely meeting the parking requirements and they have 123 guest rooms, plus 6 employees,with 1 parking per 3 employees, and asked if this is sufficient parking for a hotel. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for the Architect because he is the one that came up with the numbers. Architect Simon Lee stated he will have 3 shifts,with 6 staff per shift, which should be sufficient. Commissioner Tang expressed concern that even with switching shifts that 6 employees would not be able to manage a 123 room hotel. Architect Simon Lee stated that usually 123 rooms are not entirely occupied. He also commented that the parking spaces will not be filled entirely at the same time, the City's parking code requirement, and that they have 125 parking spaces. Commissioner Eng stated she knows that studies have been made for this project and asked if any additional community outreach had been done for this project. Architect Simon Lee replied not for this project, this project is in a commercial area, does not have very much residential, and named the surrounding businesses. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that in other franchise hotels it is actually the franchise that dictates the design on how the hotel will be done. She explained even when residents want to have input it may not be what the Hampton Inn's will allow and will have to go through the Hampton Inn franchise for approval. Representative Patric Pan stated even though Hampton Inn does have a say they are usually very cooperative, so if there is a legitimate concern, then they will try to make some kind of accommodation for it. 19 I r • Resident Brian Lewin, stated that he disagrees with the lack of residential character and name the UFC Gym, the Qiao Garden Hotel. pointed out there are condominiums directly across the street and immediately on the other side of the Qiao Garden it is entirely residential. He stated that it would have been appropriate to do community outreach. He recommended that delivery times should be restricted because hotels are a 24-hour business and a 123 room hotel will probably get a fair amount of deliveries. He stated some of those delivery routes may decide to drive on Muscatel Avenue to Glendon Way, hopefully the others may come off of Rosemead Boulevard, and some of those trucks are very loud, especially when they are unloading. He stated he also agrees with Commissioner Eng's concerns with Condition of Approval number 48, and appreciates that they wanted to do the traffic study before the pedestrian route study, but he does not see why they couldn't of both be done before bringing it to the Planning Commission for approval. He stated that is an important component and it would be good for the public to be able to see it and not be something that is going to be done later, where the public cannot see it, until it's been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added in interest of transparency something like this and as potentially important should be done prior to any kind of approval for this project and asked that this be considered. Chair Lopez called Bao Zhu Wong to the podium. Speaker left before being called to the podium. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. Vice-Chair Dang stated that when the predevelopment meetings were held, he was one of the Planning Commissioners that stated it was a very important element to have the hotel guest be able to walk across to the Target shopping center. He stated that the applicant did state that they would work on details to facilitate that concept, rather it is a shuttle bus or improve the pedestrian pathway. He requested that the design team work with staff, so that this particular element is ready, before it goes to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is something that the City Engineer needs to review and approve. She stated it can be specified that this item will need to be approved by the City Engineer prior to any issuance of permits that way it would let staff know it was handled prior to the issuance of building permits. She asked the City Engineer if this would be doable and stated this is an option the Planning Commission may take. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to ask the Planning Commission if they want this to be an item that requires to be taken care of prior to it going before the City Council. He added that way the public would also have a chance to view it, see the conditions, and will be able to voice any concerns they may have. He stated the problem with having the City Engineer approving this prior to issuing permits is that this item will not be visible for public viewing. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this could possibly delay the project and may have to go to the Traffic Commission. She asked City Engineer Fajardo if this will have to go to the Traffic Commission. City Engineer Fajardo replied. (Not Audible) Commissioner Eng stated she shares Vice-Chair Dang's concern, it is a safety component, and asked how much time they are looking at. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Traffic Commission meets only once a month and will not be able to get it onto their Agenda until April, so they are looking at 3 month delay. Commissioner Eng asked if that is the reason why it is not a condition of approval for the Planning Commission because of the limitation of the Traffic Commission's meeting schedule or are there other factors affecting putting this pedestrian plan together. 20 City Engineer Fajardo replied this is something the applicant can address, because staff has established the conditions of approval, but the applicant is the one that will develop the study. He added they may take a week or a month and it depends how long they will take before it is submitted to the Engineering Department for a review and approval. He added then it will go to the Traffic Commission in case there are any necessary traffic improvements for this vicinity. He added so it will depend on how long it will take for the applicant to develop this study. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Engineer pointed out a keyword and that is"if"this needs to go to the Traffic Commission. She stated staff does not know if it actually does until it is reviewed. Commissioner Eng stated Vice-Chair Dang's request is that the improvements be made, but that there is a plan for the public to be able to understand what is happening. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,that is correct and that is what staff understands also. Vice-Chair Dang requested the Traffic Engineer from Stantec approach the podium to share his thoughts. He asked if this is a plan that can be put together in a week or so. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is a question for the applicant and the not Traffic Engineer. Architect Simon Lee, stated this condition is not required in many other hotel projects and this is their first time. He stated they are willing to work with staff and work this out. He added there are options such as providing a shuttle bus with a schedule located in the lobby to take patrons to the nearby shopping center. He stated the pedestrian plan is not easy to do a quick study and get a quick response. He stated this is not a traffic engineer issue and he is not sure who he should contact to do this study. He stated their primary option is to provide the shuttle bus service. Community Development Director Ramirez recommended that it be included in Condition of Approval number 48 that at a minimum a shuttle bus be used. She stated that way at least they will know that at a minimum there will be a shuttle bus for the hotel guest. Vice-Chair Dang stated a shuttle bus is a good alternative because it will not affect the traffic flow very much. He stated if a pedestrian study is done, then it would involve street lighting because of security issues and you would have to check with the traffic engineer, because when you touch the traffic signal pedestrian crossing it affects the timing of signal lights. He added there is a little more involvement in terms of the study, but the shuttle bus is a good alternative and will get their patrons to the shopping center safely. He stated it may also shuttle the patrons to other venues around the City. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if the City Attorney has a recommendation of how to state this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated he is concerned if it is appropriate to provide a solution if the pedestrian route circulation study doesn't wind up requiring that solution. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the applicant is willing to do this regardless, then that would solve the issue all-around. City Attorney Murphy asked if the circulation study will still be needed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is part of the condition of approval and they will still be doing that, but at a minimum there is a solution. 21 Commissioner Eng stated this is fair because their concern is the safety of the pedestrians to get to the shopping center. City Attorney Murphy addressed the City Engineers office, and stated as the pedestrian circulation study moves forward they will need to take into account the fact that the shuttle van or bus is being provided, so that this applicant isn't required to pay more than their fair share for capital improvements, given the facts that its impacts are going to be decreased by the use of shuttle van. He stated it is important that they do not have up ending this applicant pay more than his fair share given they are being asked for this alternate. He said if it is the will of the Planning Commission this could say: "The Pedestrian route circulation study of commercial businesses and neighborhood which addresses pedestrian travel and indicates any needed improvements shall be developed and approved by the City Engineers Department prior to any issuance of building permits and at minimum a shuttle van shall be provided for transportation of hotel guests during the duration of this permit". Vice-Chair Dang stated to clarify he wants to make sure he is communicating properly to all the Planning Commissioners and stated the pedestrian study and it going through the City Engineers office is a good thing to have. He stated what he is proposing is for the sake of time because having that study will not reach its completion prior to the applicant going in front of the City Council. He stated in lieu of that, they are substituting a plan in place by having this shuttle service. He added in the future if this pedestrian study works all the signal lights and traffic studies, at that point and if the City has authority, then it will give staff the authority to terminate the shuttle service. He reiterated that by asking the developer to offer the shuttle service, and then this item can move forward to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez asked the applicant if he agrees with this request. Architect Simon Lee, replied yes. Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang commented that he appreciates the developer coming in, looking at this property, and wanting to invest in it, and to bring a great quality brand and franchise. He stated he unfortunately does not think he can support this project, this design is somewhat of an anomaly, and does not really flow well within the surrounding businesses, as well as its residential areas. He stated it feels a little disjointed and disconnected from the local community and it is a unique area because there is a little commercial area against a heavy residential area. He stated that it is not that he does not appreciate the quality of project, he just does not think it is not a quality design and does not blend into the flow of the area. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion would be to adopt Resolution Number 17-04 with the amendments and direction given to staff on the record. Vice-Chair Dang made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-04 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 22 Vote resulted in: Yes: Lopez and Dang No: Tang Abstain: Eng Absent: Herrera City Attorney Murphy stated under Roberts Rules of Order an abstention goes with the majority for purposes of moving this forward, so it will go to the City Council with the notation that the recommendation of approval with the amendments and direction has been given on a 2 Ayes. 1 Noe, 1 Abstain, and 1 Absent vote. Community Development Director Ramirez stated since this item will be going to the City Council there is no appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 2-6-17 Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang,to approve PC Minutes 2-6-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes. and 1 Absent. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the time, date, and locations of the Community Area Watch Committee, City of Rosemead Passport Day, and the Rosemead Plaza Skate Park Ribbon Cutting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR &COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended the Planning Commissioners Academy on Thursday, March 3, 2017, and it was educational and informative. She added will share her notes with the Planning Commission once she puts it together. She stated that if a Planning Commission meeting is held on April 3, 2017, she will not present she will be out of town. 23 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 9:20 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, March 20, 2017,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Daniel Lopez Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 24 M O \ O CIVIC PRIDE 17) CDRHpRATED '`4 Attachment H Ordinance 199 • . • ORDINANCE NO. 199 AN- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CHANGING THE ZONE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY • FROM ZONE R-1 , R-3 AND R-3-0 TO P-D • • • . AND AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE. • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DUES' HEREBY ORDAIN AS• • FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The following described property in the • ' City of losemead presently classified R-1 , R-3 and R-3-D is reclassified and zoned P-D: • Those portions of Lots 1 and 3, in Block 7 of Rosemead, . in. the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 21 , pages 114 and 115 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, and that portion of Tract No. 227 in the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map •recorded in Book 31 , page 56 of Maps, in the office of • said County Recorder, described as follows: . Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 5 of said • Tract No. 2277; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Tract,No. 2277, to the southeast corner of Lot 14 of said Tract No. 2277; thence westerly 411 along the southerly line of said Lot 14 and the westerly r, � prolongation thereof to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 22 of said Tract No. 2277; thence southerly along said northerly prolongation of • the easterly line of Lot 22 and the easterly lines of Lot 22 and Lot 33 of said Tract No. 2277, to the souther- ly line of said Tract No. 2277; thence westerly along said last mentioned southerly line to the southwesterly • corner of said Tract No. 2277; said last mentioned south- . westerly corner being also the southeasterly corner of . said Lot 3, Block 7 of Rosemead; thence westerly along 4 the southerly line of said Lot 3, to the northeasterly line of Rubio Wash, 60 feet wide as shown on File Map No. 10271 -8, on file in the office of the County Engineer of said County; thence along said last mentioned north- 1 easterly line to the westerly line of the easterly 250.09 j feet of said Lot 3; thence along said last mentioned ,; ,- westerly line to the southerly line of Glendon day, as ,} y now established of record; thence easterly along said ,i southerly line of Glendon Way to a line parallel with J and distant westerly 178.32 feet measured along said 1 southerly line of Glendon Way from the easterly line of said Lot 3; thence northerly along said last mentioned parallel .line to a line parallel with and distant souther- " ly 260 feet as measured along the easterly line of said • Lot I , Block 7, of Rosemead, from the northerly line of said Lot i ; thence easterly along said last mentioned parallel line-toa line parallel with and distant west- erly' 131 .77 feet as measured along the northerly line of . said Lot 1 , from the easterly line of said Lot 1 ; thence . northerly alona• said last mentioned parallel line to the northerly lineofsaid Lot 1 ; thence easterly along said last mentioned northerly .line a distance of 131 .77 Feet to the northeasterly corner of said Loi 1 ; said last mentioned northeasterly corner being also the northwesterly corner of • said Tract. Mo. 2277; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Tract No. 2277 to the p:Tint of• beginning. • EXCEPT the easterly' 100 feet of Lots 13 and 14 of said • Tract No. 2277. _ . l - ' • . - . . • • . • • . • . • . . • ' . . . . Section 2. The'hereinabove described property shall be classified as Zone P-D on the official zoning map of the City.of Rosemead referred to in Section 9103. 1 of the Municipal Code. The Clerk is hereby directed to note' on said map "Amended to " and to insert in such blank the date of the. • • . adoption of this ordinance. . . - . • PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28tI4 day of March, 1967. • • . • . .. . • ' . . 14AYOR OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD • • . . ATTEST: ' • . . . ' _ . • • • . CITY CLERK • • • • . , • • • • • I, 4111k, • • . .• . • • • . . • . . • • ° 1 . ' . • . • . • t• • • ' 1 • . • - . . • • • • • - .• - - • . . . • . . . • • • • . • . . • . ••-•.— - .--..— . . _ . • . . . . . - . • • . • . . • • • • . ' • • • • . . •• . . t • . • ' - • • • • • • • - • • • . • . • • . . . . • • ' • ' .. . . . • • • • . . • • • • . . . • . 7.CC25 F (TM O CIVIC PRIDE v Lillifilt^ 0 Irliill , .......„.„,y CbRpORATEO 10`9 Attachment I Letters from Ms. McDonald and 8920 Glendon Associates, LLC February 21, 2017 316111- City 16frfiCity of Rosemead Planning Division Attention: Lily Valenzuela, City Planner 8838 Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 Members of the Planning Commission I am writing to object to the proposal to erect a five-story hotel in the parking lot of the UFC Gym. With your past approval of the still unfinished three-story hotel, I already have to see a horrible yellow sign every time I go out in my backyard. We have a large, open yard with a swimming pool and the windows of the third story are in clear view, and I do not like the idea of hotel guests peering in on us. I am certain that each one of you would feel the same if it were your home. When I go out to the backyard my eyes immediately go to the windows on the third floor and it makes me feel very uncomfortable and I am very reluctant to go in my yard. Now you are considering a proposal to build another hotel when the adjacent hotel has not even opened for business. Are three hotels in one block really needed in this small town? We will have even more lighting, another advertising sign and 3 of 5-stories of windows looking in on our property. We have already had to put up with the noise and dust from the never-ending construction of the current hotel. Please do not give us more air pollution. We already have enough dust,emissions,and noise from the freeway and the Metro-Link. I feel that I am living in a roadside motel with all the racket and lights. The environmental report claims that the impact of the proposed light plan will be less than SIGNIFICANT. I doubt that. The current lighting of the three-story hotel, the UFC gym and U-Haul are already highly visible in our yards and light up our back bedrooms at night disturbing sleep. With the added lighting of the yellow sign and the proposed hotel with parking lot lighting,outdoor safety and security lighting,sign advertising, and interior lighting and automobile headlights, I fear we will never get a good night's sleep again. I also feel that this over building of hotels near so many single story homes will reduce our property values. Who wants to live in a roadside motel? Please deny this proposal. Thank you. A concerned homeowner. )/i/ia Marianne McDonald, 8810 Olney St. Rosemead, CA 1770 8920 GLENDON ASSOCIATES, LLC 201 South Figueroa Street Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90012 March 1, 2017 City of Rosemead Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Re: Hearing on Mitigated Negative Declaration Hearing Date: March 6, 2017 Case No. Zone Change 16-01 Conditional Use Permit 16-01 Design Review 16-02 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is submitted in connection with the case number referenced above. We are the owners of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Project and the Landlord of the UFC Gym site as identified in the Planning Commission materials. Subject to the reservations expressed below, which we are confident can be addressed, we express our support for the Project. We are pleased to know that the property adjacent to ours will be developed and we believe the Project is a good use of the property. Our area of concern is that the proposed Site Plan for the Project (copy enclosed for your ready reference with area of concern highlighted) does not comply with the existing and recorded Declaration of Restrictions (copy enclosed for your ready reference) and would compromise the proscribed and existing use by semi-trucks and trailers, which currently use the drive aisle between the two properties for loading and unloading. As a result, the Site Plan as proposed would create an unsafe environment along the southern drive aisle as all trucks would be challenged in their ability to enter, pass through and turn within the highlighted drive aisle area. To address this concern, we propose that the Site Plan be modified by realigning the parking and landscaping areas around the subject drive aisle to sufficiently widen I City of Rosemead March 1, 2017 Page 2 the access and circulation through the proposed parking lot to facilitate future use of the driveway by semi-trucks and trailers as originally intended and prescribed in the Declaration of Restrictions. We look forward to working with representatives of the future Hampton Inn and Suites at this location to resolve this issue as soon as it is practicable so that this Project can be developed as otherwise planned. Please feel free to contact us if you wish to discuss the foregoing. Very truly yours, 8920 GLENDON ASSOCIAT- , LLC By: Arturo Sneider, Manager Enclosures cc: With Enclosures City of Rosemead Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead P.O. Box 399 Rosemead, California 91770 J A 1111`iRWSC'd61Lrf LV .-r-".,A v _c , ~ i dit 4. A u) u, o , U+ W m LA \yyph _ it(' j c c �+CT _ .0-.Oi 4y 06 o Z m � y. c. L oLo c i t . i I. + t —�1�,4,, I o— 70-....` , a�6i m — PI `jam � `0 5 Q. 111, qI ' 0 Q q _ �. _.. s, .o o- : 1 r ..; ETD ri:.' t6 P Turn-urouH°• l 1 il - • 1 ill!illilly 311. ' 6141 �{ M - ;j I 'O-" .Lam'-" .�I,. 0 ® #:c.D 1I I -- ... •;� �01U J * 4-: a . a 6 ' '3° y di 3 �5 ( ) li Ir•.••? N.e6 1 _,_,,® �i ',J- 1�� iiIK,;ART= IA vi o-ci 3 q "®o-.oc ,�• 111 .?. _ . w o 1 do ';�1• i t i l k A rl.i ��,��l .. F j .O i i a o •A Il i •^j i6 1 ■..... ° I V ' r r �; � Kt. I V F e +�i►il ` _mss M MI Tillia. if c '°'"" t . .... ., „J_.' riot /1 A .rnm •+r° 1 '6 - ✓a • - • This page is part of your document- DO NOT DISCARD - 05 1545925 RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 06/30/05 AT 08:OOam TITLE(S) : 1111111110111111111111 A - LEAD SHEET FEE D•YT FEE $ # H ��' DAF $ C-20 CODE • 20 CODE 19 NCPF Code 19 $ CODE 9 Assessor's Identification Number (AIN) To be completed by Examiner OR Title Company in black ink. Number of AIN's Shown - THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED - 6130105 05 1545925 STEWART TITLE Order No.: eV0a10705 Escrow No.: RECORDING REQUESTED BY STEWART TITLE COMPANY AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Primestor Development Inc. 228 S. Beverly Drive, 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, California 90212 Attn: Gene Detchemendy FOR RECORDER'S USE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS This Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements (this "Declaration") dated June ?$ , 2005, is entered into by 8920 Glendon Way Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Declarant"). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of the real property located at 8920 Glendon Way, Rosemead, California known as APN 5390-018-034, State of California, that is described in the attached Exhibit "A" (the "Real Estate"). B. The Real Estate has been or is in the process of being subdivided to create two legal parcels, one referred to herein as the "Pham Parcel"; the remainder of the Real Estate shall be the "Declarant Parcel" (collectively, the "Parcels"), as depicted on the site plan (the "Site Plan") attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "D". The legal descriptions of the Declarant Parcel and the Pham Parcel are set forth on Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively. C. Declarant intends to sell the Pham Parcel to Thang Quang Pham and Kathy Tram Pham, husband and wife (collectively, "Pham") This Declaration (i) imposes certain restrictions on the development and use of the Parcels and (ii) provides for the maintenance and control of the Easements depicted on the Site Plan for the benefit of all present and future owners of the Parcels. THE VALUEryOF THE PROPERTYNIN THIS CO AN DOCUMENT TRANSFER TAX S Al Exc AND THERE IS NONOCUBRCONSIDERATION COMPUTED ON FULL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONVEYED RECEIVED BY THE GRANTOR.R ADDITIONAL T 11911. - 40,PCOMIS(,�TED O,N FULL VALUE LESS LIENS AND ENCUMBRAN S REMAINING AT 11ME OF SALE. Signature of Declarant or agent determining tax Firm Name ', 6130105 .3 AGREEMENT THEREFORE, each Parcel will be held, mortgaged (including being subjected to a deed of trust), leased, sold, and conveyed subject to the following easements, encumbrances, covenants, conditions, restrictions, obligations, and reservations (collectively, the "Restrictions") for the benefit of the Parcels. 1. Definitions. Each capitalized term set forth below is defined as follows. 1.1 "City" means the City of Rosemead, State of California. 1.2 "Easements" mean the nonexclusive easements over the Easement Areas for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress. 1.3 "Easement Areas" means those areas labeled as such on the Site Plan . 1.4 "Improvements" means all land preparation and excavation, landscaping, buildings, structures, parking areas, trackage,fences, walls, hedges, plantings, poles, driveways, drainage ponds, retention or detention basins, lakes, recreational facilities of any type or nature, signs, glazing or reglazing of exterior windows, and all other construction including, but not limited to, painting and repainting, which affects the exterior shape, size, color, or appearance of any building, structure, or facility. 1.5 "Owner" means the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, its heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, who, at any given time, holds fee title to any Parcel. An Owner does not include a person or entity who holds an interest in a Parcel or any part of a Parcel, merely as security for the performance of an obligation. 1.6 "Restricted Furniture Store" means a retail furniture store which (i) is not permitted to sell the following branded lines of furniture and/or merchandise: Universal, Pulaski, Benchraft, Palliser, Klaussner, Stern & Foster or (ii) primarily sells patio furniture. 2. Uses. 2.1 Permitted Uses. Except as provided herein, the Pham Parcel may be used for any lawful purpose. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, if the Pham Parcel is used for the operation of a retail furniture store, the Owner of the Pham Parcel may only operate a Restricted Furniture Store on the Pham Parcel. Except as provided in Section 2.2 below, the Declarant Parcel may be used for any lawful purposes. 05 i545125 6130105 2.2 Noxious Uses. No part of the Parcels shall be used for either a massage parlor, an "adult" book store or similar business catering to pornographic interests, a so-called "head shop", a pool hall, a firearms shooting range, a funeral parlor, or an amusement arcade. 3. Signaqe. 3.1 General. All signs must comply with all applicable requirements, local ordinances, and municipal regulations of the City. 3.2 Signage Easements. The Owner of the Declarant Parcel grants a nonexclusive easement to the Owner of the Pham Parcel to install, keep, repair and maintain its sign panel(s) on the secondary panel on the freeway pylon sign and on the Glendon Way pole sign located on the Declarant Parcel provided such Owner pays all initial costs of construction and installation of such sign panels on the existing signs, and thereafter pays its pro rata share of the maintenance costs of such signs. 4. Landscaping. Each Parcel, including portions of each Parcel located within any setback lines or Easement Areas, must be landscaped in accordance with landscape, irrigation, and water conservation plans required by the zoning ordinances or municipal regulations of the City. Each Owner shall maintain, at its sole cost and expense, all landscaped areas of its Parcel, including those portions lying within setback lines and any Easement Areas on their respective Parcels. 5. Encroachments. Declarant, as the Owner of the Pham Parcel, hereby acknowledges that, as set forth in the Survey dated June 16, 2005, by Mark D. Hardy of HMK Engineering Inc., certain improvements on the Declarant Parcel, including, but not limited to trash containers and the docking bay and docking ramp, encroach on the Pham Parcel. Declarant, as the Owner of the Pham Parcel grants a nonexclusive easement to the Owner of the Declarant Parcel to, as necessary, install, keep, repair and maintain said encroachments and hereby acknowledges that such encroachments constitute easements on the Pham Parcel, consents to such encroachments and agrees not to remove them or interfere with the use of such improvements. 6. Utility Connections. Each Owner grants to each other nonexclusive reciprocal easements for the utility connections in those locations specified by the utility company. 7. On-Site Drainage. No water may be drained or discharged from any Parcel or any building on a Parcel, except in accordance with grading plans approved by the City. Each Owner shall control the on-site drainage on its Parcel. No Owner may interfere with the drainage established by the grading plan for the adjacent Owner's Parcel. 8. Access Easements. Each Owner grants to the other Owner, and their invitees, licensees, patrons, and customers, non-exclusive easements for loading and unloading and access for all ingress/egress points shown on the Site Plan. 05 1545925 6130105 • 9. Maintenance. Each Owner shall keep, repair, and maintain all Improvements and Easement Areas on its Parcel as required by the zoning ordinances and municipal regulations of the City. After improved parking lots or driveways have been constructed on any Parcel, maintenance of the parking lots and driveways will include maintaining drainage of surface water. In addition, each Owner shall maintain and repair all landscaping and irrigation systems located on its Parcel. 10. Indemnification. Each Owner shall indemnify and hold the other Owner harmless from all claims or judgments arising from its use of those portions of the Parcel owned by that indemnified Owner, unless and to the extent that the negligence of that indemnified Owner causes the claim, demand, or judgment. 11. Insurance. Each Owner shall and maintain its own public liability insurance. 12. Taxes. Each Owner shall pay, before delinquency, all real property taxes and assessments that become a lien upon the Parcel it owns, including but not limited to those portions of any Easement Areas that are located within the respective Parcel. GENERAL PROVISIONS. G.1 Appurtenant Restriction: Successors and Assigns. Each Restriction is appurtenant to, and for the benefit of, all portions of the Real Estate, and will be a burden on the Real Estate for the benefit of all portions of the Real Estate. This Declaration and the Restrictions will continue to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Owners and their successors, transferees, and assigns. But, if any Owner sells all of its interest in the Parcel, the purchaser of that Parcel will automatically be considered to have assumed and agreed to be bound by this Declaration, and the seller will then be released and discharged from any obligations under this Declaration that accrue after the date of sale and conveyance of title. G.2 Run with the Land; Perpetual Easements. The Restrictions run with the land and are binding upon each party (and each person claiming under a party) in perpetuity unless all Owners of the Parcels void the Restrictions by signing a written document to that effect which shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County, G.3 Modifications. This Declaration may be modified only by a written instrument signed by all Owners and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County. G.4 No Dedications. Nothing in this Declaration will be considered to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Real Estate to the general public, or for any public purposes. This Declaration will be strictly limited for the purposes expressed in this Declaration. G.5 No Cancellation upon Breach. No breach of this Declaration will entitle any Owner to cancel, rescind, or otherwise terminate this Declaration; provided, however, this 05 1545925 mow 6130105 • , limitation will not alter or modify any other rights or remedies that an Owner may have by reason of any breach of this Declaration. G.6 Severability. If any clause, sentence, or other portion of this Declaration becomes illegal, null, or void for any reason, or is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portions of this Declaration will remain in full force. G.7 No Effect On Validity of Liens. Breach of any of the Restrictions will not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value; provided, however, that this Declaration will be binding upon, and effective against, any Owner who acquires title by foreclosure, trustee's sale, or otherwise. G.8 Remedies for Breach. If any Owner violates, or threatens to violate, any Restriction, each other Owner will have, in addition to the right to collect damages, the right to enjoin the violation or threatened violation in a court of competent jurisdiction and the right to a decree of specific performance. The prevailing party also will be entitled to recover from the other party its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in bringing any such action. G.9 No Waiver. The failure of a person to insist upon strict performance of any Restrictions will not be considered a waiver of any rights or remedies that a person may have, and will not be considered a waiver of any later breach or default in the performance of any Restrictions by the same or any other person. G.10 Notices. All notices, approvals, or other communications required or permitted to be given in accordance with this Declaration must be in writing and will be considered properly given when made by personal delivery, United States mail, United States express mail, or other established express delivery service, postage or delivery charge prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to an Owner at its last known mailing address. The mailing address for an Owner is the address of that Owner as shown on the tax rolls of the County. Any Owner may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice to the other Owners. G.11 No Joint Venture or Partnership. The provisions of this Declaration do not create, nor will they be in any way interpreted or considered to create, a joint venture, partnership, or any other similar relationship between the Owners. G.12 Headings. The headings in this Declaration are for reference only and do not define or limit the scope or intent of any of the terms, covenants, conditions, or agreements contained in this Declaration. G.13 Entire Agreement. This Declaration contains the entire agreement between the Owners and supersedes all prior agreements, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter of this Declaration. The provisions of this Declaration will be construed as a whole and not strictly for or against any party. 05 j545925 6130105 I . . G.14 Interpretation. In construing the provisions of this Declaration and whenever the context so requires, the use of a gender will include all other genders, the use of the singular will include the plural, and the use of the plural will include the singular. G.15 Joint and Several Liability. If any Owner is composed of more than one person or entity, the obligations of those persons and entities will be joint and several. G.16 Recordation. This Declaration will be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County in which the Real Estate is located. G.17 Conflict. Any conflicts between this Declaration of Restrictions and Grant of Easements and any applicable local, state or federal ordinance or laws, such ordinances and laws shall govern. DECLARANT: 8920 GLENDON W• • OCIATES, LLC, a California limit ;�• ;! company By: / ,ii Artur re •er Man.ger (ATTACH NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT) 05 1545025 . 6!30!05 ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF Los Angeles }ss. On June 28, 2005, before me, Claudia Cardenas, Notary Public personally appeared ARTURO SNEIDER, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. cutUDIA CARDENAS .- ,.�, - Comm./138t?�a `' '�� NOTARY aatic-ally . / `. Calf BONN UCi ll. Signature aittdlthGtAdtnA-lo (NOTARY SEW ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to another document. THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO Title of Document Type THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT Number of Pages Date of Document Signer(s)Other Than Named Above OOOUENT PROMO h STEWRT TRU d CAUf-COW&wG MtAvnDOC 05 1545925 loom 60005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE (See Exhibit "A" following this cover sheet) 05 154592; OMMig 600!05 k• o LEGAL DESCRIPTION (EXHIBIT "A" ) THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : PARCEL 1 : THE SOUTHERLY 75 FEET OF LOT 19 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THE WEST 52 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL 2 : THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 20 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 3 : LOT 19 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE WEST 52 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 150 . 00 FEET OF SAID LOT 19. PARCEL 4 : THE NORTHERLY 75 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 150 FEET OF LOT 19 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE WEST 52 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL 5: LOTS 21, 22 AND THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 20, 33 , 34, 35 AND 36 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31 PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: Continued on next page -1- 05 1545925 rim 6130105 1\ BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 36, WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 36 ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERLY 71 FEET OF SAID LOT 36 BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF THE SOUTHERLY 71 FEET OF SAID LOTS 35, 34 AND 33 TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 33 ; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, EAST 49.445 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 33, DISTANT NORTH 01° 00' 15" WEST 81 . 00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 33 ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 33 AND 22 TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 22 ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 22, 21 AND 20 TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WESTERLY 40 .00 FEET OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED EASTERLY LINE TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 35; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 35 AND 36, TO SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 36; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED WESTERLY LINE OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THE LAND SHOWN AS EXHIBIT "A" AND VACATED IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11 RECORDED MAY 4, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 05-1053024 , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 33, 34, 35 AND 36 OF TRACT NO. 2277, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 31 PAGE 56 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND SHOWN PER RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 124 PAGE 66 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREE 59' 47" WEST, 60. 29 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IVAR AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHERLY 71 . 00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGELES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 36, 35, 34 AND 33 , THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 10' 14" EAST TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID LOT 33 , THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 49.445 FEET, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 33 , DISTANT NORTH 01 DEGREE 00' 15" WEST, 81 . 00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 33 , Continued on next page -2- 05 1545925 mow 6130105 NORTHERLY THENCE, SOUTH 0 DEGREE 59' 12 EAST 29 .20 FEET TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE FREEWAY 1-10, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES SOUTH 58 DEGREES 43' 03" WEST, 59 . 85 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 17' 52" WEST, 119 . 94 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 31' 29" WEST, 245 . 13 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION -3- 05 1545925 6130!06 13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DECLARANT PARCEL (See Exhibit "B"following this cover sheet.) EXHIBIT "B" 05 1545925 6I30IO5 1(t. • EXHIBIT ''6" PARCEL B OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH RECORDED ON JUNE 7, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 05-1323733 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : ALL OF THAT CERTAIN LAND SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 124, PAGE 66 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IVAR AVENUE ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES : 1 . (A) NORTH 00 DEGREES 59' 47" WEST, 251. 79 FEET (B) SOUTH 89 DEGREES 10' 14" WEST, 7.45 FEET (C) NORTH 0 DEGREES 59' 47" WEST, 247.46 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 15 . 00 FEET; THENCE 2 . NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES 10' 01" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 23 . 61 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GLENDON WAY; THENCE 3 . ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 10' 14" EAST, 152 .41 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY. (A) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 49' 46" EAST, 236. 69 FEET, (B) SOUTH 89 DEGREES 00' 16" WEST, 21. 13 FEET, (C) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 59' 44" EAST, 54 . 37 FEET, (D) NORTH 89 DEGREES 18' 53" EAST, 7 . 50 FEET, (E) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 59' 44" EAST, 224 . 05; THENCE 4 . ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 31' 29" WEST, 145 . 69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 05 1545925 6130105 . • • fr LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PHAM PARCEL (See Exhibit "C" following this cover sheet.) 05 1545925 UMW 6/30/05 I6 EXHIBIT "C" PARCEL A OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH RECORDED ON JUNE 7, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 05-1323733 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE LAND SHOWN ON A RECORD OF SURVEY, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 124, PAGE 66 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY ALONG BEING THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IVAR AVENUE ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1 . (A) NORTH 00 DEGREES 59' 47" WEST, 251 . 79 FEET (B) SOUTH 89 DEGREES 10' 14" WEST, 7 .45 FEET (C) NORTH 0 DEGREES 59' 47" WEST, 247 .46 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 15 . 00 FEET; THENCE 2 . NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES 10' 01" , AN ARC LENGTH OF 23 .61 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY AND THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF GLENDON WAY; THENCE 3 . ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 10' 14" EAST, 152 .41 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RECORD OF SURVEY. (A) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 49' 46" EAST, 236 . 69 FEET. (B) SOUTH 89 DEGREES 00' 16" WEST, 21 . 13 FEET. (C) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 59' 44" EAST, 54 .37 FEET. (D) NORTH 89 DEGREES 18' 53" EAST, 7 . 50 FEET. (E) SOUTH 00 DEGREES 59' 44" EAST, 224 . 05; THENCE 4. ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 31' 29" WEST, 145 . 69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 05 1545925 6130105 . • • ( 7 (See Exhibit "D" following this cover sheet) EXHIBIT "D" 1.0 )2 . -§ 05 1545925 imw of 15.4-C (4C i8 dfNbai NO AVM33bd .oft L_tt.� ,z'iv . _ CV aC tzi O QWW W \ �. bt qb \....1va 6 E wQ 0 o \ to 1 1... �$ tv N ll 4.R . tCO :t.1 i---- ,6.9W1 M .9t,6t.0 N 4 I o w X 1 9.7, CO Ct :15C I I —�- e 73OdVd v Q I 1 01,0.81;-?-m- -1---vm U 0 C. CP4 ClY it--VV17 Ni- ,9fliZ M .6,69.7 N ,S6 ff 3 .t. ,ZSLlZ ,_ —� gi IR7/1 d ,OrinA�Lt,6S.Ooiv • N6 • T 1° k --,mm.r.rW—* -- 4) -.1 1 sei §m 0 co A\`,,„„,\`„\,t`\ • '- a N w 4 cD Lts co b `4 4 g a N •- co C.D • gC LL' \ zcc I—U .•, ' 'ar, ill , m Ca Q i it Q 4 • > - ill w � CNI`� I oN W c� .7 3-'-- a ‘... 0 \::t .� \s••••,l�,ssov 2 11,01.68 N N Et p c O ,scort h ?1of Z UCyr 41a it W VT Nil 1 k x % re, ;$ cc il 1 -,,1 1;ig ,..., � . ii . � c „,_._ It __ 1 us CP bl E M F S O 'q O CIVIC PRIDE Ilklk1L- - /NCDRpORA f Attachment J Site/Floor/Elevation Plans ,fir. II I I I - l SOW-ILS(9Z9) 994 9L06 YJ 13R$,t n5 -{ OUl6 C 013 113 5 3 8 OOW-ILS 999 :13: 919 31rM"OSlO 13TttA'�hl 1 INA 0069 461w 0 .osw,"m �.+�. S1ODIIHONV - -' OVW�SO2f AO AJ IO •:!s •- I SAIVIOOSSV S X1 NOWIS CIVHW3SO2I-SH1If1S'8 NNI NO1dWVH ,a"g a- ....... --t :103,0161 Q . F-73 tr.a ! ! Ilibig ' :: PI 4., ,,t. ( ig- N ; 4•.: „I1I • • lei— " o 00 1 , .: n.:81e'.......... ic. ++ i:••• r!... • 0<_ "�ie�. 9 5 .o-.sz \ -- '8:. u.l) I I , 0 / [.. aa, r' a# �..f��w 1 dai • =iu�..as Cl- 1aQY , �; Io W w s .O-.sz u.0-.91 ' n` • -1, JJ ' N ` R L ►�Js .0-.SZ I n 1tr - - g 5 '11E%Y . .3,40. V t i il 41 - j :I/ `.,91 oT :I,/lI�.0-.94 , ' \, ry P. n ' 6C tl 10:4 iia,: e- M i i• 9 I 1 it 1 1 1 1 PA i i l7 ti t Y g MO cg g■ ye o 4 -y v.; l' k.4 3 s i e PP � �z id_ J.Vi ' ! , \Z � � a 999 619 R 3— On p�°p��"pu0° _�� 4j/4�"�,�I��'jIf _ r ` i - b $$$$i$ l . E 'e `- :1.L-_ i�"i © .��4 I „S. •l� ply I PII ' -5: pqgppg gpgp gpgp 1 111 I ‘t . NL 1 1 R 4 � �; g I .F■ I 3t'R'LRF RR 1- V.1 drill. 1►'f .;1 .4% 1iilild■!1R"1 .�__j1p1�$ is • : E gb4 o .�i- ft�ii 1/ i ■ e.J� !ALI�: 6 4 to r Y d I ql .1 ��1 � �: - = IRnlAGea �JIu ��Y b 1 • i 1 as l S e_ o-n $ o ��rf1 o n g o t t :Iri '�,Qti 3 $ Y fl ! a 1e� �■■■■ Q 1 g g :.€ € al _ ® o�� Iwu 51,4„,, i, i i `- El§ gds 6 i 1. o �� 1 u 3 b � � 'Ys� >- ,t, Ali. ®o ■, r g�jy ' •/' I v II gg ; p ( �' z /)� o "'ro = pa . X1711 1 c1 . I r�$ 9 b 5 ? S k g• ��� i'; FL. •• ,■wap. •2111 O1 = 'i1 F \^ IEl zo` •J qa' ig? 3 ° �1; i9 , t o '" F:i 'Q:!:!,1::' , .. •®, �I I O Z y g i I( a! sill R �( :b • s '� t t _4a. o O,. . h , i! w qEqr g t a;b 1 a ,.. S yggy�� f U • ggi • ®1 AY ^i \\\\\•a- ^I u L. .�r�:1�Q��lo-.z I 0 uS k�-y 53 9sBa 1 i a 41 11p 6 • 8 O ce ,03)- 1 s Iiiim•miialbrIA. ,1 ler;;;2---P7:1 g 1 1 i Hifi l $ 1 i 9 o11 A i�• .A 1 ■ �'"9'..l O F- I N I_ §: 16 1110 f �. I _ = Il - -0-.99 I Si 77.1:—Ili^ill. �� - , ,l ;� •:'ll. III' ;,� i. .r 1� . •:;i ` 11 1 n d �' '- "I. .L 1•_.61 ISI,•}.''i:' •\.ir a '` /' j.oA' rt tta� / � A - z a � I " y -N E I ,_oz, s -0-1¢ • 7 .. : :,. - firm, Anew. I I I I - G°GY-ILS I9L9)M 9416 YJ TTVA A MS 1 — I J;L 6 vJ'.Y3n35Jy OGCY-ILG(929)'01 SIL 3ll:5'M1B A7TLIA'X J•1 L ,a,, 'r NI •SI• N ., wW. S10311HOHV at/31/13802J AO h110 ff S3IVIOOSSV 8 331 NOWIS OV3W3SOa S311f1S S NNI N01dWVH , i Q u1°.x.V :nvnae Q — E .aa. ^ 3 a u .___ .r-.It Z 5 - i 1 ft OP?.Ili i ill.,'' N::iuI1= �' ?I, co :! 2 W= n °� 1'1)x'-'I'i�V.� , H D y!1 • l cow co 1 ° •�___� I n __ - - • G( oV -~ % f.� '� I t.--- s hil II' � 1 1C III15. p I:,1 . I. N I1 IIS !.11.4t4".1 M,,fA 1 �` 1Ell_`-_1►/ N. ilt .1111:. •11.sly., L ` i .• I I 1 ___� - .tl-.OY ..-,OZ ". I iiill I. b CL J . 0 .e• lit t - a i 1 t j - ' I 7 I Iw -iii , ili.5 4 wzi'„I''y .i..-Al .g-.R !di .1-SG ..-AL 1 ,K1A 1 Ii1I i `,L,� 1' -•r1'i M '" O 1 I 1 CO F- F #?gi :. 1 fliP 1 i'11 ill ilii Fp $ & 1,11 Ili! "f 6 I �` Ili 1 1 r�`i J 33 .12g 6e so 4 1 a r XR a LL '.1°.a tii! i .ri s i- X0' 10V 6411€ g-1/- G6ip 11s - -- Alia _ G° ' Yb °Q� t 3: 6Y 9Z" R Y8 a ill i i (7 /�1E I ml cF\ I--• gut s1 i< 15 'ea " s 81 !ill RRijs : 1 ° $ � ^r 1�9�. `� ,gaffs 1sa. 6y 51 ilts111. € g i r Y 6°1 !lei r q! l I —I� .i. Eli, — •g_gB ii ge g� g ie 124 PI Ai" 396? - a Y s6g I. s�4"z6 1 4 9 # 1 fl • R 6Ye a 1id.�1>t ii• -. .11 11- �.. • Va 5.5g Il °l iii; s ghg!ill pit. lital zg .4. . I y6 0 gidi ny y l'aleS r Ir: B snpgaqg ri-q , gr g1 ;'F * 414 [ i 1 Ii' gi 4°° - „£ i qi .f-.I]I g6 .:tat; .c .; CII E " .I.a •i§8Jl :lei _a 7 I I I - 9009-ILS 909 3 901 6*0 T3W?C M5 I SIC.6 VI CY303S_4 0009-ILS 909 ZiL LIZ 311':90.+T9 131Nn M CVI A.I00U3 0 00009 ,� ry, r S "=:::..... S10311H02JV OV31N3SO2!dO.1110 a •a 1 i N # S31VIOOSSV'8 331 NOWIS _ OV3W3SOH-S311fS'8 NNI NO1dWVH , g Q I :031NJW X109090 I CO Z O H w J W _Z' J. m' . € � 1 — 1ri , . _. _ _ 0 1 ■ ► IJJ 1 47 O • 7 0 t I CrLLI - L _ O , f4 o _ 1 y g� a E ifil I o . i I , I 0 1111111 'I z w E JJ•NI NI III t Qo o 0 wo w 6iie "illi i o2 0 11 s 11 1 22 m � � ❑ l OU- L1 „ 3 ❑ 1. . . ❑ I 0 1:3 INN INN NMI II I EMI LIJI IT 9 arrr,. w W .. . „. .. . cm O I0 00000000® 0 _� I , o ' E I 1 M Q 1 ,) . [ilPfl o vQrq " ' 1 ` I ► 1 I r;, o 11 i isimilib, .3.011011=11*- -1111 .11111- 41111 o - , C00a-tic(909)'Ci 9iCt6 00 l3MBr0 WS I---=. 94416 00'00001530 6009-tic 1909) 171 ctc vns '0008.vrvn.rnt n�"an 0000 i9 N = S10311HO IV = OV3W3S02j 3O ALIO =t s i N S31HIOOSS`d'8 331 NOINIS 7----,717--' OV3W3SOH -S311fS'8 NNI NO1dW %VH - p Q :300000 C Ct Z 0 I= Q W J . w 0. Z o' J. m . I i I il 15$ 1! li 0 lLL_1 i lam I l I l I I I. 0 0 0- t I l l ■ 1 1 - -11 0 ---0lilt 1 I 1 E I O • 0 -1, 'ILII 4L e i i1 I ■ 1 ■ 1 11 1 i-i--- N © � I l l / ) i § ^ I ■ I I I I I I ' 4 c c c c c c xc c1 I © z p tl 1 1 1 1 )I z > O i 1 i ) Q = S $ i O ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 a Llio fl) iiiiini i I=1 : At > E I1, I W u_ x 0 W O 1 11 11 l a i I-1 u.. -, z , w is y LII 11 11 11 1 � � o • p II It ItU I no 3533vi;,3•4 1 •4 =s3 © I, W 3 1 i o uil 0 bI 3 i i i i i 3 I5 .� { P. o !i. .. ..'.. II © i 0 I! k E II I I ■ • . II_. .. ■ . 1 rd. _. r.. ° `III ' I ► 1 1 . o n.� I 011111116_ Ant All! r . - c g-it4 969 :]CLJ 91[16 93 13 60 MIS OLL l6 6 0/3113509 000v-uc 919 '31 StL 31X3`39 A3T 6'•Wt -_- avq N00MJ10 3069 p o;:e S1031IHO JV adW3SOH .A0 A.1_10 s ch WO D. S3IVIOOSStf 8 331 NOWIS -- _ OV3 J SO2l-S LIflS'8 NM NO1dWVH '-, .- g Q VJ Z , iic 0 0 J IL I_— z D • Q' .L-,S .0l-,S .9-,4 1 ,6-,OZ I d 1601111:11111M:IM . O N '60 t LL '1 rlLi-1711111' 11 ,� H N e0 I. m w$ 1 q�CO n CO " NO YYI r `v 0 ra EP .2 ri„Iil I: 1:0; ..•7 Crr a ' n,. i 1 1 .9-:Sl y -T ` ll-AL ,6-,S ® ,t -,4 I 6 ,OZ • LYi= -co IM 11 Jil .,... -`- P W W IF Mai f��Wool I •_ Q �� Q 1-- i -- t' y IL . e.." W ills N (�LL " / -- La H (7" 0 o m N 9 W 0 ..'Is ,oll-iti,pp_ ; * R [ - I m L♦II I Ll0 ....km,1071 6- • ,OZ Y i9C SY tlg g3 .,t: g3 ' RSR 09600 AIIMI soov-tL9(9S9)V vine 4 '11I ttv OLL lea v�an,. S mro-ILS 909 '01 SIL wns'0010 uTWn.Ml ..e c'D a 0060 �r p.. c- ,"°'.,,„"..0...,, SLOd1IHOaV - avav sou JO ALIO .. 1 .2. S31VIOOSSV'8 331 NOWIS ~ OV3W3SOH-SALlfls'8 NNI NOLdIIWH A+a,•;.0 g Q :unvuw I :Inlaid Q iiC6 g ai 4 'j ll_r R z ;i - Ili! I-1.- z • 1' I: 2It ,f 1119 1 O 1 _ ■i was. W 1ls. �` ? 1111 o, — :p" 0 11z M4 t1!4 f 111 .• W g ! HU ; m U 1- as _ N ' ..a. ..r • ru t.0sr .a-A.1 E • 11 • a eI II .. • 1 141. • girl tl ! I 1 I HHU t III I . I1` ® eo rr _ J .. LIJ CO W ILI it III " I i s 1 ww • I.i 11 V gli Li ri T I 1 1 I 1 . ...... ... iL 11111 ' I. tl tl tl tl tl _..I rr .r __ _rl' 'Z I I I c I I: ll . y • I 11111111111111111111110. . 2' t156S559Z9 XYi/t5651X9Z9-131 61.1.9.54Z-90)'XVI ZZS9SlT9i9'13.L 1[0110-96[5'°N YI.. aY 3 y .0116VJ'O.NIUVNNVS ,e7:14%: SUI V)13ta6IY'J NYS OCLI6 YJ'OY31Y3$oi $ 1--1 7d O'13IftIvi S09Z �, .y b08ZIS37'M az 9AV MVAI ONVAVM Ow3'1'J 1 a • 2 S3.LVIJOSSV]8 N32IOQNR'I Nag �% ?o $ dl1O2I9 NDIS30 33'I AUL OV3W3SO1I-3.I.I0S]8 NNI NO.Ld W VH # 6 ,?uud p arcJa1< rarvan r .]fYon.unerns o) hM.+u .y.y d j 1 1 2 i I t C'ICr..%S7, n-] I..-1...e n 1 -.u;• OE�it ,. ',1 \i • se'',fs%f 1 L '''• ' El i if i ; ! r li i 51 Jig _ _ �i1 1 •-- i 2 :ti • 3 pp E T I, , „ ,; ,; ,, d, „, , 0 . ..... „ .. -- .. I 1 ,. ,, ,, , ,,_ , Io .. ,ILII `, ao is- •'a ' II g I O r.v11)1Vc 1 I x W LL A' i t . �IS11 i t , •x';1{1 I '- P P U � Alp;` 1 , .I 10.. I 1 4 4 4 1."I W 1 lo, a —Of.,p.,;:.ly1 •�/ ' 1 I °s 3 rtinl 9 4 O 4I<)L—___ ... © 11 1 o pi]li. Ic I a ''p1-ca ,I 1 , —"gig PPM j 1,'iO s V O ir';=i © i Y ga --nor', .:II;.... � :°.orAll I\ • 411111.` 1 i i ii ii ii t t gY \All," t 1 1 • 1 a O3i ��♦/� ...► .� -ice I I , 0 i._ lc: .o ..o_-""' Will..1,h .a_.?ir s� arc. :7..'�� I 0 I S 5 a j d [ i � T J .II�' d ,. i�ut' 111. c \,.U; M 1 _ I e <S q a` £ • L _. - i : 11: 7 . r --1 iiillirli I Is li 0 I 4 0 11 PI Li 1 6 uoc]oo'r fjtS jir I 'Y": e O O1130O ® OU1=1 ❑ ❑O O II Il al I c - ., `d o ¢) I T: •- . .,,&-4-2-401,1 le I Z C E E C C �i I * * 0 ,_ :� Io k • ® ° ., a 0—�iig[' • I F- 1 0 v,c ®0 1 � x,11 1 3 8 8 8 9 ® i 71i n: Id r� F1'., 1 I ! I n sQ 1� ,i:�3II1/'!fI'iIItE �_'� I I ill z 3 R<' �a{ 3a5 , � r ' ,� kik 4'77:- 'll OC, J77[22ii ` i 55 F ��3 II11�F./. `w-i g: 1� IlI� El Ilr-. 1 I oIIH1 C 3 �,, ` — p p I!`.1 911 Y �1. �� p/ , 'PI' ••!' ••1 I ci - a ` , _1,A ii A . \ _ 5/ i I/ I i11 1 q iiiii24 iiln1 i; isg 1 I 1 1 9 0 © xl I- iODODEICIOEO ® 1212` : 0csi-- --- - '. - . - - - =_.Y¢QN � < , * 40000 i S E M E O � 9 O CIVIC PRIDE MPink 7 /�CORppR 4, Attachment K Revised Site Plan - ,—t I ig_ 62:21W&MY AZ/ Aonira -, "V1 V 4.' NI I III(lir ti vi f; - """ f ' .i.1 sfo ,� g�seii obd II��1'jtail-h- . 1 i t 3 . yi. i i n' „.:17,04,Y 1,i 'lz O� p F � a l i i i i K krotifiti...k J QT®����11.���r1T 1 daripFi§:gjgj, 00wQIP )°-0� 7...,r;,_::"-ii 3 h 9 FR�j9 L� -OI♦�air• :. _ : all �i a.\\\\\ ® R Ii5. 4 s s i� I IC" Ili g 4 i v -'_r — j Ea i i F°EEE 3 ^ Rjy• $�:142h_ _ ) II, .. 410 4a7� _ ) �' pp �_ •0x . pF^1 z r=� 1 ••e.,. eggg¢ �{sie T i;f${ 1118 is ■Ey i4 vii.�� :� ���':_ c i 3` b §" li 5. rn K 61 ---4,',V Ai G) n 0 17' \\.\\ MIM ' 1N p r,.-sol- _ I 111If 0 316 El 2i g P.!!!i i 1 e05 I a i 81 -11' !��tt:i. E7: sI I^ - -- rl .'.. �.= .1— _ f�fiem'i " :ID7, @f a `c y i Ar It '-FrAi1f eErt.;0-1 ' ..4)...!=tib; `a. 's i 3 111`1 s 1 01 h11111 � 4- $ • 11I , is %�. i git k s• '- #assts t `, ...r.1r. • 114-1 A,k 4 4444C g a t=6 ® ... ..p0,1 II iI 6lr iii_ Ril 0 9 bgi5E : s i oe 'spit ; g b �J `` j'. I ' 4 • 01' 4g4 a ! y, .5. :�1. f eR • ao AO, r idi i '1 °8. x(l61]11 a 0, in Fx f Y l �>I •OQ_ O ': �1 r)) pstri 3 0 g 11, Mk t' o. - a Z • °11411I144)\ "k I \ (',,,, I,,>,k',.'.. ^ .o, oat .,,,,, r— 1i -11.5 me— p,, ,y !q Nr c�.n ao.......,,: i i„... O S o t0Y , .........1 /I -n A 0-----� Asa. 4 \i\ I iOLNBY S ri. .eiF 1' . 0 ' —r f'4Y i) - o" , . n __ - $ wwtt) *CATERE D5 a'' °p, HAMPTON INN&SUITES-ROSEMEAD __ SIMON LEE&ASSOCIATES i:1. p CITY OF ROSEMEAD - ARCHITECTS "'""""asa,..,, ewo ROSpf/bG 011S w r MwR,uG w/sulE)u a l!M)S)I-p°p OM 0)I-A)%