Loading...
CC - Item 3B – Ordinance No. 789 – Zone Change 98-207 5 t M p staff ep ort TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 11, 1998 RE: ORDINANCE NO. 789 - ZONE CHANGE 98-207 Amending the Zoning Map from R-2;Light Multiple Residential to C-3; Medium Commercial- 7815 Emerson Place This item was presented at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 6, 1998. A copy of the Planning Commission report which provides a detailed analysis of the subject zone change is attached for your review. No testimony was presented in opposition to the project at the public hearing, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the proposed zone change. The zone change has been proposed by the property owner to allow them to convert an existing single family residence into an office use. The proposed design meets the development standards of the C-3 zone, subject to some minor changes. The lot has a General Plan designation for Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial and is surrounded on three sides by C-3 zoning. Because of the close proximity to commercial uses in the arca, staff finds that the requested change to C-3 is justified. The use will generate minimal traffic and noise, and be consistent with all the elements of the Rosemead General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and place Ordinance No. 789 on first reading, and schedule the item for a second reading at the meeting of August 25, 1998. Attachments: COUNCIL AGENDA I 1. Draft ordinance No. 76') 2. PC Report,dated July 6, 1995 (+ 3 PC Minutes for July 6, 1995 4 15 i {(;(�IJJB 4. PC Resolution Na.98-27 ITEM No. �.8 'Bc ORDINANCE NO. 789 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 98-207, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C-3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7815 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5287-020-020). WHEREAS, Mr. Raymond Cheng, 1611 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 100, Alhambra, CA 91801, filed an application requesting a zone change from the R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C-3 "Medium Commerical" for property located at 7815 Emerson Place on April 27, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for "Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial"; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for R-2; "Light Multiple Residential"; and WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and the zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1998, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 43 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1998, the Planning Commission held public hearings and adopted PC Resolution 98-27, approving a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change 98-207; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 43 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the environmental analysis, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Zone Change 98-207; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1998, the Rosemead City Council held duly noticed public hearings and sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21- day period prior to the City Council hearing. This study found that this project could not have Ordinance No. 789 Zone Change 98-207 Page 2 of 3 a significant effect on the environment. Section 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property at 7815 Emerson Place in the C-3; Medium Commercial zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 98-207 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 98-207 allows the property owner to convert an older single family home into an ancillary office use. The site is located in Planning Area 4 of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial uses. The area surrounding the site is zoned medium commercial and general planned commercial to the north south and west. B. Circulation; The site is located on Emerson Place. Emerson Place is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Emerson Place. The existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic anticipated. C. Housin ; Although this site is currently zoned R-2; the proposed use of this property as an ancillary office use will not deplete available land for housing. D. Resource Management;. The applicant has provided adequate landscaping on the proposed site and the project will not have any negative impacts on air or water quality in the City. E. Noise; The proposed office will front on Emerson Place. The proposed office will not create any potential noise impacts. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 98-207, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C-3; "Medium Commercial" for property located at 7815 Emerson Place (APN: 5287-020-020) Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 11th day of August, 1998. ROBERT BRUESCH, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Ordinance No. 789 Zone Change 98-207 Page 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 789 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 98-207, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C-3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7815 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5287-020-020). was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of August, 1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of August, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk STAFF REPORT Planning Commission July 6, 1998 CASE NO: ZONE CHANGE 98-207 REQUEST: Change the zoning designation from R-2 to C-3 LOCATION: 7815 Emerson Place (APN: 5287-020-020) APPLICANT: Raymond Cheng 1611 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 100 Alhambra, CA 91801 OWNER: Peter & Vivien Ko 2657 S. Rudy Street Rowland Heights, CA 91748 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notices were mailed to 43 property owners within 300 feet of the subject property plus posted in 10 public places on 05-20-98. EX-EIIBITS: A. Concept Plans B. Assessor's Maps C. Zoning Map D. General Plan Map E. Initial Study, dated 5-14-98 F. Application, dated 4-27-98 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Zone Change 98-207 would amend the Zoning Map designation for 7815 Emerson Place. The applicant proposes to change the zoning to C-3; Medium Commercial from the existing R-2; Light Multiple Residential zone. This change would allow the conversion of an existing single family home into a commercial office structure. A preliminary concept plan has been attached for conversion of this site to an office use. An initial study has been completed (May 14, 1998) in accordance with state and local environmental regulations. This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed project. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission hearing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff recommends adopting a finding of Negative Declaration. II. CODE REOIIIRENIENTS Chapters 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets the procedure and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found to be consistent with the Rosemead General Plan. ROSEMEAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Lne Change 98-207 luh 6. 1998 Pace 2 of 3 III. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND Zone Change 98-207 has been proposed by the property owner to allow the conversion of an existing 1,200 square foot, single family residence into an office use. This site is located on the north side of Emerson Place, approximately 115 feet east of Del Mar Avenue. It is a rectangular lot measuring 60-feet by 90.51-feet for a total of 5,430.6 square feet. The site has historically been used for one single family home that was constructed in 1940. The property owner also owns an adjacent property (3206 Del Mar Avenue) and currently occupies this building with an insurance office doing business as "The Master Insurance Company". The business has outgrown the current building and the property owner wishes to use the residence as an ancillary office. The accounting portion of the business would operate at the Emerson Place location. Mr. Ko purchased this residence in February of last year and has been using this residence as an ancillary office without the proper approvals and permits from the City. Because the property is currently zoned light multiple residential a business cannot be operated without a zone change approval. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. LAND USE The site is designated in the general plan for "Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial" development, and on the zoning map it is designated for R-2; Light Multiple Residential development. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial Zoning: C3; Medium Commercial Land Use: Vacant Lot South: General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial Zoning: C-3; Medium Commercial Land Use: Apartment Building East: General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R2; Light Multiple Residential Land Use: Apartment Houses West: General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial Zoning: Commercial Land Use: Print Shop/Residence B. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed office is a single story residence that the applicant wishes to convert to a legal office structure. The design meets all of the development standards for the C-3 zone. Staff does have some design changes for the project relating to the proposed floor plan, pedestrian access, • Zone Change 98-207 hih 6. 1998 Page 3 of3 landscaping and the parking stall layout. Before the construction drawings can be submitted to the Building department these revisions will need to made to the plans. The changes will ensure that this structure does not allow for any living quarters and that it will support only an office use. In addition to the Planning issues that need to be addressed the structure will also need major modifications to meet the commercial office standards set by the Uniform Building Code. Such items as handicapped bathrooms, widening of hallways and load bearing weight requirements will need to be addressed. C. PARKING/CIRCULATION With approximately 1,200 square feet of area, the proposed office would require five parking spaces. The site will need to be re-designed to meet the minimum parking requirements. The front yard area will need to be paved and striped for a handicapped parking stall and a portion of the home will have to be demolished to allow parking in the original garage area. This scenario of parking layout would require that tandem parking be designed within the original garage area and the existing driveway. In addition, a pedestrian access area will need to be created between the two lots. The application only indicates that two employees will work at this office, however the floor plan shows four separate offices. Therefore staff could not support a design with less than the required five parking spaces. D. FINDINGS This particular lot is located at the edge of the Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial general plan designated district and abuts the Medium Density Residential district to the east. The properties to the north, south and west of this location are all zoned as medium commercial uses and general planned as Mixed Use. Therefore staff feels that it does make good zoning sense to recommend approval of a zone change to medium commercial. The historic use is a single family home that is in a transition zone between commercial uses to the west and higher density apartment building uses to the east. A low intensity accounting office type of use will not adversely impact the multi family residences to the east. Because of the close proximity to Del Mar Avenue and the commercial uses in the area, staff feels that it is justified to support the requested use as an ancillary office. The use will generate minimal traffic and noise to the area and the request is found to be consistent with all of the elements of the Rosemead General Plan. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for ZC 98-207; and 2) Recommend City Council approval of Zone Chancre (ZC) 98-207, changing the zoning designation from R-2 to C-3. 6 Vvnv I I I Ih h kr 57 •. 50 69. 69 p� _93 w 50 .. 59 w O J cLn • 29 12C-2''',7�h 2024- a SCHOOL CNC IL "� rcirr r 0o I _ 00 m. 0 vfl 02 I v°� 69 2 -r��/ h n N H. 7 n g ° 9 ° n 10 � it ‘s' I2 ,j) 13 ; I4 cflXJ✓ 1� 5 O - O\ F,. O i. ., rar , hr‘i ,V N N. N O3_52 vi I Z 12r- O 0 4 0 .. • 50 69.95 655 09 I di• Poi' ":34-C ( -072"2 i. I, ---- 1 / 1- N39"55'S0 E, 600./6 1 17&25 6B./O ku /LOd' 117-7'Gb`S� 65 100 '�-525 p = h322v Gm S i-GD i.%N-� •I ;y 0 ur ^r 01 / -. O m i, /840 - 77V /.67 m 0. 0 3 4 a V7z ' I NG _ - --- N 2 I� /73 Par y� Kb-1) h I so `I /- r2 N re `mss -� 420 '� m 7`d k--.. -,.. • :,rMe) , ____, �'i ao e h °; w , 5,4,0, , , for-e.; ;J., I 5 :5 V o L., bo 4 / - /70 25 68./0 n "_.2. /,5 T .FYI 7/ B/ ,r5 t'50 /00 1 'p . N. B9"s5'5O"t \3 o — SITE PL . • 9 EMERSON I 1 1 I TRACT NO 12539 TRACT NO. I27E M B. 237 - 17 M. B. 20 - 134 - 135 - � �r��.a---- -¢oma ' 2�"�'ura.ef.F.. .S. S1'IYY'1 +iirt�.�� .}^-'yam. 1� EXHIBIT "B" r,�.3JECT PROPERTY INFORMATION 1) ro erty: 7815 EMERSON PL, 0-2335 CO APN: 5287-020-020 Use: SFR County: LOS ANGELES,CA Tax Rate Area: 3917 Total Value: $41,757 Census: 4823.02 Prop Tax: $550.50 Land Value: $12,935 Map Pg: 46-El Delinq Tax Yr: Impry Value: $28,822 New Pg: 636-E1 Exemptions: HOMEOWNER Assd Yr: 1997 Phone: % Improved: 69% Owner: KO PETER Y L 8 VIVIEN Mail: 7815 EMERSON PL; ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2335 SALES INFORMATION IMPROVEMENTS LAST SALE PRIOR SALE Bldg/Liv Area: 1,269 Transfer Date: 02/25/97 07/14/64 #Units: Sale Price/Type: $167,000 FULL $8,500 UNKNOWN # Bldgs: Document#: 284669 # Stories: 1 Document Type: GRANT DEED 5/SF: $131.60 1st TD/Type: $133,600 Yrhlt/Eff: 40 48 Finance: Total Rms: 5 Junior TD's: Bedrms: 3 Lender: UNITED SVGS BK Baths(F/H): 1 Fireplace: Seller AVINA MIGUEL JR & BERTHA pool: POOL TNe Company: CONTINENTAL LAWYERS TITLE CO. Bsmt Area: Transfer Info: Construct: SITE INFORMATION Flooring: Air Cond: Improve Type: Lot Size: 60 X 90 Heat Type: HEATED Zoning: RD RM Lot Area: 5,400 Quality: County Use: 0101 Parking: GARAGE Condition: Bldg Class: D Park Spaces: 2 Style: TRADITIONAL Flood Panel: 060153 Site Influence: Other Rooms: Phys Chars: RAISED FOUNDATION:COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF COVER;GABLE ROOF TYPE;STUCCO EXTERIOR;FENCE;RANGE OVEN;DISHWASHER; Legal: L2 TR1276!E 60 FT OF W 175 FT OF S Comments: USABLE LOT:5,397 Copyright 0 1996-97 Experian Page: 1 of 1 • SL,f3JECT PROPERTY INFORMATION 1) Property: 3206 DEL MAR AV, ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2328 C031 APN: 5287-020-035 Use: OFFICE BUILDING County: LOS ANGELES, CA Tax Rate Area: 3917 Total Value: $364,944 Census: 4823.02 Prop Tax: $4,075.39 Land Value: $184,351 Map Pg: 46-E1 Delinq Tax Yr Impry Value: $180,593 New Pg: 636-E1 Exemptions: Assd Yr 1997 Phone: % Improved: 49% Owner: KO PETER Y &VIVIEN C Mail: 3206 DEL MAR AVE; ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2328 SALES INFORMATION IMPROVEMENTS LAST SALE PRIOR SALE Bldg!Liv Area: 2,259 Transfer Da'.e: 11/21/88 08122/84 n Units: Sale Price!Type: $610,000 FULL # Bldgs: Document 1863116 k Stories: Document Type: JOINT TENANCY DEED S/SF: $270.03 1st TD/Type: 5120,000 VARIABLE YrblUEff 90 90 Finance: Total Rms: Junior TDM: Bedrms: Lender: Baths(F/RT: Fireplace: Seller: HOLLOWAY MARIA E Pool: Title Company: TICOR TITLE INSURANCE CO. Bsmt Area: Transfer Info: Construct: SITE INFORMATION Floorinc: Air Cond: Improve Type: Lot Size: A0.11 Heat Type. HEATED Zoning: C3' RM Lot Area: 5,005 Quality: County Use: 1700 Parking: GARAGE Condition Bldg Class: D Park Spaces: 2 Style: Flood Panel: 060153 Site Influence: Other Rooms: Phys Chars: STAB FOUNDATION;COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF COVER;GABLE ROOF TYPE;WOOD SIDING EXTERIOR; Legal: L2 TR12761N 45.51 FT OF S 90.51 FT OF W Comments: USABLE LOT:5,005 Copyright©1996-97 Experian Page: 1 of 1 o;. l ,- Th _ .3 0 —_L'_ I1C I I rI . I V a I6 —1$ �'- Lt' BCP XXP T4C -... ._ .- — --�. wIlI-1Or 5.411 BB.NIA D.XL ' r ar _ 341 AV Q 1 L I 34 L '-�r: -- Z I ' � �C Hr-Ll1rldAt I [ v R 3 o p Tl y Q Q I 3 �1 HERSHEY S „Fin, ii I I ' :>I � I 1 --� f al \\y\ V � SII 4, a QII QI 3 !*,r1.1 E I fThöROTHY ZR2 r A (� o Cr rti'E Dl 1 W ' 'F#r RSQN _ -J: III� PL 3210' 1 . - \ i H ch 0 (� .I it� C`' CL J, - 71 -�1 - T 0 . J C J; 1W Z Q c J■ Tui - ____---L) ° . O `I ZI QI w r.. R2 \C3 eF1Air. I,`LIL_ W I "� P WIRGlNI Z R2 P -_-L 1 CS \ < / - , p A N PSr l Z¢ IARVEYl i 3000 ti ll� tJ�J.�-m .. .w.w�.«..wlnlwm um • 1.nulmmWuunmmniwm unumum;N,uunimminiaminnnim'aPIPI iiiM1uri Pnwn a '�url 11tH,- I--- IC v O C1.3 9 R2IC3 1 C3 o"C3. C3' � _ i—., r---- 1 C3 P 2 �I v . L,, ) I > : I I I-� �I9Im ,. 21 ; E i �� I ��.,� R2> QI I Q ! >� WI—ill i " �— 1 ¶ 'H 12 �. r .46 I H JEWMARK AV I • I II �/ ,� C �r R2 2 L�' O i NEI AR 4� ��A lir ES i� i ,; LT- \U / QzWASG A m = LAW J ST C � V IA' ti I ® � x - : /lip Q AV AN ir P - / E •,e• tE1WI t IH D ..J 11>f _> ,r rrNr me C'� c FLEM r'• I . ml` JI • / 1 X .n IddQrt •l \ -. ezt ti 1 GRAVES I'D-2400 AV 1. n - 4001 r KILL,GE, MA1_T r . ('?'"�—� Icy CO -`STA +.' '1 �I E2 I EXHIBIT "C r" _ w` ' ?, b' t �: Off lesia.k 11 Muahlel �- N Low DensityRosIdonlinl Medium Densly Ro pltlenllul . I Hipp Density Residential I 1 _W�L \r 0o MIxoC 'Jse: Rpeltlantlel/Gommp:ciel i ��\J�X MIxoC Use: Industrial/Commercial >--_ Y Commercial fr -1-1 Public Facllltlea 1-\ S r tBI G PLANNING AREA -PIE" Im 7 Cr ss G7 91)74-)Et 1 Fwy .:� J 1L I� rSan Be-nacino t) ? ��.kkolk000 oof i � pva n5'a II1i IF it Ali ao o `. al �` __ oad ho Mo e ey Park , ,l t. 1 i t Ill >, k� T—I 11 : I,q. n l G fl � t Ir _ �wV ' EID2'S DD Pi.J �' T m � 1 I _ ...� a F i. 1-.°, J.i-k Ea f 'Y z I L --\ e-� b Gary v Ave lc :- -- 1 . 0 r_ ;n LIGUPE LU-4 • Land Use Policy Planning Area 4 • • r>r City of Rosemead r - General Plan COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES G% - /L EXHIBIT "D" • Planning Area 4: Land Use Policy This planning area encompasses the section of Rosemead south of the San Bernardino Freeway and west of San Gabriel Boulevard. The land use policies of the Rosemead General Plan provide for a diversity of land uses to be located here, including residential, commercial, and the mixed use overlay districts: residential/commercial and light industrial/commercial. Residential land uses with densities ranging from medium to high are situated in the planning area's westernmost region extending from Del Mar Avenue. A strip of high density housing fronts on Hellman Avenue. The remaining residential areas are designated medium density residential. The residential designations generally correspond to the existing uses and will serve to preserve the integrity of the existing residential neighborhoods. Mixed-use residential/commercial lines is designated for the area adjacent to the San Bernardino Freeway, north of Hellman Avenue, and adjacent to Del Mar Avenue. A large commercial district is located in the area adjacent to the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection to Del Mar Avenue. The commercially designated land northwest of the Garvey Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard intersection will serve as a primary commercial center for the southern half of the City. The traffic volumes along the two major arterials, the centralized location of this district, and the availability of larger parcels make this location a prime opportunity area. Land located to the north of this district to Hellman Avenue is designated for low density residential. That portion of the planning area designated for mixed-use commercial located immediately south of the San Bernardino Freeway sl L' allow high density commercial and office uses while making provisions to allow for residential" development. The primary ':unction of the mixed-use land use designation located elsewhere In the planning area is to upgrade blighted commercial activities located in "commercial strips" along Del Mar, San Gabriel Boulevard, and Garvey Avenue. LU-13 5/28/S7 "Exhibit A" CEQA APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Zone Change 98-207 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peter Lyons, Director of Planning (626) 288-6671 4. Project Location: City of Rosemead County of Los Angeles, State of California Assessor Parcel Number(s): 5287-020-020 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Raymond Cheng 1611 S. Garfield Street #100 Alhambra, CA 91801 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: R-2; Light multiple Residential 8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Change the zoning of the parcel from R-2; Light Multiple Residential to C-3; Medium Commercial, for the purpose of converting an existing single family residence into an office use. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The city is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 55,128 people. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). EXHIBIT "E" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below ( V would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology/Water Recreation Quality Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology/Soils Population/Housing DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and ✓ a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., nothing further is required. 5//Y/9P Signature / Date trAD U CNn/SoN Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adanmately =Hi-muffed 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-she as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational 2 impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ER or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) ID). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously 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 ones. 9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? V b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? dl Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ✓ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared 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) to non-agricultural use? bl Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ✓ Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in V loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Leu Than NoSignificant Significant Significant Impact Moon Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ✓ an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? V f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? V 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or V in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.121? b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, V policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ✓ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other V activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident ✓ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? fl Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation V Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the ✓ National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated bl Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific V research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? cl Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? V d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ✓ formal cemeteries? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ✓ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? V iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? V iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows? V v) Landslides? 1/ vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or ✓ dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with V wildlands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? li c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ✓ dl Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ✓ result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? el Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks V to life or property? f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative V waste water disposal systems? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment I I through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous V materials? bl 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? 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste V within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? dl Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ✓Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in V the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ✓ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ✓ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ✓ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing ✓ nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ✓ in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ✓ or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? el Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to V control? f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or V other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a I DO-yea, floodplain structures which would impede I I V or redirect flood flows? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? I ✓ 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 V zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ✓ communities conservation plan? 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to V 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 V plan or other land use plan? 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise V ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? bl Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ✓ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the V project? el 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? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly V (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ✓ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantially adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? V bl Police protection? 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentiauy Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated c) Schools? _ ✓ d) Parks? V e) Other public facilities? ✓ 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical V deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse V physical effect on the environment? 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result ✓ in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management V agency for designated roads or highways? cl Result in a change in area traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ✓ substantial safety risks? dl Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e. g. farm V equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? V f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ✓ g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ✓ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? cl 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) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded V entitlements needed? el Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the ✓ project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 8 Pmemielly Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than No Significant significant significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal V community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ✓ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? cl 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 the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or V indirectly? 9 ZONE CBANGE APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITT OF ROSEMEAD, PLANFING DEPARTEWr 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSENEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288-6671 SITE ADDRESS: 7815 Emerson Place, Rosemead, CA 91770 DATE: April 27, 1996 OESCRIPTION OF REQUEST/PROJECT: To convert an existing residence into an office use. p rX Existing Zoning: J r' Proposed Zoning: Residential Existing General Plan Designation: Address the following statements on a separate sheet. SEE ADDENDUM I 1. The proposed change of zone meets the intent and is consistent with the General Plan designation applicable to the area. 2. The proposed change of zone provides for the logical and best use for the property or properties involved, and does not constitute a 'spot zoning" situation. 3. The proposed change of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare and benefit of the public at large. 4. The public necessity supports the proposed change. There is a real need in the community for more of the type of uses permitted by the zone requested. 5. The property involved in the proposed rezoning is more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the uses permitted in the present zone. _. The uses permitted by the proposed designation are not detrimental to surrounding properties. 1 SIGNATURE- DATE: 'E_ 51350 -L/ZC EXHIBIT "F" HPNNON DEVELOPMENT, Y,13, 3 INC. (625) 292-2929 Fax (6261 292-0292 ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) 1 . Yes, the proposed change of zone meets the intent and is consistent with the General Plan designation applicable to the area. 2. Yes, the proposed change of zoneprovides for the logical and best use for the property or properties involved, and does not constitute a "spot zoning" situation. Also, the property lines up with commercial use of of the lot next door to the north side of lot #34. 3. Yes, the propsed change of zone is necessary to provide for the general welfare and benefit of the public at large, because it cleans up a "spot zoning" of the residential lot in the middle of the commercial zone. 4. Yes, the public necessity supports the proposed change. 5. Yes, the property involved in the proposed rezoning is more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the used permitted in the present zone, because again it a spot residential lot within the commercial lot area. 6. No, the uses permitted by the proposed designation are not detrimental to surrounding properties. 0 Signal Date: 4_ 71 • Prchibec6.r - Plonnerr • Conrbrucborr 1611 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 100 • Alhambra, CA 91801 CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 6, 1998 CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Breen. Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Ortiz. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Ortiz. Breen, Loi, Vice-Chairman Alarcon ABSENT (Excused): Chairman Ruiz EX OFFICIO: Stewart, Price, Lyons, Johnson and Picken Vice-Chairman Alarcon acted as Chairperson for this meeting because of Chairman Rudy Ruiz' unavailability being out of town. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTE'S - Regular meeting of June 15, 1998. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz that the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 15, 1998. be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: YES: ORTIZ. .ALARCON. WI. BREEN NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT (Excused): RUIZ Chairman .Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 2. FXPI ANATION OLHEARIISGIROCEDIJRFS AND APPFAI RIGHTS Deputy City Attorney Stan Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal decisions of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH The Commission Secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak. 4. PLJRI1rHFAR1NGS: A. 7ONErHANGF 95-207 - 7815 Emerson Place- A request by Raymond Cheng, to change 1 , the zoning designation of a single lot from R-2 Light Multiple Residential to C-3; Medium Commercial. PC Minutes 07-06-98 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Lyons presented the Staff Report. This application proposes to change the zoning of a single lot from the R-2 Light Multiple Residential to C-3; Medium Commercial. This change would allow the conversion of all existing single family home into a commercial office structure. Zone changes are permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found to be consistent with the Rosemead General Plan. Zone Change 98-207 has been proposed by the property owner to allow them the conversion of an existing 1 .200 sf single family residence into office use. The site has historically been used for one single family home constructed in 1940. The property owner also owns an adjacent property on 3206 Del Avenue. and currently occupies this building with an insurance office doing business as "The Master Insurance Company". The business has outgrown the current building and the property owner wishes to use the residence as an ancillary office. The accounting portion of the business would operate at the Emerson Place location. Mr. Ko purchased this residence in February of last year and has been using this residence as an ancillary office without the proper approvals and permits from the City- Because the property is currently zoned light multiple residential, a business cannot he operated without a zone change approval. The proposed office is a single story residence that the applicant wishes to convert to a legal office structure. The design meets all of the development standards for the C-3 zone. However, staff does have some design changes for the project relating to the proposed floor plan. pedestrian access. landscaping and the parking stall layout. Before the construction drawings can he submitted to the Building Department, these revisions will need to be made to the plans. The changes will ensure that this structure does not allow for any living quarters. It will support only for an office use. In addition to the Planning issues that need to be addressed, the structure also need major modifications to meet the commercial office standards set by the Uniform Building Code. Such items as handicapped bathrooms, widening of hallways and load bearing weight requirements need to be addressed. With approximately 1.200 sf floor area, the proposed office would require five (5) parking spaces. The site needs to be re-designed to meet the minimum parking requirements. The application only indicates that two (2) employees will work at this office, however,the plan shows four (4) separate offices. Staff could not support a design with less than the required sive (5) parking spaces. This particular lot is located at the edge of the Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial general pan designated district and abuts the Medium Density residential district to the east. Staff feels that it does make good zoning sense to recommend approval of a zone change to medium commercial. A low intensity accounting office type of use will not adversely impact the multi-family residences to the east_ Because of the close proximity to Del Mar Avenue and the commercial uses in the area, staff feels that it is justified to support the requested use as an ancillary office. The use will generate minimal traffic and noise to the surrounding area and the request is found to be consistent with all of the elements of the Rosemead General Plan. Staff therefore recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for ZC 98-207; and recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 98-207. changing the zoning designation from R-2 to C-3. It was ascertained that the applicant and the architect were in the audience for any questions. Questions to Staff: Commissioner Loi was concerned relating to the requirement of five (5) parking spaces. Mr. Lyons responded that the proposal is still not final. But if the zone change is approved, staff will review the request to convert the house into an office including all the concerns and comments. The front yard a ea will need to be paved and striped for a handicapped parking stall, and a portion of the home will have to he demolished to allow parking in the original garage area. This scenario of parking layout would require that tandem parking be designed within the original garage area and the existing driveway. In addition, a pedestrian access area needs to be created between the two (2) lots. A letter was received from the First Presbyterian Church saying that they were offering their parking spaces for the employees PC Minutes 07-06-98 Page 3 of 12 of the accounting office. Commissioner Ortiz had some concern relating to the swimming pool. Mr. Lyons informed the Commission that this item had been discussed. The pool can be maintained like an office with a pool. This proposal is a request to convert this house into an office and this conversion needs to adhere to all the building code requirements. It will appear like a home and will not impact the residential uses. Staff felt that allowing the pool to stay will do no harm. The pool area can not be used for parking because of inaccessibility. It could either be a pool or landscaping. Deputy City Any. Price inquired if the pool would be accessible to the public. Mr. Lyons replied that if the pool remains, it would need to adhere to the building code safety requirement. Once approved, if fencing is necessary, then the applicant will need to follow the building codes. Public Hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in favor of the project Raymond Cheng,the architect of the project. stated that he represents the applicant and that he was in the meeting to answer the questions the Commissioners may have. In relation to Commissioner Loi's concern on parking, there will be four (4) available parking spaces for customers and the two (2) enclosed parkings in the garage for office staffs' use. He also stated that the applicant was able to make an arrangement with the First Baptist Church to utilize five (5) or ten (10) parkings, as well. Mr. Cheng explained that the proposal was to allow the conversion of a single family residence to use it as an ancillary office. With regards to the concern with the pool, it will be closed off with landscaping. However, Mr. Ko, the applicant, feels that the location of the pool would make it difficult for the truck to bring in the dirt and closing it with landscaping. He is requesting if he could maintain the pool in good working condition and securing it so as not to be a public hazard. Mr. Cheng also stated that all of the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. For any more issues, he will be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Peter Ko. 2657 So. Rudy Street. Rowland Heights, the applicant for this project. stated that he had been in the business for the City of Rosemead since 1989. He had moved his business from the City of Alhambra to this city. He continued that his business has been expanding and this is the reason why he needed a bigger area. His first choice was to get the office right next door however it was not availabe for sale. Since his insurance business is expanding, the room he has on Del Mar was not enough and he had to make a quick decision where some code violations were made. He apologized for these violations. He also informed the Commission that he has other offices in different cities, but the main office would he based in Rosemead. Public Hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in opposition of the project: None. There being no one wishing to address the Commission. Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing. Discussion among the Commissioners: Commissioner Ortiz was concerned with the security of the pool. He would like to see some type of regulations regarding sensor lighting and alarms. Mr. Lyons replied that once approved, staff can do some recommendations with regards to the pool either to cover it or put some motion detector lights and alarms to secure the area PC Minutes 07-06-98 Page 4 of 12 which will be noted in the minutes, but it can not be made as a condition for the approval of the zone change. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve Zone Change 98-207. Vote resulted: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, WI. BREEN NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. COSD1TLONAI l'SEPERMLT_S_745 - 8725 E. Garvey Avenue -A request by Anne Le, dba M & D Garment, to operate a garment manufacturing business in the M-1; Light Manufacturing & Industrial zone. Mr. Lyons presented the Staff Report. This application is a request to operate a garment manufacturing business in an existing structure. The subject site is a 12,000 sf lot located on the north side of Garvey Avenue between Barlett and Muscatel Avenue. The structure was built in 1939 and there are currently a total of 19 parking spaces provided on the site. The parking ratio for this site is 1/400 sf. Parking for garment manufacturing is required at a ratio of one (1) parking space for each two (2) employees, including managers. With the proposal of maximum 15 employees, including managers, it equates to a total of eight (8) parking spaces. With the current 19 parking spaces provided at this site, the required number of parking spaces are met. Staff finds that this site has been designed and developed with industrial uses in mind, and this site has been used as a sewing factory for at least 12 years. Staff finds that a garment manufacturing business would be appropriate at this location, and therefore recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 98-745 for a period of one (1) year, subject to the 23 conditions listed in Exhibit It was ascertained that the applicant was in the audience. Questions from the Commissioners to Staff: Commissioner Loi:ranted to verify if the illegal carport at the rear of this property had been legalized. Mr. Lyons replied that the illegal carport and structure at the rear portion of the property had been addressed by removal of all these structures. This was a part of the condition prior to the granting of the occupancy permit. All of the outstanding code violations had been addressed. Chairman alarcon opened the Public Hearing to those wishing to speak in favor of the project: William Su, 3203 Del Mar .Avenue, stated that he represents the applicant, Anne Le. He explained that the illegal construction at the rear of the property has been completely demolished and had been finaled by the Building Department. The applicant is in agreement to aii of the conditions. Public Hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in opposition of the project: None. PC RESOLUTION 98-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-207, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C-3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7815 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5287-020-020). WHEREAS, Mr. Raymond Cheung, 1611 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 100, Alhambra, CA 91801, filed an application requesting a zone change from the R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C-3 "Medium Commerical" for property located at 7815 Emerson Place on April 27, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map. including specific development standards to control development: and 'WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for Mixed Used: Residential/Commerical uses; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for R-2; "light Multiple Residential." WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1998, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 43 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony relative to Zone Change 98-207; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed amendment. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission hearing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a signigicant effect on the environment Section 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property in the C-3; Medium Commercial zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone PC RESOLUTION 98-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-207, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM R-2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C-3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7815 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5287-020-020). WHEREAS, Mr. Raymond Cheung, 1611 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 100, Alhambra, CA 91801, filed an application requesting a zone change from the R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C-3 "Medium Commerical" for property located at 7815 Emerson Place on April 27, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's General Plan designates the subject property for Mixed Used: Residential/Commerical uses; and WHEREAS, Rosemead's official Zoning Map designates the site for R-2; "light Multiple Residential." WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that zoning ordinances and zoning map be consistent with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, Sections 9185 and 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1998, an initial study for the proposed zone change was completed finding that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 1998, notices were posted in 10 public locations and 43 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony relative to Zone Change 98-207; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall he adopted. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could be created from the proposed amendment. The study was sent to all responsible agencies, and noticed in 10 public locations, soliciting comments for more than a 21-day period prior to the Planning Commission hearing. This study found that the proposed project could not have a signigieant effect on the environment Section 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property in the C-3; Medium Commercial zone is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change. The change to the C-3 Zone will allow the property owner to convert the existing single family home into an office use. Section 3. The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 98-207 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: .A. Land Use; The designation provided by Zone Change 98-207 allows the property owner to convert a new single family home on a lot that has always been used for a single family home. The site is located in Planning Area 5 of the Land Use Element of the Rosemead General Plan and has been designated for medium residential uses. The area surrounding the site is general planned Commercial to the north and medium residential uses to the east, west and south. B. Circulation; The site is located on Emerson Place. Emerson Place is classified as a local street in the General Plan. Adequate access is provided via Emerson Place. The existing circulation design would be maintained with no significant increase in traffic anticipated C. Housing; Although this site is currently zoned R-2; the proposed use of this property as an ancillary office use will not deplete available land for housing. D. Resource Management:. The applicant has provided adequate landscaping on the proposed site and the project will not have any negative impacts on air or water quality in the City. E. Noise; The proposed office will front on Emerson Place. The proposed office will not create any potential noise impacts. Section 4. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Change 98-207, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from R-2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C-3; "Medium Commercial" for property located at 7815 Emerson Place (APN: 5287-020-020) Section 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 6, 1998, by the following vote: YES: ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON, LOI NO: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ ABSTAIN: NONE Section 6. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1998. Rudy Ruiz, Chairman PC Resolution 98-27 Zone-Change 98-207 Pace 3 of 3 CERTIFICATION I, Jeffrey L. Stewart, Secretary of the Rosemead Planning Commission, 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 20th day of July, 1998, by the following vote: YES: ORTIZ, RUIZ, LOI, BREEN NO: NONE ABSENT: ALARCON ABSTALN: NONE •p ey L. Stewart, Secretary