CC - Item 4A - Staff Report Public Hearing on Exterior Facade Design Modification of Previously Approved Residential/Commercial Mixed Used Project 17-09ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 27, 2018 i\ _ W ,
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON EXTERIOR FACADE DESIGN MODIFCATION
OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-
USE PROJECT — MODIFICATION 17-09 (7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE,
3012 DEL MAR AVENUE AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET)
SUMMARY
Gerard Ngo of Del Mar Property, LLC has submitted a Modification application, requesting to
modify Design Review 12-05 to modernize the design of a previously approved mixed use
project. The project site is located at 7801-7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and
3017 Brighton Street in the Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use
Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code
Section 17.120.110, the proposed change may only be approved by the original review authority
for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with
Chapter 17.120.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2018-21 (Attachment "A"), approving Modification 17-09; take
alternative action to deny Modification 17-09; or take other action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects
that consist of operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, licensing, leasing or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expansion of an existing use
beyond that existing at the time of the Lead Agency's determination. Accordingly, Modification
17-09 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA
guidelines.
ITEM NUMBER:
,��v o
ro Z R < CD CD CD ] y N y N O
m
CD rn ro p• CD c ;°. CCD ro rn ro o p ro roCD
' '� w• ° o roCD n P- o Oo CD `* CCD `�% '�' m �• P- CD
CD ro
rL CDi-s UQ CD FD W n- N=, ro m "6 .3 N ro oQ
ro O c
CD rA cc CL
�+L p @ CD p' A.?. CD vCi `CDD C3 r��. r. c C r�i� b CD o CDD � `S� CR r. co
gQ x m m A. 0 ¢, ro o CD '' v, o
C, CL P. C,7 � .` O UQNom.-+ .�E. 0 CCD
SA' phi O '. '�D N M• �+
CD (CL �D p N O W CD �rn y n CD O CD �' W O' n n `C p" O CD W O (D
r y
pCD CL
CD
C ro CD
w C ro¢ R. O w �. U % N Ci
CL
N � Uq O ro NGQ
Pi C '� ° '�_' W UQ O
t7' Cl
CD
CD
�m O P'
CD ro. :; `ti �' ro ::L cD A- K m v, rn r° o
7c w h y ° w a o ccD a CDt:r°* c
N � Crp O CD N G- Off„ `C ro ry .`�• CD N N CD �.
SOL W (D �. c ';'• ?j ti O CS' R CZ CD o i-: �O G m
CL $ . p o ro CD Cd a w1= CDCD
M a
(D c o a CIA
CD CL g o. o C1 C C] o N
CD
ro C1. r N CDD `C ? es' o CL
n CD 7q <O '�` G q b c `°
O N yy ro ro tlQ ro N .y ro OQ <DCD CIA -..
y O
Pte- n a. O c�QD rn a ,"'� 5� C� CD 0<� ro ro
ro '� cNi O O. ro ro ¢' � ". "c1 gyp.,
CD
n �'o _ h
CD CD
�ti '�' G. ° to O aD G. " N O
O �' O O. W Y. X ' CD
CD 0 CD PCroOC °O h DN -y 0 CD P+ O N
i
K
City Council Meeting
March 27, 2018
Page 3 of 4
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.110(C), a proposed change that does not comply
with the criteria identified in [Section 17.120.110(B) of the Zoning Code], or any other provision
of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project
through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with [Chapter
17.120].
On April 28, 2015, the City Council approved Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment
12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529, for a new residential/commercial
mixed use development. The modification to Design Review 12-05 by implementing a new
design is architecturally appealing and more align with the recently approved Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan.
It is characterized by multi -story street -facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The
color scheme consists of contrasting colors of gray, brown, white, and yellow stucco. To
accentuate the building design, various elements such as composite wood, stone veneer, and
metal panels have been incorporated into the fagade. To further provide architectural interest to
the design, an open plaza area with a water feature and landscape planters are located along
Garvey Avenue. Furthermore, the flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulls and
mass of the structure.
The new design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of
massing, colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or
exaggerated design cues that may not be compatible with the community. In addition, staff has
verified that the new design complies with the Rosemead Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT —None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT —None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
public hearing notice published in the Rosemead Reader on March 15, 2018, 300 -foot radius
public hearing notice to 45 property owners, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public
locations and on the project site.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Lily Valenzuela, City Planner Ben Kim, N of Community Development
City Council Meeting
March 27, 2018
Paee 4 of 4
Attachment A: Resolution No. 2018-21 with Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: City Council Staff Report, dated April 28, 2015 (without attachments,
attachments are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review)
Attachment C: City Council Meeting Minutes, dated April 28, 2015
Attachment D: Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans
Attachment A
Resolution No. 2018-21 with Conditions of Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MODIFICATION 17-09 FOR THE RE -DESIGN OF A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
AT 7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017
BRIGHTON STREET (APNS: 5287-039-001,-002,-003,-004,-005, AND -011),
IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-3/RC-
MUDO/D-0) ZONE.
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2017, Gerard Ngo of Del Mar Property, LLC submitted a
Modification application, requesting to modernize the design of the previously approved mixed use
development by implementing a new design at 7801-7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue,
and 3017 Brighton Street;
WHEREAS, 7801-7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street
are located in the Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and
Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-0) zoning district;
WHEREAS, Section 17.120.110(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria
for a Modification;
WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 of the California Government Code and Section
17.120.110(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning Commission to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny Modification applications;
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2018, 45 notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot
radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were
posted in six public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date,
time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 17-09;
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public
hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-09;
WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered the Modification application and
all testimony presented to them;
WHEREAS, 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, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES that MODIFICATION 17-09 is
classified, as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.
SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist
to justify approving Modification 17-06, in accordance with Section 17.120.110(C) of the Rosemead
Municipal Code as follows:
A. A proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in [Section
17.120.110(B) of the Zoning Code], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be
approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application
filed and processed in compliance with [Chapter 17.120].
FINDING: On April 28, 2015, the City Council approved Design Review 12-05, General
Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529, for a new
residential/commercial mixed use development. The modification to Design Review 12-05 by
implementing a new design is architecturally appealing and more align with the recently approved
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
It is characterized by multi -story street -facing facades with strong, distinct lines and angles. The
color scheme consists of contrasting colors of gray, brown, white, and yellow stucco. To accentuate
the building design, various elements such as composite wood, stone veneer, and metal panels have
been incorporated into the fagade. To further provide architectural interest to the design, an open
plaza area with a water feature and landscape planters are located along Garvey Avenue.
Furthermore, the flat roofline utilizes varying heights to alleviate the bulk and mass of the structure.
The new design of the project takes a decidedly balanced, restrained approach in terms of massing,
colors and materials, and architectural features, and does not utilize excessive or exaggerated design
cues that may not be compatible with the community. In addition, staff has verified that the new
design complies with the Rosemead Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Modification 17-09, for the new
design of a previously approved residential/commercial mixed-use development at 7801-7825
Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street, and subject to Conditions of
Approval attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the
adoption thereof.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27" day of March, 2018.
2
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Rachel Richman, City Attorney City Clerk
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for Modification 17-09
Exhibit B: Original Conditions of Approval for Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment
12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, , City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution, No. 2018-21, was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held
on the 27t" day of March, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
CC RESOLUTION NO. 2018-21
MODIFICATION 17-09
7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND
3017 BRIGHTON STREET
(APNS: 5287-039-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, AND -011)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MARCH 27, 2018
Project Specific Conditions of Approval
Modification 17-09 ("Project') is approved for the new design of a previously approved
residential/commercial mixed-use development at 7801 Garvey Avenue, in accordance with
the plans marked Exhibit "B", dated December 18, 2017. Any revisions to the approved
plans must be resubmitted for Planning Division review and, if satisfactory, approval.
2. All conditions of approval set forth in Conditions of Approval for Design Review 12-05 shall
remain in effect except for Condition of Approval No. 1, which is modified under this
application.
EXHIBIT `B"
CC RESOLUTION NO. 2015-01
(Original Conditions of Approval for Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-
02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
April 28, 2015
Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative
Tract Map 72529 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-
use development totaling 70,162 square feet, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit
"I", dated December 4, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for
the review and approval of the Planning Division.
4. Approval of Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02,
and Tentative Tract Map 72529 shall not take effect for any purpose until the Applicant has
filed with the City of Rosemead 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 City Council approval date.
5. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10 -day appeal
period of Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and
Tentative Tract Map 72529.
6. Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative
Tract Map 72529 is approved for a period of one (1) year. The Applicant shall commence
the proposed use 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 the project is not
abandoned. If Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02,
and Tentative Tract Map 72529 have been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period
of one (1) year it shall become null and void.
The City Council hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor
modifications.
8. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division
prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any
other appropriate request.
9. Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative
Tract Map 72529 are 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
0
permit, including the modification of existing or imposition of new conditions of approval
based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the
modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the
expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is
in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City
Council to review and revolve or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead
Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Design Review 12-05,
General Plan Amendment 12-02, Zone Change 12-02, and Tentative Tract Map 72529.
10. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of
Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is
brought within the time period provided by law.
11. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved
use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health
Departments.
12. 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.
13. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been
completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s), including but not
limited to all improvements required to file a final tract map and the filing and recordation of
that final map.
14. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of
3/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors,
location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior
to installation.
15. All requirements of the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department
shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction.
16. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday.
No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holidays without prior
approval by the City.
17. The Planning, Building, and Public Works staff shall have access to the subject property at
any time during construction to monitor progress.
18. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within
twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for
assistance.
19. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the
Rosemead Municipal Code. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash
enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned,
inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition.
20. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and
approval all trash enclosures prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash
enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary
colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be
opaque, self-closing ,and self -latching.
21. All off-street parking shall comply with the relevant section of the Rosemead Municipal
Code applicable as of the date these Conditions of Approval are adopted. The parking area,
including loading and handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re -painted periodically to City
standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the currently
applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking stalls shall be
double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner.
22. The Applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits
free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet.
23. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on
the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall.
All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation
devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be
located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so
as not to be seen from the public right of way or other public space within the development.
The Planning Division shall approve said screening prior to installation.
24. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer/Applicant shall comply with the City's
storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the
proposed project.
25. Prior to issuance of building permits, Deed Restrictions or an Affordable Housing
Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney must be recorded against the nine (9)
affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for low-
income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915. In
addition, in an effort to respond to the needs of City residents before nonresidents and to
provide affordable housing, the Applicant shall give existing qualified City of Rosemead
residents priority in obtaining an affordable unit.
26. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and
maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common
areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC&R's prior to issuance of any building permit.
27. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to
the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign
materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary
signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage.
28. 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 new planting materials shall
include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and
low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with
automatic timers and moisture sensors.
29. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation
proceedings.
30. The developer shall make all efforts within the first six (6) months of the leasing period to
incorporate national or regional tenants into the commercial leasing spaces (Added by the City
Council on April 28, 2015).
31. The exterior walls of Basement Level l and First Floor shall consist of anti -graffiti coating (Added by
the City Council on April 28, 2015).
Mitieation Measure Conditions
Aesthetics
32. The City Council authorizes the applicant to work with the Planning Division on the public
art plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the proj ect applicant shall submit a lighting plan for
approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of the following light reducing
measures as applicable:
• Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height
• Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting fixtures.
• Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different lighting
distribution.
• Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies.
• A combination of the above.
Air Quality
34. 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.
Geology and Soils
9
35. As recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation prepared for the project and
approved by the City Engineer, the project shall be designed for a peak acceleration value of
0.79g.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
36. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure, the project developer shall
provide a building survey to determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos
and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal -OSHA Certified Asbestos consultant in
accordance with sampling criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials are found, all lead containing
paint and/or asbestos shall be removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint
and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations prior to the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing materials or
lead paint.
Hydrology and Water Quality
37. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall submit a Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion
control measures including Best Management Practices (BMP's), to reduce erosion and
minimize water quality impacts during grading
and construction shall be installed and maintained during construction to control water
quality impacts.
38. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the
first retail space, the project developer shall install a surface storm water collection system to
collect and treat the first 3/n of an inch of surface water runoff from the site as approved by
the City Engineer.
39. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the
first retail space, the project developer shall install two underground water storage tanks
totaling 3,500 gallons and a dry well system to capture on-site surface water flows. If the
dry well fills up during a storm a sump pump located adjacent to the dry well will pump any
overflow from the dry well into Brighton Street.
40. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the
first retail space, the project developer shall install a catch basin with a filter to filter the
storm water prior to its discharge into the underground storage tanks.
Noise
41. Project related operational hours for the following activities are recommended to be restricted as
follows:
10
• There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of 10:00
P.M. to 9:00 a.m.
• Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m.
• Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 10:00 p.m. adjacent to a residential property line.
• Construction activities are restricted by the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While
construction noise is not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use
(residences north of the site), construction noise can be minimized with the
implementation of the following conditions:
■ All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
• Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest
distance between construction -related noise sources and the noise -sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
■ Haul truck and other construction -related trucks traveling to and from the
project site shall be restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of
construction equipment.
■ To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall not pass directly by
sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
42. An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to
show that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue have a transparent glass or
plastic shield to create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less.
Public Services
43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required student
impact fee to the Garvey Unified School District.
44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall pay any required park fee
to the City of Rosemead.
Transportation/Traffic
45. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first
retail space, the project developer shall install a new bus stop and shelter on Garvey Avenue at a
location determined by the City and 21 bicycle stalls, with 10 bicycle stalls on the first
subterranean level (B-1) and 11 bicycle stalls on the lower parking level (B-2).
46. Within six months after 75% of the retail/commercial space is occupied, the project developer
shall provide weekday PM peak hour left turn traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue to the City's
Traffic Consultant to confirm that project left-tums do not cause congestion with the existing
southbound left -turns at Garvey Avenue. If determined by the City's Traffic Consultant that
project left -turns onto Del Mar Avenue during the PM peak hour cause congestion, left-tums at
the Del Mar Avenue driveway shall be restricted.
11
47. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer shall design the two project
driveways in compliance with City driveway standards for site access.
48. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street shall have a
maximum height of 8'-6". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue
shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from
Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to the first level — no internal access to level B-1. All
delivery vehicles (no trucks) that are 8'-6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar
Avenue or Brighton Avenue and access internally both the first level and level B-1.
49. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated Loading areas located within the
commercial parking areas.
Utilities and Service Systems
50. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the
first retail space, the project developer shall install all State mandated low -flow water
fixtures.
Engineering Conditions of Approval
GENERAL
51. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent
with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be
specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals.
52. A final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to
practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's
office prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
53. The Public Right -of -Way Vacation for the Alley northerly of Garvey Avenue between Del Mar
Avenue and Brighton Avenue pursuant Municipal Code, California Streets and Highways Code and
California Subdivision Map Act shall be approved prior to the issuance of Building permits.
54. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances.
An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the
County Recorder.
55. The final tract map shall be based on a field survey, and monuments shall be set to permanently mark
parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot boundaries to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The basis of bearing used for the field survey required for the final map shall include two survey well
monuments found or set. The City Engineer may waive this requirement upon petition should this be
impractical. Well monuments shall be set in accordance with standard plan No. S08-001, if required.
12
56. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) Mylar copy of filed map shall be
submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map by the City, a refundable
deposit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be
refunded upon receipt of the Mylar copy of the filed map.
57. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
58. Approval for filling of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications
mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, 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.
59. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City
Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map.
60. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Division. Submit grading and
drainage plans pre 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.
61. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for
contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including
dedication of the necessary easements.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. Adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements or other physical improvements to
comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the
application to be completed all to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
68. Show clearly all existing lot lines and proposed lot line on the plans.
69. Provide a complete boundary and topographic survey.
13
70. Show any easement on the plans if applicable.
71. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above -ground obstructions in the
public right-of-way to the top of 'Y' or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall
be limited to the frontage of the parcel. The drive approach is intended to serve, and is designedto the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
72. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works
Department.
73. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from northerly property line along Brighton Street to
northerly property line along Del Mar Avenue.
74. Remove and replace sidewalk from northerly property line along Brighton Street to northerly
property line along Del Mar Avenue.
75. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans
76. Construct five feet parkway. Install parkway trees as indicated on the plans. All street trees shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Urban Forester. Street trees shall be
planted in a manner that provides a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from any existing or
proposed sewer laterals to be used to serve the project. The size of the trees shall be minimum 48
inches box.
77. Traffic Signal Modification at the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue as indicated
by traffic impact analysis and Public Works Department.
78. Show dimensions of existing and proposed right-of-way along Brighton Avenue, Del Mar Avenue
and Garvey Avenue.
79. A $2,000.00 fee will be required per each storm drain adjacent to the property per retrofit pursuant
Los Angeles River Trash TMDL requirements.
SEWER
80. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve
each lot of the land division.
81. 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.
82. If the new sewer flow alters the capacity conditions of the existing sewer main along Garvey Avenue,
a sewer main improvement will be required.
83. 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.
IEI
UTILITIES
84. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground.
85. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense.
86. Provide a street lighting plan.
WATER
87. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from
the water purveyor indicating compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements.
88. Water hydrant, water meter box and utilities box shall be located 8 feet away from parkway trees and
3 feet away from driveway approach.
Conditions Added by the Planning Commission on December 15,201
89. Physical barriers shall be installed to limit access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site.
90. 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 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.
Covenant Conditions and Restrictions
(Added by the City Council on April 28, 2015)
87. Prior to issuance of any building permit related to this project, the developer/Applicant shall prepare
Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) or other similar recorded instrument indicating how
and who will maintain proposed common areas. The CC&R's shall be prepared by the
developer/Applicant and approved by the City Attorney and shall include the following statements:
"This statement is intended to notify all prospective property owners of certain limitations on
construction to residential dwellings contained in this planned development project. Anynecessary
modifications or additions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and approved or denied by the
Community Development Director or his/her designee at his/her discretion". The CC&R's will cover
all aspects of property maintenance of the common areas, including but not limited to driveways,
fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, open space and recreational areas.
88. The Applicant shall include provisions in the CC&R's to provide maintenance of the basement
parking structure, all building improvements, on -grade parking and landscaping, maintenance ofthe
rear service driveway, and maintenance of the shared driveway area along the eastern property line,
in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Division, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
89. The subdivider shall include provisions in the CC&R's to require regular trash pickup service at least
once a week for the residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant
space trash bins.
90. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a comprehensive Parking
Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Division or designee. The Parking
Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC & R's and shall be enforced by the property
owners association. Said Parking Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following
provisions:
• Assigned parking for each residence.
• Designated parking for customers and employees.
• Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking.
One -bedroom condominium homeowners shall be limited to one (1) vehicle on the premise. Two-
bedroom condominium homeowners shall be limited to two (2) vehicles onthe premise. The parking
monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking permits when there
are excess parking spaces available. Employee parking shall be restricted to the subterranean parking
structure
III
Attachment B
City Council Staff Report, dated April 28, 2015 (without
attachments, attachments are on file with the City Clerk's Office
for review)
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED,
DATE: APRIL 28, 2015
CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 12-05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12-02,
ZONE CHANGE 12-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529
7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND
30.17 BRIGHTON STREET
Summary
Gerard Ngo has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new
residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project consists of the demolition
of all existing structures to construct a five -story, mixed-use development with 15,553
square feet of retail/restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60
residential units on the third through fifth floors, comprising 54,609 square feet, for a
total built area of 70,162 square feet. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface
and two stories of subterranean basement parking. The project requires vacation of the
existing public alley that bisects the site, which will entail a separate process. Access to
the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance
each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density
bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to
allow density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at the northeast corner of Del
Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone and R-2 (Light
Multiple Residential) zone.
This item was on the Planning Commission Agenda for June 16, 2014. However, due
to extensive comments from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) during the 20 -day
public review distribution period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the project, the Planning Commission continued this item to a
future Planning Commission meeting. On December 15, 2014, this item was again
presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. During the meeting, three
people discussed their concerns regarding the project. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-10, recommending that the City
Council ADOPT Resolution 2015-01 (Attachment "A") and Ordinance 942 (Attachment
"B"). The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-
10, and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are attached as Attachments "C", "D",
aA
ITEM NUMBER: y %
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 2 of 16
and "E", respectively
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 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 a less than
significant impact on the environment if certain mitigation measures are adopted and
carried out, and the City has therefore prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND). 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 20 -day public review and comment period from May 21, 2014 to June 9,
2014. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with Agency comments 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, the Commission must make a finding of adequacy with the environmental
assessment and also recommend that the City Council to adopt the attached Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "H").
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the following actions are taken:
1. The City Council conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. The City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2015-01 with findings, subject to the
eighty-six (86) conditions outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and
3. Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 942: Zone Change 12-
02" and to bring back Ordinance No. 942 to the meeting of May 12, 2015 for
consideration of adoption.
4. The City Council ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice
of Determination for the project.
Desian Review 12-05
Rosemead Municipal Code Section (RMC) 17.74.030(A)(1) states a precise plan of
design for residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and
approved in accordance with the requirements of Section 17.72.060, with the exception
that the City Council shall approve or disapprove such project upon receiving a
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 3 of 16
General Plan Amendment 12-02
The project will change the existing Rosemead General Plan land use designations
from Commercial and the residence at the northeast corner Medium Density Residential
(0-12 du/ac.) to Mixed-use: Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac; 4 stories).
Zone Change 12-02
The project will change the zoning from C-3 Medium Commercial and the single-family
residence at the northeast corner of the site R-2 Light Multiple Residential to C-3
Medium Commercial and add a Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development
Overlay (RCMUDO) and Design Overlay to allow the development of the project as
proposed.
Tentative Tract Map 72529
The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 72529) application for the
consolidation of six (6) existing parcels into one (1) parcel.
Property History and Description
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Del Mar
Avenue and Garvey Avenue. The site consists of six (6) parcels, totaling approximately
44,260 square feet. The alley to be vacated totals approximately 5,590 square feet.
According to Los Angeles County records, the six (6) parcels are currently developed
with five (5) commercial buildings totaling approximately 8,000 square feet, one (1)
single family residence totally 1,080 square feet, and a parking lot. According to
Business License records, the commercial buildings are occupied by a bar, a law office,
and a used car sales dealership.
View from Southwest Comer of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 4 of 16
Project Analvsis
Proiect Description
The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures to construct a five -story,
mixed-use development with 15,553 square feet of retail/restaurant space on the
basementifirst and second floors and 60 residential units on the third through fifth floors,
comprising 54,609 square feet, for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Of the 60
units, the project proposes 9 low-income rental units. An outdoor seating area is
proposed in the central area of the ground level on the north side of the building. New
landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the perimeter of the
site and throughout the outdoor seating area. The project is requesting two
concessions to allow the development as proposed. Due to the slope of the property, a
concession is requested to allow a building height of 60 feet at Brighton Street,
exceeding the allowable building height of 55 feet. A second concession is requested to
allow the north side of the building to extend into a 20 degree angle that extends onto
the site from the north property line because the project abuts existing residences north
of the site.
Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean
basement parking. The project will incorporate an existing alley that extends east -west
through the middle of the site from Brighton Street on the east to Del Mar Avenue on the
west. Access to the proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with
one entrance each on Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a
density bonus application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus
law to allow density bonuses up to 35%
Site & Surroundina Land Uses
The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and Medium Density
Residential (0-12 du/ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C-3 (Medium
Commercial) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. The site is surrounded by the
following land uses:
North
General Plan — Commercial and Medium Density Residential
Zoning — C-3 (Medium Commercial) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use — Residential
South
General Plan - Commercial
Zoning - C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use - Commercial
East
General Plan - Commercial
Zoning - C-3 (Medium Commercial) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)
Land Use - Commercial and Residential
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 5 of 16
West
General Plan - Commercial
Zoning - C-3 (Medium Commercial)
Land Use - Commercial
Development Standards
The developer has incorporated the Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development
Overlay Zone standards for the proposed mixed-use project (Zoning Code prior to
November, 2013). The Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay Zone
allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to grant approval of a well-
designed development project that combine residential with nonresidential uses.
'P
k9!+Ity?it
Pr9PPsed
Lot Size
30,000 s.f.
49,850 s.f.
Floor Area Ratio
2.0:1 (max allowed)
1.41:1
(FAR)
Public Sidewalk
12'-0' with 7'-0" wide sidewalk (clear zone) and 5'-0"
1 with 7'-0" wide sidewalk
(clear zone) and wide
wide parkway (amenity zone)
(amenityzone)
arkwa amenit
Front Setback
Zero (0) feet
Zero (0) feet
Interior Lot Line
May be zero (0) but shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet
No interior lot line
Setback
if more than zero (0).
Del Mar Avenue: Zero (0) feet
Side Street
None
Setback
Brighton Street: Zero 0 feet
Rear Abutting
Residential
10'-0"
10'-0"
Setback
Del Mar Avenue: Four -stories and
fifty (50) feet
Height
Four (4) stories with a maximum height of fifty-five (55)
Brighton Street: Five -stories and
feet
sixty (60) feet
*Requesting concession
The second floor and above shall be stepped back from
Requesting concession to
Variable Height
the rear property line as follows: establishing a height at
encroach into variable het ht
g
six (6) feet above finished grade of the adjacent
requirement
residential propeq line, a 20 -degree
Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling plus one (1) guest
82 parking spaces
Parking
parking space per two (2) dwelling units
(Residential)
Total Required: 150 parking spaces
*Density bonus allows deviation of
re uired uest arkin spaces
Retail: One (1) parking space per two hundred fifty
(250) square feet of floor space
Retail: 4,780/250 =19
Parking
Restaurant: One (1) parking space per one hundred
Restaurant: 10,773/100 = 108
(Commercial)
(100) square feet of floor space
Total Provided: 129 parking spaces
Total Required: 127 parking spaces
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 6 of 16
Bicycle Parking
Ten (10) percent (%) of required off-street parking.
21 bicycle parking spaces
211 = 21 bicycle parking spaces
Common Open Space: 150 s.f./dwelling unit (9,000 s.f.)
Common Open Space: 9,510 s.f.
Open Space
Private Open Space: 60 s.f/dwelling unit (3,600 s.f.)
Private Open Space: 5,915 s.f.
Building
77.8% Residential and
Commercial/
75% Residential and 25% Commercial
22.2% Commercial
Residential
Ratio
*Requesting concession
Proposed Floor Plans
Commercial — The floor plans submitted with this application show a 3,262 square foot
restaurant and an 821 square foot leasing office on the basement (B-1) level. The first
floor contains three (3) retail units totaling 3,959 square feet and four (4) restaurant
units totaling 7,511 square feet on the first floor. The project is designed with sufficient
on-site parking to accommodate the commercial users.
Residential — A total of 60 condominium units are proposed within this development.
All units will be located on the third through fifth floors of the building. The unit floor
plans submitted show a variety of unit types, from one -bedroom units to two-bedroom
units, ranging in size from 826 square feet to 1,130 square feet of living area. Each unit
contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), closet, storage,
washer and dryer, and private open space.
Proposed Landscaping and Fencing:
A conceptual landscape plan has been attached as Exhibit "B". 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. Additionally, the
central courtyard provides added landscaping in the form of raised planter beds, water
feature, and shade trees. 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.
The Applicant is proposing to construct new decorative perimeter block walls along the
north property line.
Parking and Circulation
Access to the site would be provided from two (2) driveways along Del Mar Avenue and
Brighton Street. The Applicant is proposing surface and two levels of subterranean
basement parking. A total of two hundred eleven (211) parking spaces would be
provided, which includes one hundred twenty-nine (129) spaces for commercial parking
and eighty-two (82) spaces for residential parking. Through the application of the
density bonus law under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, the applicant is entitled to a reduction in
parking. The maximum standards for residential parking are:
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2015
Page 7 of 16
• One (1) onsite parking space for up to one (1) bedroom.
• Two (2) onsite parking spaces for up to three (3) bedrooms.
• No requirement for guest parking.
In addition, the proposed project would also include twenty-one (21) bicycle parking
spaces.
Traffic
A traffic report was prepared by VA Consulting Inc. dated January 2014, to determine
the potential traffic impacts of the project. The traffic report studied 7 area intersections.
The following intersections are included in the traffic study area:
• Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue (signalized)
• Del Mar Avenue and Emerson Place (signalized)
• Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue (signalized)
• Garvey Avenue and Jackson Avenue (signalized)
• Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street (signalized)
• Garvey Avenue and Brighton Street (2 -way stop control)
• Garvey Avenue and Kelburn Avenue (signalized)
Based on the traffic study, the proposed development will not create any significant
environmental effects upon the traffic and circulation systems. The study findings and
recommendations are as follows:
Study Area Circulation Impacts
The existing (2013) study area intersections are operating at Level of Service D or
better based on existing peak hour intersection volumes. Several intersections are
operating at LOS A or B during peak hours. Study area roadways are operating below
capacity based on weekday 24-hour roadway volumes. For Existing 2013 with Project,
Baseline 2015 (no project), and Baseline 2015 with Project conditions the study area
intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better with several
maintaining LOS A and B in peak hours. No circulation system mitigation measures are
required for implementation of the Garvey Del Mar Plaza Project. This analysis also
concludes that no project access locations satisfy warrants for signalization. These
findings were based on a worst-case analysis for Project trip generation.
However, an area of potential concern is the proximity of the Del Mar Avenue project
access to the intersection at Garvey Avenue. The existing southbound left -turn pocket
storage length at the intersection is 200 feet and existing left -turn queuing may exceed
this length during pm peak hour conditions. Under future project traffic conditions, left -
turn volumes are anticipated to increase and the existing southbound left -turn pocket
storage length may be exceed during both the am and pm peak hours. Although the
project left -turn volumes at this access are forecast to be low, 10 vehicles in and 13
vehicles out during the pm (highest) peak hour, it is recommended that the impact of
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 8 of 16
left -turning vehicles be monitored at this location, with restrictions imposed, if
necessary.
On-site Circulation
There are no concerns regarding on-site circulation associated with the proposed
project. The project access driveways and roadways are appropriately sized and
configured for the project volumes and will be designed in accordance with applicable
agency standards. Sight -distance requirements at project access driveways and
intersections will be provided per agency standards. Site parking supply has been
provided to meet or exceed City code.
Because of height restrictions, the proximity to residences, and potential on-site
circulation impacts, the project owner has identified the following measures to address
commercial deliveries to the site.
1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering and exiting the site from Brighton Street
shall have a maximum height of 8'6". Delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the
site from Del Mar Avenue shall have a maximum height of 10'. All delivery
vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Del Mar Avenue shall be restricted to
the first level — no internal access to level B-1. All delivery vehicles (no trucks)
that are 8'6" or less can access the site from either Del Mar Avenue or Brighton
Avenue and access internally both the first level and B-1.
2. There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries between the hours of
10:00 P.M. to 9:00 a.m.
3. All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated loading areas located
within the commercial parking areas.
Traffic Signal Warrants
In this study, no unsignalized study area intersections or access driveways satisfy peak
hour traffic signal warrants for any scenario. The Brighton Street and Garvey Avenue
intersection will remain a two-way stop. The Project will create a new driveway access
on Del Mar Avenue which should be one-way stop controlled on the driveway approach.
Proposed Architecture:
The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically
interesting project that meets the City's design goals for the MUDO-D overlay. The
architectural style is modern, characterized by multi -story street -facing facades, tall,
narrow and arched windows with painted foam -stucco trims, and predominately flat
roofs with parapets at the rooflines. The front fagade has been designed to create
visual interest at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted
through the use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of
the building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural
interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the front
elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the base of the
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 9 of 16
building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -scaled architectural
elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed-use development.
Lighting
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 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:
• Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height.
• Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of proposed lighting
fixtures.
• Select lighting fixtures with more -precise optical control and/or different
lighting distribution.
• Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
■ Select lower -output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Alley Vacation
In conjunction with the approval of this project, the applicant is requesting the City to
vacate the alley between the four parcels fronting Garvey Avenue and the two parcels
to the north, as illustrated below. This request would allow the applicant to incorporate
the alley into this mixed-use development. The City Engineer has agreed to this request
since it is not necessary for the City to retain the alley. A condition of approval has
been added, requiring the approval of the alley vacation, prior to the issuance of
Building permits.
Council Meeting
28, 2015
10of16
Planning Commission Direction
Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 15, 2014, staff has worked
closely with the applicant and environmental consultant to ensure that the Planning
Commission's concerns were addressed.
1. Study the ability or feasibility of converting the apartment project to a
condominium project.
• The applicant has studied the project and has modified the project from
apartments to condominiums.
2. Review the placement of the HVAC systems on the roof to ensure minimal noise.
• The Architect has determined that the plans illustrate the best placement
of the HVAC systems to ensure minimal noise.
3. Add a condition of approval which limits access on Del Mar Avenue into the
project site with physical barriers.
• Condition of Approval Number 85 requires the installation of physical
barriers to limit access on Del Mar Avenue into the project site.
4. Add a condition of approval which limits the length and width of trucks or delivery
vehicles onsite.
• Condition of Approval Number 44 limits the size of the delivery vehicles.
5. Add a condition of approval relating to the requirement of a Construction
Management Plan.
• Condition of Approval Number 86 requires the Developer to develop a
comprehensive Construction Management Plan
6. Review the MND to ensure these issues will not affect the document.
The Environmental Consultant has reviewed the MND.
7. Work with the surrounding residents on their concerns of the project.
On December 17, 2015, Planning Division staff reached out to residents
and property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site by sending
a letter (Attachment "G"), informing them to contact staff if they have any
questions or concerns on the proposed project. To date, staff has only
received one comment, in which the applicant has been working closely
with the property owner to resolve all of his concerns.
Municipal Code Requirements
Section 17.72.030 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review
procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible
changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping.
Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a design review application:
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;
City Council Meeting
April 26, 2015
Page 11 of 16
The proposed development is located within an established commercial district of
the City. The Applicant has provided a design of high aesthetic quality, which in
Staffs determination will improve the aesthetics of one of the City's prominent
intersections and the project site's relationship to the commercial district. The
proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3, Policy 3.1 of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan in that the goal and policy call for encouraging
mixed-use development as a means of upgrading established uses and
developing vacant parcels along arterials to provide new commercial, residential,
and employment opportunities. In addition, Goal 3, Policy 3.5 of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan calls for promoting lively and attractive
ground -floor retail uses that will create public revenues needed to provide for City
services and the City's tax base.
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 noise and lighting 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 building 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 prominent corner by
establishing a mixed-use development of high architectural quality. The
improvements to the site, in terms of new construction, landscape, and
hardscape will provide a marked improvement over the existing appearance of
the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue.
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 12 of 16
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 fagade with higher quality 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
The proposed development meets all of the minimum code requirements for the
C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed -Use and Design Overlay) zone
and all applicable referenced code sections of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as
modified by the request for concessions under SB 1818.
F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping,
luminaries, 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.
The Applicant has worked with the Planning Division in designing an aesthetically
high-quality project. The front fagade has been designed to create visual interest
at the street level. The main entrance of the building is highlighted through the
use of a distinct corner element at the southwest and southeast corners of the
building. In addition, various elements have been added to provide architectural
interest to the design, such as the water features and potted plants along the
front elevation, the use of contrasting exterior finishes and stone veneer at the
base of the building. The subtle details of common open spaces and pedestrian -
scaled architectural elements echo the modern design aspect for this mixed-use
development.
Section 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and
requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted
whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice
justifies such action. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65860 (a), a
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 13 of 16
zone change must be found consistent with the City's General Plan,
A. Land Use: The General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject site is
currently Commercial and Medium Density Residential. However, with
implementation of the zone change, the site would change to a Mixed -Use:
High Density Residential/Commercial Land Use Designation with a maximum
density of 60 dwelling units per acre and maximum floor -area ratio of 2.0:1.
The project site area consists of 1.14 acres. With a total of 60 residential
dwelling units and 1.61 acres of total floor area, the project is consist with the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
B. Circulation: The proposed project will result in an increase in vehicle trips
from the proposed residential and commercial land uses of the mixed-use
project. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this increase will not
result in significant environmental impacts upon the Level of Service of
surrounding street intersections and project entry driveways, and will not
adversely affect surrounding properties. The proposed project will provide
adequate off-street parking, including two levels of subterranean parking and
one level of surface parking, to serve the parking needs of future residents
and patrons and minimize traffic -related impacts upon the neighborhood.
C. Housing: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Rosemead
Housing Element, which seeks to provide a variety of housing types for the
various demographics of the community. The proposed development will
provide 60 new residential dwelling units, including 9 designated low-income
rental units.
D. Resource Management: The proposed development is located in a developed
urban area, and as such, will not result in any significant impact upon natural
resources. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, such as building
setback and landscaping, the proposed building will have a less than
significant impact upon the aesthetics from adjoining properties.
E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant permanent impacts
to the noise levels of the surrounding area. The proposed project will result in
additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic noises, but is not considered to be
substantial. There will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels above
the existing levels due to the presence of heavy equipment and trade
personnel during construction activities. All construction work will be required
to comply with the defined timeframe and City's Noise Ordinance. All
mechanical equipment will be designed to minimize noise impacts on
adjoining properties.
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 14 of 16
F. Public Safety: The proposed development will allow the construction of
residential and commercial uses in a developed urbanized area where there
are no known public safety concerns. The site is not located in a seismic
safety zone, and the entire City of Rosemead is located in Flood Zone C
(flood insurance is not mandatory) and is free from any flood hazard
designations. The project will be designed to meet the latest Building Code
and Fire Code to maximized public safety of the site.
Section 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the standards for
approval for a tentative map:
A. The proposed division will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity.
The proposed division will not have any foreseeable, materially detrimental
impacts on the surrounding area. The proposed project will enhance the
aesthetics of the immediate vicinity and potentially increase the property
values of the neighborhood. The improvements to the landscape and
hardscape of the site will enhance the overall appearance of the surrounding
area.
B. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan adopted by the
City Council; or to any official policies or standards adopted by the City
Planning Commission or the City Council and on file in the office of the City
Clerk at or prior to the time of filing of the application hereunder.
The proposed project was not a part of any official plan at the time of filing of
the application. The proposed project consists of concurrent application filings
for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, to ensure that the project
is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Plan. The proposed
subdivision will be consistent with the purpose of Chapter 16.08 of the
Rosemead Municipal Code, Minor Subdivisions, in that it will be in compliance
with the official land use zoning plan of the City and any other applicable
design standards.
C. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the provisions of
zoning and subdivision requirements of the City.
The proposed subdivision will conform to the zoning and subdivision
requirements of the City in area and dimension. The C-3 (Medium
Commercial) zone does not provide minimum or maximum standards for the
lot area or dimensions.
D. All streets, alleys and driveways proposed to serve the property have been
dedicated or such dedication is not required for the protection of public safety,
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 15 of 16
health and welfare and that such streets, alleys and driveways are of
sufficient width, design and construction to preserve the public safety and to
provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The applicant has proposed a necessary number of driveways with sufficient
dimensions to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicles and
pedestrians. Additionally, the proposed project includes a dedication to
enlarge the public right-of-way.
E. All easements and covenants required for the approval of the tentative map or
plot plan have been duly executed and recorded.
The proposed subdivision will not require any easements or covenants for the
approval of the tentative map.
STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS
Authority for and Scope of General Plans
Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each City to
prepare, adopt, and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the
long-term physical development goals and objectives of the City. Government Code
Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day-to-day development decisions,
such as zoning and land subdivisions should be consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of
six (6) parcels from Commercial and Medium Density Residential to Mixed-use High
Density Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac). The proposed change will not eliminate any
active or passive recreation areas since the subject properties are private property and
not open to the public.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
On April 16, 2015, thirty-nine (39) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -
feet radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in five (5) public
locations, on-site, and published in the Rosemead Reader.
City Council Meeting
April 28, 2015
Page 16 of 16
Prepare y:
44��
Lily T. Valenzuela
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Submitted by:
(JtW0'
Michelle Ramirez
Community Development Director
A. Resolution 2015-01 with Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval)
B. Ordinance 942
C. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 15, 2014
D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, date December 15, 2014
E. Planning Commission Resolution 14-10
F. Letter of Request for Density Bonus
G. Letter Sent to Residents and Property Owners
K Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program
1. Architectural Plans
Attachment C
City Council Meeting Minutes, dated April 28, 2015
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
April 28, 2015
The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:00 p.m. in the
Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Council Members Alarcon, Low and Ly
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Acting Public
Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation
Montgomery -Scott, and City Clerk/Director of Communications Molleda.
1. WORKSHOP
A. Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
City Manager Allred introduced the item indicating the Development Impact Fee Study was completed in
accordance with the City's Strategic Plan. The purpose of the study was to calculate fees that would
enable the City to maintain its public facility standards as new development creates impacts. He introduced
City Planner, Sheri Bermejo and Carlos Villarreal from Wilidan Financial who made a PowerPoint
presentation.
Ms. Bermejo and Mr, Villarreal provided an in depth report on the impact fee study and the Methods used
to develop the proposed impact fees for the City of Rosemead. The Rosemead Development Impact Fee
Study (DIF) proposes four fee categories: traffic facilities, public safety facilities, general government
facilities, and park facilities.
By implementing the DIF study and the collection of fees through the year 2025, traffic fees were projected
to generate close to $1.2 million; the public safety facilities fee was projected to generate $97,000; general
government facilities fee was projected to generate $873,000; and the park facilities fee was projected to
generate $3.2 million. Ms. Bermejo noted that the City currently only had a park fee of $800 per unit which
has been in effect since 1993.
Ms. Bermejo pointed out a table of the proposed fee schedule contained in the study were broken into two
categories residential and non-residential and each fee category was broken out by the type of fee: traffic,
public safety, general government and park. The residential fees for net new development were charged
by unit. Non-residential fees for new development were charged per 1,000 square feet.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page I of J9
In response to a question posed by Council Member Low, Ms. Bermejo responded that when an existing
dwelling on a lot that met the square footage requirements to allow for two dwellings on the lot was
demolished; and two new dwellings were built, only the second dwelling would be charged a fee. She
confirmed further that an existing dwelling that was demolished and rebuilt would not be charged an impact
fee.
The next step in the process was the implementation of an ordinance based on the City Council's direction.
The DIF ordinance would contain regulations and standards on how to charge the fees, Staff was
suggesting that the fee be calculated at the issuance of the building permit, which was standard, and the
fees would be due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
City Planner Bermejo informed the City Council that an evaluation and survey of several cities' impact fees
was completed. As a result, staff analyzed the City's fees against other cities' fees by using a prototypical
development. The prototypical development was a single family unit, multi -family project consisting of 20
units and 29,000 square feet; a retail development consisting of 50,000 square feet of retail, and an office
prototype project consisting of 50,000 square feet.
She reviewed the PowerPoint slide that summarized the impact fees comparisons with other cities for a
single family project and advised that if the DIF study was implemented, the fee per unit would be $8,082
compared to the existing fee of $800.
Council Member Ly pointed out that the City of Pasadena's fee was $26,000 and asked what the average
would be if Pasadena was removed from the survey.
Thereafter, followed a brief discussion on the selection of cities surveyed. Ms. Bermejo informed Council
that staff submitted the survey to several cities but only the cities that responded were included in the
survey.
Mr. Villarreal advised the Council that the response to Council Member Ly's question about removing the
City of Pasadena from the survey for single-family prototypical project was $6,206 per unit.
Council Member Low asked whether Rosemead could charge other fees and whether those other special
fees had to go through the approval process.
City Attorney Richman explained other fees such as fees for a landscape maintenance district or a special
business improvement district would each have their own approval processes wherein Council would have
to establish the area, the property owners have to agree to it, there would be an election and the process
would have to be followed. She explained that those funding sources were not fees that the Council could
just adopt.
Council Member Ly acknowledged the City received a letter from the Building Industry Association (BIA),
Southern California Chapter, noting their concerns with specific fees and asking the City to consider a
phase in approach; he asked for staff's opinion on a phase in approach,
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 2 of 19
City Manager Allred responded that the BIA requested a five-year phase in period and staff felt that -was too
long of a period of time since the Development Impact Fee was only for ten years. He suggested a three
year plan, if that was the direction Council wished to go.
Council Member Ly asked about the BIA's position of eliminating the general government fee.
Ms. Bermejo explained that new development would place greater demand on existing inventory of
vehicles, buildings and equipment and in order to serve the new development the City would need to fund
new vehicles, buildings, and the improvement of the new public facilities yard on River.
Council Member Ly mentioned the BIA's letter also discussed the park fee should be recalculated based
on the master plan which was the current system of the City.
Mr, Villarreal responded that using a system standard to calculate the park fee would be used to raise the
standard. The Park Master Pian predominately focused on rehabilitating existing park facilities in order to
maintain the City's existing standard of park facilities; however, there still needed to be more facilities
identified to benefit new development.
Council Member Ly confirmed with Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery -Scott that the City's
current ratio of park space is 0.64 acre per 1000 residents; and the recommended ratio should be 6 to 10
acres per 1000 residents. Council Member Ly then pointed out the shortfall in impact fee revenue to the
total cost of street maintenance and park maintenance over the next 10 years. He expressed his concern
about the amount that would be imposed overall, since if Pasadena was excluded, the average rate would
be $6,206 whereas the proposed rate would be $8,082 for a single-family detached dwelling. He felt the
City needed to continue to be business friendly, and Rosemead's fees should be comparable to those of
the neighboring cities.
Mayor Clark agreed with Council Member Ly on the City's fees being comparable to those of the
neighboring cities. She wanted staff to bring back a study that compared apples to apples, realizing that
different cities charge different fees. She noted that South EI Monte, Alhambra and Montebello who shares
borders with Rosemead were not included in the survey. She would not want to see a developer going to a
neighboring city because their fees were lower, She did not want the City's fees to have a negative impact
on development. She agreed with Council Member Ly that the City needed to lower what was being
proposed and maybe phase the fees in over a period of time, to see how it works. She also stated that she
agreed with the BIA's letter on charging the fees when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. She noted
that most of the cities that have higher fees were not contract cities.
Council Member Low also agreed with what was said by Council Member Ly and Mayor Clark. She felt
the City needed to be competitive. She thought traffic fees from new development would be used to
purchase land for parking lots or a parking structure. She viewed the work to be done at intersections as
maintenance. She did not see parking as one of the goals in the study to accommodate new development.
Ms. Bermejo explained that only the Intersections that would be affected by the new development were
included the DIF fee. A separate fee would need to be analyzed through another nexus study for parking.
Rosemead City Council and the SuccessorAgency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 3 of 19
City Attorney Richman added the City had to identify facilities under the Mitigation Fee Act; a fee could not
be established unless the City identified what the fee would fund.
Council Member Low asked about the impact on sewers resulting from new development and asked if the
sewer should be included in the study.
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Hawkesworth advised that Los Angeles County was
responsible for the maintenance of the City's sewers but the City was responsible for expansion of the
sewers. He indicated that Council Member Low's question was valid and one that was being studied
through the Garvey Corridor Specific Plan. One of the issues being looked at in the EIR was the sewer
capacity and what could be done because that ultimately effects development and how much development
can happen without the sewer capacity to sustain it. He said that sewers would require another separate
study because there were other funding options to be considered beside impact fees.
Council Member Low then asked about the impact fee for general government. City Manager Allred
advised that with new development, the footprint of the City Hall building might need to be expanded to
house additional office space. Mr. Villarreal added that vehicles and equipment were also included under
general government.
Council Member Low asked about placing a cap on the non-residential portion of the impact fees. The
City Attorney explained that if that was done then the study would be affected. The law required there be a
nexus and the numbers need to add up to what the impact was unless adjustments and assumptions were
made.
Thereafter followed a lengthy discussion on lowering the fee and the length of time it would take to collect
the revenue needed to fund the facilities.
Public Comments
Ezra Gavle with the Building Industry Association addressed the Council acknowledging staff. He felt some
of the points raised by the Mayor and Council were valid and he hoped that the BIA could continue to work
with staff to finalize some of those issues.
Council Member Low added that she did agree with many of the comments contained in the letter
submitted by the Building Industry Association and asked.staff to consider the BIA's recommendations,
especially the phase in portion.
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Clark recessed the City Council
meeting at 6:49 p.m., noting the City Council would reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the regular business
meeting.
Regular Business Meeting Minutes
The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:04 p.m. in the
Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 4 of 19
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta
INVOCATION: Council Member Alarcon
PRESENT; Mayor Alarcon, Mayor Pro Tem Clark, Council Members Armenta, Low and Ly
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Acting Public
Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation
Montgomery -Scott, and City Clerk/Director of Communications Molleda.
Council Member Ly asked that Item 6.A be moved up before the Public Hearings
Mayor Clark advised that Item 6.0 would also be moved up before Item 6.A
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Lawrence Shih, representative for Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, First District
addressed the City Council announcing that he was the liaison for the City of Rosemead and he
looked forward to working with the City on diverse issues in the future.
Lanny Aplanalp asked the City Council to do something about having the picture of a convicted
felon removed from the City's wall
Brian Lewin addressed the City Council regarding Southern California Edison's issue with public
notification. He advised that Edison posted "no parking" signs on his street but neglected to notify
the residents and the trash company that the street would be closed down. He asked if Council
could request that Edison notify the residents and the trash company when it intends to close a
street.
Staff was asked to make a note of the issue,
ITEMS MOVED FORWARD
6. C. Armenian Genocide Resolution
This item has been placed on the agenda by Council Member Armenta to commemorate
the 100th anniversary of this tragedy.
City Manager Allred introduced Dean Trachodny who addressed the Armenian Genocide Resolution on
behalf of the Armenian National Committee of the San Gabriel Valley. He advised the Importance of the
Resolution to Armenian Americans as well as all Americans. It was their hope that the Federal
Government would take heed of the numerous cities and the 42 states that have passed resolutions, and
ultimately recognize the Armenian Genocide. He urged the City Council to adopt the resolution and
thanked the Council for its consideration.
Rosemead City Council and the SuccessorAgency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 5 of 19
Mayor Clark advised the audience that she, and Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, attended the 100'h Anniversary
Commemoration of the Genocide at the Montebello Monument. She advised the members of the audience
that 1.5 million people in Armenia were killed by the Ottoman Turks one hundred years ago simply for being
Armenian. She advised the President has not acknowledged the genocide; and it needed to be
acknowledged, because of the saying, those that Ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta advised she has close friends that were survivors of the Genocide and it was not
appropriate for the President not to acknowledge it. She said history is history and the proof was there. She
expressed her views on the President's failure to acknowledge it was genocide and not the result of war
between the two factions,
Council Member Ly concurred and stated the definition of genocide was the attempted destruction of a
whole culture of people. It has been going on for a long time in many different cultures and it was time that
it be called what it was — genocide.
Council Member Low commented that history was history and it needed to be recognized.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta moved, and Council Member Ly seconded, to approve the
Resolution. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly.
6. A. Skate Plaza Development Update
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction regarding the award of contract for the
design of a skate plaza at Rosemead Park.
Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth reminded the City Council that it had
discussed the idea of a skate plaza in October, November and December of 2014. During those
discussions various locations and design concerns were discussed and significant input was received from
residents and non-residents that use the City's parks and facilities. After lengthy discussions and
consideration, staff believed the best resolution was to work with a professional that has intimate
knowledge of the skate park industry. An RFP was sent, seeking firms with specific experience in skate
plaza designs and a proposal that could help identify whether the site was sufficient, if the many concerns
previously raised could be addressed, and if a suitable and sustainable skateboard plaza could be
developed within the parameters identified.
He informed Council that the City received four excellent proposals from qualified firms and it was
recommended that Spohn Ranch Skateparks be awarded the contract. This contract would include an
evaluation of the site, outreach through social media and public workshops, a final design and the
development of construction documents. Once all of the work was completed the full report would be
brought back to the City Council to evaluate the findings and Council would determine if all of the concerns
and objectives could be met. If the Council was pleased with the outcome and wanted to move forward
with construction of a skate plaza at Rosemead Park, bids for actual construction would be sought.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApril28, 2015
Page 6 of 19
Council Member Low confirmed that the cost for the contract was $22,000 for the design and outreach.
She asked once the design was approved what the cost to build the skate park would be. Mr,
Hawkesworth advised a cost range of $400,000 to $450,000 was set.
Council Member Ly remembered voting in December 2014 to authorize the site location at Rosemead
Park, and what he was hearing from staff now was uncertainty about where the skate plaza would be built.
Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth clarified that the intention of this
contract would be to design a skate plaza that can be built. The "ifs" were the number of concerns that
were raised by Council Members and residents at the various meetings in 2014 regarding the dangers of
the skate plaza being next to the jogging trail, and skateboards impeding on the jogging trail, the joint use,
and where the Tel Chi people would be able to use the park. He advised those were the kinds of issues
that staff would work through with the designer, along with taking input from all of the skateboarding
community as to the features, and the types of things they would like to have access to. He advised that
staff was definitely going to bring back a project that could be built; however, staff wanted all of the issues
taken into consideration as it was being built, to make sure as many of the concerns as possible have been
addressed,
Council Member Ly expressed his concerns with staff's uncertainty in the report about where and if the
skate park could be built. It was his recollection that the City Council had voted in favor of a skate park in
Rosemead Park. Thereafter followed a discussion among Council regarding the issue and what was
actually voted on in December.
In response to Council Member Alarcon's question as to whether staff was looking at other sites besides
Rosemead Park, Mr. Hawkesworth advised that Council had determined that Rosemead Park was
identified as the only potential site that could be used for a skate park in Rosemead. That is why staff has
focused on this site when seeking proposals from the architectural firms.
Public Comments
Jean Hall spoke in favor of the Skate Board Park and advised the City has made improvements to various
facilities in the past and she strongly supported activities for Rosemead's young residents. She
acknowledged staff for their hard work.
Gloria Brill was in support of a skateboard park because it would bring more commerce, safety to residents,
and reduce property damage to the City of Rosemead. She requested the Council select a design
company that was reputable and who would design a great skate park that offers street transition, vertical
skate boarding and be challenging.
Alex Aranao addressed Council in support and expressed the importance of having a skate park for,the
youth of the community who love to skate.
Manny Solis addressed Council In support and advised he has been skating since he was 10 years old and
a skate park would provide a safe place for the youth to skate.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission JointMeeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 7 of 19
Jeremiah Gr¢zelie addressed Council in support of the skate park
Eddy Magdaleno spoke in favor and thanked the Council and Council Member Ly for considering the
skateboard park. He advised Council that the skateboarders were a community and not just a group of kids
that skateboard.
Shardee Galveston was in favor of building a skate park in the City of Rosemead because it would prevent
people from skating through other areas. It would be a good alternative to other activities that young
people get Involved with such as drug use or gangs.
Allan Rosso addressed Council indicating that skateboarding was a way of life and was what kept young
people going. He suggested the cost of the skateboard park would be offset by the cost of dispatching
police for trespassing.
Darlene Izsujerdo addressed Council in support of the skate park and asked if Council heard the need of
the youth in the community. She mentioned that a skateboard was a form of transportation for the young
people and there was a need for more activities for the youth.
Phillip Hermann was in support of a skate park so the skaters have a safe place to skate.
Jacleile Velasco addressed the City Council in support of a skate park stating that there is no place for the
youth to skate in Rosemead. She has to drive to Los Angeles and other cities to take her nephew to a
skate park.
Isaac Castillo addressed Council in support of a skate park comparing it to playing basketball without a
court. By building a skate park the Council would be giving the skaters a place to learn, progress and build
friendships.
Council Member Ly, after having an opportunity to look at the Minutes from the November 10, 2014,
Council Meeting, pointed out that his exact motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, was to proceed
with Option B and direct staff to bring back a continued design. He described the Option B design to
Council and asked if Council was thinking about changing its mind on the location or whether Council was
still set with Option B.
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta read the Minutes from the December 9, 2014 Council meeting regarding the
update on the skate plaza development. The Minutes reflected that staff was working with the Street
League Foundation, a non-profit corporation, to assist in funding and development of the plaza. The
Minutes reflected the Street League Foundation and its partner California Skate Parks were developing a
proposal for the design, construction, and management services for the construction of the project.
City Manager Allred explained to the City Council that the City did not have an agreement with California
Skateparks at that time. The City merely had a conceptual plan; and, therefore, the City had to go out to
bid to identify a design company that could provide designs for the City and that was what was before the
Council. He noted California Skateparks was one of the proposers and its bid was third lowest. Staff was
recommending the low bidder, Spohn Ranch.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApiil28, 2015
Page 8 of 19
Mr. Hawkesworth advised Council one reason for the delay in bringing this back was the previous designer
staff had been working with and the non-profit corporation they were partnering with in funding, did not
come to fruition. The company made a lot of promises about what they could do, but they could not
produce anything. They had made promises of $100,000 to $150,000 in contributions through a grant.
When staff tried to negotiate the contract and get it in writing, they could not produce anything and that is
why the project got delayed.
Thereafter followed a lengthy discussion between Council Member Ly and Parks and Recreation Director
Montgomery -Scott regarding the extended use of Rosemead Park and the park being at capacity. The
discussion also focused on where, in the City, skaters could go to skate and the need for a skatepark.
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery -Scott, in response to Council Member Low's question as to
whether the new contractor bring a new design back, advised that when the contract was awarded, that
contractor would bring some conceptual designs and element ideas and meet with skaters to make sure
the elements the skaters are most interested in would be included. He explained it would take some time
for the company to come back with a design and it could be similar or very different.
Council Member Low advised she has received many phone calls from residents with their concerns. She
also went to Montebello to observe its skatepark. She was disturbed at what she saw noting there was
graffiti all over the outside and inside of the skatepark and trash all over the place. She indicated she has
been working very hard to clean up graffiti in the City of Rosemead and when she saw the skatepark in
Montebello she was heartbroken because she would not allow the skatepark in Rosemead to have graffiti.
She said at this point, after thinking about it for a long time, she doesn't know how to vote on this project
because while she wants the youth to have a skatepark she doesn't know what will happen to it in the
future. She reiterated her understanding that the action before Council was to approve the design and
outreach for a contract cost of $22,000.
A general discussion ensued regarding the issue of graffiti being a community wide problem on various
recreational facilities in Rosemead as well as other communities and it could not be attributed to one
segment of the community,
ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, that the City
Council still supported the skatepark; and the Council will still move forward with the
skatepark idea at Rosemead Park; and authorize staff to enter into an agreement with
Spohn Ranch Skateparks in the amount of $22,000; and authorize the City Manager to
sign the contract.
Further discussion ensued about finding a contractor as soon as possible and the outreach to be done by
the Spohn Ranch Skateparks on the design of the skatepark and the skaters taking responsibility to
maintain the skatepark and help prevent graffiti.
The previous motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem
Armenta, Council Members, Alarcon, Low and Ly,
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 9 of 19
The City Council concurred to move Item 53 forward and then recessed at 8:29 pm. The City Council
reconvened at 8:40 p.m,
5.13 Selection of a Building and Safety Division Contractor
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a new three-
year agreement with Wilidan with the option to extend the agreement for up to two additional
years, consistent with the City's purchasing policy.
Community Development Director Ramirez presented the report indicating at the October 28, 2014 City
Council meeting direction was given to staff to initiate a request for proposal for building inspection and
plan check services, which was released on November 10, 2014. The City received six proposals of which
four companies, Charles Abbott Associates, Infrastructure Engineers, Transtech Engineers and Wiilidan
were Invited to a formal interview with City staff that included the City Manager, Jeff Allred, the Assistant
City Manager Matt Hawkesworth, and her. Based on the Interviews, an RFP addendum was distributed to
the four firms clarifying the services the contractor was expected to perform on the City's behalf. The
addendum required all four companies to resubmit their proposals on a City -created compensation
proposal form. She noted that based on the review of the RFPs, staff interviews of each firm, and the
review of the RFP addendum, staff was recommending the City Council award a new three year contract
with the Option to extend the agreement for two additional years to Willdan.
Public Comments
Alvaro Hilar, representing Transtech Engineers addressed the City Council indicating that Transtech
responded to the staff report with a letter that was sent to staff and the City Council; and representatives
from Transtech was present to answer any questions.
Daniel Chow, President and CEO of Willdan Engineers and Jim Guerra, consulting Building Official and
Deputy Director for Building and Safety Services representing Willdan Engineers addressed the City
Council stating that Willdan has served the City for the last 34 years. Mr. Chow advised that Willdan would
like to continue its service with the City and the citizens of Rosemead.
Alex Ma, an architect requested the City Council continue to use Willdan's services. He indicated he has
worked with other cities and the people in the building department were not professional, nice or patient.
The Building Department officials in Rosemead work with the people, and are patient and nice.
Helen Hua, CEO and Executive Director of the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce, representing the
Chamber's Board of Directors, requesting Willdan Engineering be retained for Building and Safety services.
She advised Council that the customer satisfaction feedback has been very positive. Long lasting
partnership and customer satisfaction were compelling enough for the Chamber Board to ask the Council to
retain Willdan's services.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 10 of 19
Brian Lewin addressed the City Council stating he wasn't supporting any specific candidate but expressed
his views regarding the request for proposal which he felt sent mixed messages and it appeared to assume
the non -mastery of the HdL software was a specific problematic disadvantage. He also felt the RFP
neglected to seek expertise in mixed use projects,
Tim Tiet, who has been a contractor in the City of Rosemead for over 15 years expressed support for
Willdan stating each time he goes to building and safety he receives very good help from Jim Guerra
whereas in Monterey Park he does not get good service.
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated the City Council received a letter from Transtech addressed to City
Manager, Jeff Allred concerning the bidding. She felt there were several issues raised by Transtech that
needed to be addressed. She then asked the Community Development Director a series of questions
related to the issues in Transtech's letter.
Ms. Ramirez responded to all of the questions asked by Ms. Armenta relating to the issues raised in
Transtech's letter, Ms. Ramirez advised the Council that Transtech did not provide an all-inclusive fee
schedule in their proposal and because of their responses during the interview staff felt an addendum was
necessary to clarify whether or not the proposal was all inclusive. The addendum was sent to all four
companies who were required to respond to the addendum. Staff specifically outlined everything the City
wanted so there was no confusion and there would be an even playing field to compare apples to apples.
Council Member Low suggested Transtech be given an opportunity to respond to the comments from
staff. Neville Pereira representing Transtech Engineers addressed the City Council indicating he would like
to mitigate the "fie said, she said." He realized that three staff members were present and were attesting to
what happened, specifically relating to the interview process, He stated Transtech's recollection of the
question was what happens on a regular basis to cover lunches for staff. Mr. Pereira said that Transtech's
staff on site would cover each other for lunches and other times that occur on a regular basis. The
question was then expanded to ask about ad hoc absences such as illnesses at which Transtech advised
they do have other staff in the region that Transtech can use to fill those positions on an immediate,
emergency basis.
A discussion between the City Council and Transtech continued on the staffing levels proposed by
Transtech. Mr. Pereira confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Armenta that the person involved in the interview did
not state that Transtech would share personnel from other cities; the additional services included in the
addendum and the additional charges for those services. Mr. Pereira clarified that whenever a contractor
responds to an RFP there Is a subjectivity that was brought to the response no matter how much It was
articulated in the RFP. He said there is a certain amount of historical knowledge brought based on the fact
that other people believe, including the incumbent, responded thesame way by providing an hourly rate
sheet with their all-inclusive percentage.
Ms. Ramirez explained that from time to time the City may request the consultant to perform a service that
was outside the normal scope of services and provided an example of what she was talking about. When
the RFP was written, staff asked for an hourly rate sheet for items that were outside of the scope of work.
Ms. Ramirez added that the other two companies also had things missing from their proposal advising
Council of what -those items were.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 11 of 19
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta continued to seek clarification from Mr. Pereira as to what the justification was
for the 1 % percentage rate increase in the addendum when all of the items in the addendum, but one, were
included in the original RFP. Mr. Pereira responded that he didn't have the information in front of him, but it
was primarily the plan check issue.
Council Member Ly noting that there was enough inconsistencies among the bidders to issue the
addendum, asked why staff did not include those issues in the RFP to begin with. Ms. Ramirez responded
that except for the "no -fee and the city projects," staff felt in was all-inclusive in the RFP. Council Member
Ly compared the proposed fees of both Willdan and Transtech and confirmed with staff that even though
Willdan's fees were higher and the additional revenue the City would receive with Transtech, staff felt it was
worth the higher fee to award the contract to Willdan.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the proposers' references, specifically Transtech, and the results of
the reference checks performed by staff as well as individual council members. Also discussed was the
Importance of having a company that was easy to work with.
Mayor Clark expressed her view that the higher cost of the contract was miniscule compared to the
integrity factor. She acknowledged that Mayor Pro Tem Armenta brought up several issues that she
agreed with. She mentioned that she was offended by the letter received from Transtech because the tone
was unfriendly and it was not the type of letter that should be sent from a company that wanted to get along
with the City's staff. She felt the letter accused staff of not being truthful, which she could not fathom. She
expressed her opinion that the City had a wonderful staff and the City was working very well and she could
envision chaos if the City changed because of the lack of trust.
ACTION: Moved by Mayor Clark moved to retain Willdan to perform building and safety
division services because of the continuity factor, and because there was so'much
support from the community who appreciates what they are doing and how they
reach out to the customer.
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta suggested opening discussion with Willdan before making a decision, and
questioned Jim Guerra representing Willdan regarding Willdan's fee percentage split, the reason for it being
lowered in the addendum, and the criteria in the RFP. Mr. Guerra responded to those questions and
explained the split was a combination of Willdan's history and knowledge of the City on the level of service
that was required. It was also based on previous revenue the City has received versus the cost of
providing service and some forecasting as to what Willdan thought the future development would be, The
intention of the retention percentage was to cover the cost of the consultant and the portion the city
retained was to cover the cost of managing the contract and other associated costs. He further explained
the percentage rate was lowered.in the addendum as a result of looking at the rates during the interview
process.
Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated the reason for this line of questioning was because she did not want it to
appear that City staff was only working with Willdan and that was why Willdan was the only company that
specifically addressed all of the requirements in the RFP. Mr, Guerra stated that Wilidan shared her
concern with the City and the City kept the RFP completely separate from Willdan's staff, kept the entire
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApril28, 2015
Page 12 of 19
review process separate without Wiildan's staff and Wllldan received the same notices and information that
everyone else received, Willdan stressed to its staff that the process remain impartial. Willdan had been
with the City for a long time but it was really important at the end of the process to be able to answer that
question. Mr. Guerra confirmed that Wilidan received no information separate from any other consultant
and all they relied on was 34 years of service to the City,
Council Member Low asked if because of Wllldan's years of experience with the City it had more of an
understanding of what staff was looking for. Mr. Guerra said absolutely, any consultant working in a City
during the RFP process has that knowledge to offer it. The service level that Willdan has provided over the
past 34 years has evolved and changed as the needs of the City has changed and that was brought into
their process.
Thereafter followed a brief conversation on the use of additional staff that were brought in occasionally on
an as needed basis as well as the percentage fee split. Mr. Guerra advised that the City emphasizes
customer service and Wilidan's percentage intends to cover all the work that needs to be done before the
City sees any revenue. Discussion continued regarding the HdL software and the need for City staff to be
trained on its use.
ACTION (continued): Mayor Clark stated her previously made motion stands. The motion
was seconded by Council Member Alarcon, to retain Willdan to perform building
and safety division services because of the continuity factor, and because there
was so much support from the community who appreciates what they are doing
and how they reach out to the customer. The motion unanimously carried by the
following vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members
Alarcon, Low and Ly.
The City Council recessed at 9:58 pm and reconvened at 10:02 pm.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Garvey Del Mar Plaza -- Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12.02, Zone
Change 12.02, Tentative Tract Map 72529 - - 7801.7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar
Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street
Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct a Public Hearing and receive public
testimony; and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015.01, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12-05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.02,
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72539, AND PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIRESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY (60)
RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET, THE SUBJECT
SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801.7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017
BRIGHTON STREET IN THE C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 28, 2015
Page 13 of 19
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN'S: 5287.039-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011); (3) Introduce for First
Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 942, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 12-02 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SIX
PARCELS FROM C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO C-3
MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A RESIDENTIAL(COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DESIGN OVERLAY). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT
7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET
(APN'S: 5287-039.001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011); and (4) Adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project.
Associate Planner Lily Valenzuela provided the agenda report explaining that Gerard Ngo submitted
entitlement applications requesting development of a new residential -commercial mixed use development
consisting of sixty condominiums units and 15,553 square feet of commercial space. She described the
project and location to Council. She clarified that the project was only proposing nine affordable units
rather than 12, and advised staff wished to modify condition No. 85 to state that permanent, physical
barriers shall be installed to restrict left turn access on Del Mar Avenue going south. She advised that staff
would like to add four conditions that relate to CC&Rs since the project was now a condominium project.
She advised Council regarding the recommended actions to be taken.
In response to Council Member Ly's question regarding the amount of open space being provided as part
of the project, Ms. Valenzuela responded 9,510 square feet of common open space, and 5,915 square feet
of private open space.
Mayor Clark opened the public hearing
Michael Lewis addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any specific
questions the Council may have. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the common open space
area.
Michael Hastings with Direct Point Advisors on behalf of the applicant addressed Council and offered to
answer any questions,
Joseph Babakitis whose property was adjacent to the project expressed several concerns about the project
including the restricted left turn onto Del Mar; the common open space area; the above ground
transformers being next to his home; the trees that would block his line of sight; and SB 1818.
Gerardo Hiiar addressed the Council in opposition to the project due to the height of the project, the
restricted street access, and the increased traffic and parking on Del Mar and Garvey. He submitted
pictures to the City Council.
Ariadne Hila r addressed the Council in opposition to the project stating that Brighton Street was too small to
have a building of this size; and in addition she was concerned about safety, rodents and other issues that
would increase as a result of this project.
Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the
Rosemead Community Devetopment Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApril28, 2015
Page 14 of 19
Attachment D
Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans