Loading...
CC - Item 4I - General Plan Amendment 07-060 0 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGERj,,GiQ~►. DATE: JANUARY 8, 2008 SUBJECT: 2IND READING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET. SUMMARY On December 11, 2007, the City Council reviewed the proposed mixed use project at the first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. The project is now before the Council at the required second reading. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 861, thereby APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, and Tentative Tract Map 069079, subject to the attached conditions. Prepared by: Matt Everling City Planner Sys fitted by (t B la aeki Assis ant City Manager Attachment A: City Council Staff Report dated December 11, 2007 Attachment B: Ordinance 861 Attachment C: Planning Commission Application Package (Planning Commission Staff Report of November 5, 2007, Amended Conditions of Approval, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Traffic Study, and Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 2007) APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 0 S • ATTACHMENT A ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 11. 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET. SUMMARY Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use project consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on 1.04 acres located at the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site consists of three parcels with one and two-story multifamily residential buildings. All existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development, which includes approximately 4,160 square feet of restaurant uses and approximately 6,685 square feet of retail space. All commercial tenant spaces will have storefronts facing Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. Primary access to the commercial suites will be provided via the parking lot in the rear of the site. The condominiums located on the second, third, and fourth floors will be oriented towards the Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street frontages. The site will include 59 parking spaces at grade, along with a subterranean parking garage with 84 parking spaces, for a total of 143 off-street parking spaces. This project was considered by the Planning Commission at its public hearing on October 15, 2007. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant's representative and the public, the Commission continued the item to the November 5m hearing and directed staff to work with the applicant regarding solutions to vehicular access onto Guess Street and the issues of privacy with the adjacent neighbors. In an effort to restrict traffic on Guess Street, the applicant has altered the entry drive, added "no right turn" signs adjacent to the Guess Street driveway, and will construct an 8-foot tall decorative CMU block wall along the south and east property lines for added neighbor privacy. The revised project was presented to the Planning Commission on November 5`h and was unanimously recommended for approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 861, thereby APPROVING General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, and Tentative Tract Map 069079, subject to the attached conditions. Staff also recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program on November 5, 2007. as recommended by the Planning Commission APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: • • City Council Meeting December 11, 2007 Pace 2 of 2 ANALYSIS The subject site is within the Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is needed in order to exceed the allowable residential density of 14 units per acre. The proposed 32 dwelling units will have a resulting residential density of 30.68 dwelling units per acre. The Zone Change request is to allow a change of zone from R-3 (Medium Multi Family) to PD (Planned Development) in order to develop a mixed use project. This change is consistent with the current Mixed Use Residential/Commercial General Plan designation. Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 is required by the General Plan to allow a mixed-use development. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 069079) for condominium purposes to allow the 32-unit residential units to be sold as owner-occupied dwelling units. Prepared by: Matt Ever6iT City Planner Sub by • 1. s I aeki Assistant City Manager Attachment A: Ordinance 861 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 5, 2007 with amended Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes dated November 5, 2007 0 • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page I of 6 ORDINANCE NO. 861 • ATTACHMENT B AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-222, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R-3 (MEDIUM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06- 1064 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 32 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 10,845 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 8594-009-001,002). WHEREAS, Long Bach Trinh filed applications with the City of Rosemead requesting a Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) to PD (Planned Development) together with a General Plan Amendment request to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre in the General Plan Mixed Use designation, a and Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project, and a Tentative Tract Map to develop attached residential condominium units on a property located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street (APN: 8594-009-001 & 002); and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and associated maps, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, approval of Zone Change 05-222 would designate the subject property as PD (Planned Development) allowing mixed-use types of development on the subject property such as commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 17, and Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes and sets standards for approval of zone change applications and governs development of private properties; and • • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-211 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve zone change applications whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practices justify such action; and WHEREAS, Section 65350 of the California Government Code authorizes the City Council to approve General Plan Amendment applications through public hearing and any other means the City deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, City of Rosemead policy encourages consistency of its Zoning Code with the General Plan and promotes separation of conflicting land uses through good planning practices; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission considered General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 for the proposed mixed-use development and recommended approval to the City Council after the Commission made findings that the proposed applications with incorporated mitigation measures will not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, public notices were posted in several public locations and mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony, and after. hearing all testimonies from the public and the applicant, the Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2007 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 07-50, thereby recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2007 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony relative to General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064; and • • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 3 of 6 WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them and hereby make the following determination: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have 'a potential significant environmental impact. This conclusion is based upon the Lead Agency's determination through the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration containing proposed mitigation measures that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment per the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared according to CEQA guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review prior to the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own discretionary and independent judgment in reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed mixed use project. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential adverse effects on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds that any presumption of adverse impacts has been adequately rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact on Fish and Game resources. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that placing the subject property in the PD (Planned Development) zone will ' provide an improved level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the neighborhood where the development is proposed. Section 3. The City Council FURTHER FINDS that General Plan Amendment 07-06 and Zone Change 05-222 meet the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use: The proposed mixed use project consists of a Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) to PD (Planned Development). Additional requests include a General Plan Amendment requesting approval to exceed the currently allowable residential density of 14 units per acre in a mixed-use designation, a Tentative Tract Map for a condominium • • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 4 of 6 subdivision, a Planned Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit application to develop a mixed-use project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3 that encourages revitalization of major corridors through mixed use developments to promote the infill of strip commercial districts with higher density multi-family uses. Therefore, this zone change and General Plan Amendment will allow for commercial/residential development on the subject site that is compatible with surrounding land uses. B. Circulation: This development is located on Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. Primary access to the proposed mixed use project site will be via Rosemead Boulevard. The proposed project is consistent with Circulation Element Policy 3.4, which encourages new developments with adequate parking to locate in revitalization areas. The circulation plan of the proposed mixed use project will not impede free flow of vehicular traffic on site or on adjacent roadways. C. Housing: In addition to increasing homeownership opportunities, the applicant will be providing at least three units for sale to persons and families of moderate income. Providing a variety of housing opportunities including affordable housing is in compliance with Housing Element policy that encourages a range of housing opportunities for existing and future City residents by ensuring that housing is available to all socio-economic segments of the community. D. Resource Management: The proposed mixed use development will provide high quality landscaping with a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and plants, thereby minimizing water consumption. The proposed mixed use project is designed with natural resources conservation in mind, and therefore will not affect any natural resources in the area. E. Noise: This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding area beyond City's permitted noise levels. Additionally, the site will be provided with a new 8-foot tall decorative perimeter CMU block wall that should mitigate residual commercial noise impacts. F. Public Safety: The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans for the mixed use project. The proposed project will not impede or interfere with the City's emergency or evacuation plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. G. CEOA Compliance: The City as a"Lead Agency" has determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact, but implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will • • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 5 of 6 minimize identified significant impacts to a level of less than significant. Hence, the City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project. Section 4. The City Council HEREBY APPROVES General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Planned Development Review 06-04, Tentative Tract Map 069079, and Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 for development of a mixed-use project located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 861 and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 11th day of December, 2007. JOHN TRAN, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, Acting City Clerk • Ordinance No. 861 General Plan Amendment 07-06 Zone Change 05-222 Planned Development Review 06-04 Tentative Tract Map 069079 Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 Page 6 of 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) • I Gloria Molleda, Acting City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 861 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 05-222, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R-3 (MEDIUM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO EXCEED THE CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 14 UNITS PER ACRE IN A MIXED USE DESIGNATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 32 ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 10,845 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND RESTAURANT SPACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS (APNs: 8594-009-001,002). Ordinance 861 was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 Ith day of December, 2007, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Gloria Molleda, Acting City Clerk • • ATTACHMENT C ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: NOVEMBER 05, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET. Summary Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new four-story mixed-use development project consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on 1.04 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site consists of three parcels with one and two-story multifamily residential buildings. All existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. This project was considered by Planning Commission at its public hearing meeting on October 15, 2007. After hearing all testimonies from the applicant's representative and the public, the Commission resolved to continue the project until November 5, 2007 due to unresolved vehicular access on Guess Street and proposed block wall issues. The Commission directed staff to bring back the project on November 5, 2007 with solutions to traffic access onto Guess Street and phasing of the Block wall among other corrections. Changes have been made and incorporated into the project materials by installing no right sign on Guess Street-east bound and building an 8-foot block wall fence along the south and east property lines of the project site during phase one. The proposed development includes 4,160 square feet of restaurant uses, and 6,685 square feet of retail space. All commercial tenant spaces on the ground floor have storefronts facing Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street, and secondary access to the commercial suites will be provided from the parking areas in the rear of the proposed 0 • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paoe 2 of 29 building. The condominiums will be located on the second, third, and fourth floors oriented towards the street frontages along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The site development will include 59 parking spaces at grade in the rear of the proposed buildings, and a subterranean parking structure with 84 parking spaces, for a total of 143 off-street parking spaces. The subject site is within the Residential / Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is needed in order to exceed the allowable residential density of 14 units per acre for mixed use development. The proposed 32 dwelling units will have a resulting residential density of 30.68 dwelling units per acre. This is consistent with the "density bonus" provisions of the California Government Code which require fractional density allocations to be rounded up to the nearest whole number, in an effort to promote affordable housing, as noted in §65915(g)5 which reads as follows. (5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. The project qualifies for the density bonus provisions of the Government Code because 10% of the dwellings will be offered for sale to households of moderate income. The mixed use project with the requested density of 30 dwelling units per acre would equal a maximum of 31.29 dwelling units (1.043 acres X 30 du's/acre = 31.29) or 32 units maximum. The Zone Change request is to allow a change of zone from R-3 (Medium Multi Family) to PD (Planned Development) zone in order to develop a mixed use (commercial and residential) project. This change will be consistent with the current General Plan that designates the subject parcel as Mixed Use Residential/Commercial. Conditional Use Permit 06-1064 is an application to allow mixed-use development in the Commercial/Residential Mixed Use Overlay designation as required by the General Plan Land Use Element. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 69079) for condominium purposes to allow the 32-unit residential units on the upper floors to be sold as owner- occupied dwelling units. Environmental Determination An Initial Study recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. This is an environmental analysis of the proposed mixed use project to determine whether the project will have potentially significant effects on the environment. This study has found that there are potential significant environmental impacts that could occur with the development of the project. The environmental factors potentially affected by the project include Air Quality, and Hazards and Hazardous Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 29 Materials. However, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, which the applicant has agreed to, the potential environmental effects will be reduced to a level that is less than significant. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was distributed for a 20-day public review and comment period on September 13, 2007. The Mitigated Negative Declaration along with Agency comments, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program as required by the CEQA guidelines, is contained in the attachments. If the Commission is inclined to recommending this project to the City Council for approval, the Commission must first make a finding of adequacy with the environmental assessment by adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. General Plan Amendment The subject site is located within the Commercial/Residential Mixed-Use Overlay designation of the General Plan, which currently allows mixed-use projects at a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre and a maximum "commercial" Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1:1 (total floor area in relation to total land area). The proposed project has 10,845 square feet of commercial which equals a FAR of 0.24:1 in compliance with the General Plan (basement is exempt from FAR).The project exceeds the maximum allowable residential density of 14 dwelling units per acre for mixed use developments, as stipulated in the General Plan thus is requesting to amend the General Plan to allow development of 30 units per acre on the subject site. It is recognized that contemporary, mixed use developments is the current trend in the San Gabriel Valley, and throughout the State of California. High-density residential uses (typically 30 dwelling units per acre or higher) is vital in order to make the project financially feasible and to facilitate density bonus incentives encouraged by the State. As such, the City is in the process of updating the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements to allow high-density residential uses (up to 30 units per acre) within the Mixed Use Overlay designations. This update and corresponding environmental review will provide the mechanism to allow for orderly development of mixed use projects that are in compliance with the current industry trends, and would allow for targeted growth to occur within the Mixed Use Overlay designations throughout the City. However, until such time that the General Plan update is completed, applicants for mixed use projects must process individual amendment applications for developments that exceed 14 dwelling units per acre in the Mixed Use Overlay designation. The proposed density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre. Municipal Code Requirements Zone Change - Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change may be permitted whenever the public safety, necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. Additionally, a zone change must be found consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Paoe 4 of 29 Conditional Use Permit - The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a mixed use project. The premise of the mixed use district is that the basic underlying zoning designation controls land use. The mixed use overlay district expands the permitted uses of the underlying zoning with the issuance of a conditional use permit. Section 17.112.010 sets the following criteria that must be met: • That the Conditional Use Permit applied for is authorized by the provisions of the Zoning Code; and • That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and • That the establishment, maintenance or conduct of the' use for which the Conditional Use Permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and • That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. Planned Developments - Section 17.76.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) allows commercial, residential and industrial land uses to be permitted in P-D zone subject to approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of such zone change will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood or be injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; 2. That the project's architecture shall be consistent with and/or complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood's integrity and the character of the community; 3. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map - Section 66474 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds under which a City may deny a Tentative Tract Map. In addition, Chapter 16.08.130 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides subdivision regulations, which adopts Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. The following are findings that must be made in order to approve a Tentative Tract Map: The proposed subdivision 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 be contrary to any official adopted plans or policies; • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 29 Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes; All streets, alleys and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys and driveways are of sufficient width, design and construction to preserve public safety and to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic; All easements and covenants required for the approval of Tentative Tract Map or plot plan have been duly executed and recorded. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution# 07-50 and RECOMMEND to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as contained in Exhibit C and RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05- 222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 69079, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "A." ANALYSIS PROPERTY HISTORY & DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of 15 residential units at the southeast corner of Guess Street and Rosemead Boulevard that were constructed in the late 1940's. Additionally, there is a residential triplex structure built in the late 1920's at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard. There are no prior zoning entitlements on these properties, and no indication of any non-residential uses on the site. Due to the age of the existing structures, and given the City's history as a farming community, there is a possibility that a portion of the property may have been used for incidental agricultural uses. Site & Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of three R-3 zoned contiguous parcels. The site is surrounded by the following General Plan designations, Zoning districts, and land uses: North: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use: Multiple Family Residential and Single Family Residential. South: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) Land Use: Multiple Family Residential and Single Family Residential. East: General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Land Use: Single Family Residential C Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 29 • West: General Plan: Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay Zoning: PO-D (Professional Office - Design Overlay Zone) Land Use: Medical Offices The applicant proposes to combine three (3) lots for the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project, consisting of one L-shaped building oriented towards the two street frontages. The applicant has agreed to allocate ten percent (10%), or three (3) units, for sale to moderate income families. Moderate income family incomes range from 80 to 120 percent of the County median household income. The County qualifies "moderate income" households based on the total household income and the total family size of the household. Tentative Tract Map Review Tentative Tract Map 61336 has been distributed to various agencies for their review. Responding agencies have made their comments, which are on file. The City Engineer has checked the parcel for its accuracy, and appropriate conditions of approval have been added as Exhibit A. Approval of the Tentative Tract Map will result in no significant environmental impacts to the subject site and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residential land use is consistent with the surrounding mix of commercial and residential land uses. Development Standards Staff has used the development standards of the PD (Planned Development) zone for the proposed mixed-use development which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to grant approval of a specific development with diversification in the location of structures and other land uses while insuring compliance with the General Plan and compatibility with existing and future development proposal for the site as specified in Section 17.76.010 of the Zoning Code. There are additional applicable development standards within the General Requirements of the Zoning Code (§17.12.290) and in the parking regulations (§17.84) that were used for reviewing the project. The following is a summary of the zoning development standards and the project's compliance with such standards. Zoning Setbacks - The proposed building will provide a minimum front yard setback of six feet (6'-0") along the Rosemead Boulevard street property line, and a zero setback along the Guess Street property line. A side yard setback of 50'-6" will be provided along the east property line, and a rear setback of 32 feet is proposed along the south property line. Additionally, the southerly 164 feet of the proposed building would be setback 117 feet from the easterly property line, due to the location of the at-grade parking area on the east side of the building. The PD zoning district does not impose any minimum setbacks for new projects. However, the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the proposed Planning Commission Meeting • • November 5, 2007 Pace 7 of 29 Planned Development is compatible with existing and future development in surrounding areas, per Section 17.76.010 of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City's adopted Mixed Use Design Guidelines encourage zero setbacks along the street property lines, provided that a seven-foot wide unobstructed sidewalk passageway is provided in the public realm, in order to create a pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed project will comply with the seven-foot clear passageway requirement in the City's mixed use design guidelines. Building Height - The proposed project is regulated by the City's variable height requirement of Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, which requires a structure to be stepped back when adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts. This requirement exists to protect adjacent residential land uses from the massing of development that may impact light, air, ventilation and views. The proposed building complies 'with the variable height requirements of the Code, as indicated on the elevation drawings that were submitted with this application. The upper floors that front on Guess Street were "stepped" back away from the east property line, in order to comply with the variable height restriction. Floor Plans Commercial - The proposed building has two tenant suites totaling 4,160 square feet which will be utilized for sit-down restaurant uses. Three tenant spaces totaling 5,205 square feet will be utilized for retail use, and one 1,480 square foot office tenant space is proposed. Staff encouraged the applicant to locate an office use in the southernmost commercial tenant space, as shown on the submitted plans, because it would be more compatible with the main lobby entrance into the condominiums than retail or restaurant uses. Mixed use projects are intended to provide active commercial storefront uses (such as retail, restaurant, or personal service uses), as encouraged in the City's Mixed Use Development Guidelines, in order to promote an active pedestrian environment. Only one office use will be allowed for this project, and staff has conditioned the approval accordingly. Residential - A total of thirty-two (32) condominium units are proposed for this development. All units will be located on the second, third and fourth floors of the building. The floor plans for the units range in size from 808 to 1,375 square feet of living area. The applicant is proposing a one-bedroom unit with 808 square feet on the second floor which has less than the City's minimum 900 square foot area requirement for one-bedroom condominium units, as specified in Section 17.88.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. While the PD zone allows flexibility in setting the standards for the project, a minor adjustment to the floor plans would allow the unit to have 900 square feet. Staff has conditioned the approval of this project accordingly. Each unit will be provided with two (2) covered parking spaces located in a subterranean parking structure, which is to be accessed through a ramp from the central portion of the rear parking area. There are four different residential floor plans detailed by the following summary. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 29 Plan A: A total of 24 units have this two-bedroom floor plan with 1,180 square feet of living area. These are interior and end units located in the portion of the building that fronts on Rosemead Boulevard. They include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, and bedroom #2 with common bathroom. Bedroom #2 has access to the common bathroom, and the master bedroom has access to a private balcony that is approximately 40 square feet in size. Plan B: A total of three (3) units have this two-bedroom plan, which has 1,250 square feet of living area. These are the end units located at the northwest corner of the building, below the domed roof tower. They include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry room, master bedroom/bath, and bedroom #2 with separate common bathroom. There is no balcony provided for these units. Plan C: A total of four (4) units have this two-bedroom plan, which has 1,375 square feet of living area. These are interior and end units facing Guess Street, and they include a living room, dining area, kitchen, laundry area, master bedroom/bath, and Bedroom #2. There is no balcony provided for these units. Plan D: These two (2) units have a one-bedroom floor plan with 808 and 1,062 square feet of living area, respectively. These are end units on the second floor in the easternmost portion of the building. They include a living room, dining room, kitchen, laundry area, one bedroom, and one bathroom. The bedroom in these units has access to a 242-square foot private rooftop deck. Staff has conditioned the 808 square foot unit to be a minimum of 900 square feet of floor area, to be in keeping with the City-wide area requirements for "stand alone" condominium developments. Open Space/Landscaping Mixed use developments in the PD (Planned Development) zone do not have a minimum open space requirement. Stand-alone multifamily residential developments are required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of any combination of private and public open space per unit, exclusive of front yard setback, side yard setback, vehicular access ways and off-street parking areas. (§17.88.130). While this project is not subject to this requirement, the applicant proposes to have a total of 15,274 square feet on the roof decks, and incidental open space areas on the ground floor in the rear of the building. A roof garden terrace is proposed above the third floor deck on the eastern portion of the building and will include a combination of open trellises, garden area, toddler play equipment and park benches. A larger open space roof garden is proposed on the deck above the fourth floor. This garden area will have walking/jogging trail, park benches and tables, a gazebo, and a community meeting room. Elevator shafts and two staircases are provided to the upper floor decks. The exiting requirements of the Building and Fire Departments may affect the final design of the rooftop gardens. Minor modifications to the project's exterior appearance resulting from the exiting compliance will be handled administratively by the Planning Director. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paoe 9 of 29 The commercial parking lot will have 3,163 square feet of landscaped area, which is approximately 6.96% of the total parking area. This exceeds the City's policy for 3% overall landscaping for commercial developments. Parking and Circulation Chapter 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements) requires one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of commercial space use and one (1) parking space per 100 square feet of restaurant space use. Section 17.88.110 of the Code establishes minimum parking for multifamily residential uses. Dwelling units that contain three bedrooms or less, provide two (2) fully enclosed parking spaces and two (2) guest parking spaces per dwelling unit. As such a minimum of 196 parking spaces is required by Code for the entire project, as shown on the following matrix (Figure 2). FIGURE 2 (Required Parking Spaces) Area / No. of Land Use units Parking Ratio TOTAL Retail 6685 sf 1 space/250 sf 26.74 Restaurant 4160 sf - 1 space/100 sf 41.6 - Residential 32 units 2 covered 64 spaces per unit Guest Parking 32 units i 2 space per unit 64 REQUIRED 196 TOTAL SPACES The applicant has requested a development incentive for reduced parking stall dimensions of 9' X 20' for the residential parking (the minimum dimension is 10' X 20'). Pursuant to Section 65915d(2)A of the California Government Code, cities may grant reductions in development standards and design requirements that restrict housing projects with an affordable component. This project qualifies for the incentive because the applicant will be providing at least 10 percent of the dwelling units for sale to persons and families of moderate income. With respect to the required number of parking spaces, Section 65915(p) of the Government Code states as follows. (p) (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios: (A) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space. (B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 10 of 29 Based on the above, the developer has requested to apply the above parking ratios for the proposed development, in order to facilitate the housing affordability component. The applicant will be selling 10% of the condominiums to moderate income households. At a ratio of two spaces per unit, a maximum of two parking spaces per dwelling (64 spaces) would be required for the condominium portion of the development. This is inclusive of handicapped and guest parking. The proposed project meets the parking ratios established by Government Code Section 65915(p). The 64 parking spaces for the commercial component will be provided at grade (59 spaces) the northeastern portion of the subterranean parking structure, where 20 additional spaces will be provided. Parking for all commercial employees will be encouraged in this non-gated portion of the subterranean parking garage. The gated portion of the subterranean structure will only be used exclusively by residents and their guests. The plans submitted shows 27 compact parking spaces (39% of required parking for commercial portion of project) for the on-grade parking lot, which exceeds the City's allowable ratio of 25% compact parking. In staff's experience, the excessive use of compact parking will result in the inefficient use of parking stalls, as larger vehicles (trucks and SUV's) tend to take up two parking stalls. Staff is recommending a condition to allow no more than 17 parking spaces (25% of required commercial spaces) as compact parking. The parking row along the western boundary of the on-grade parking lot will be required to have standard stall dimensions to comply with this condition of approval. The landscaped islands shown within this parking row may be reduced accordingly to accommodate the 9'X 20' dimension for these parking stalls. Access to the parking areas of the project will be provided via two 28'-0" driveways from Rosemead Boulevard and from Guess Street, respectively. Access to the subterranean parking structure will be from a 22'-0" driveway accessed from the on-grade parking structure in the rear of the buildings. Staff is recommending that a landscape planter with six-inch curb be installed on the west side of the guard wall, two feet in width, to protect the guard wall from vehicles that maneuver adjacent to the parking aisle, and to soften the appearance of the concrete wall next to the pavement. Traffic A traffic impact study prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, dated April 6, 2007, was completed for the project. The Study analyzes trip generation and level of service impacts upon four (4) adjoining intersections. The intersections studied are as follows: Rosemead BoulevardNalley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street (north leg), Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street (south leg), and Rosemead Boulevard/Marshall Street. The Level of Service (LOS) concept indicates a measure of average operating conditions at an intersection. The Levels of Service vary from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F Qammed condition). When comparing the existing conditions and future base plus related project conditions, the LOS remains unchanged for all four intersections. The Rosemead BoulevardNalley • 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 11 of 29 Boulevard intersection will remain at a LOS "F" for AM and PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street (north leg) will remain unchanged at LOS "C" for both AM and PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street (south leg) will remain at LOS "D" for AM peak hour, and LOS "C" for PM peak hour traffic. Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street will remain at LOS "E" for AM peak hour, and LOS "F" for PM peak hour traffic. The above traffic impacts take anticipated projects in the area into consideration. The Los Angeles County CMP criteria describe a significant impact at an intersection when the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) is increasing more than 2% for existing LOS "F" intersections, or if there is a resulting change from LOS "E" to " F". Table 9 of the Traffic Study indicates that neither of these thresholds is met for the proposed development, and that there will be no significant adverse traffic impacts created by the proposed development. Accordingly, there are no mitigation measures recommended in the Traffic Study. Based on the traffic study, staff finds that the proposed development will not create any significant environmental effects upon the traffic circulation system of the area. Additionally, the Traffic Study analyzes the reduced parking request and finds that this will not create any hardship on the commercial tenants because residential uses and a variety of commercial uses within the proposed development have different hours of parking demand, and create a destination attraction whereby customers will visit more than one business upon arrival to the shopping center. This shared parking scenario allows for maximizing the use of parking space that otherwise would be underutilized during hours when the peak demands occur for each of the different land uses. Architecture The proposed building has a post-modern Italianate style of architecture, characterized by multi-story street-facing facades, tall, narrow and arched windows with painted foam- stucco trims, plaster balustrades, domed corner tower with cupola, predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines, and smooth stucco plaster. There is substantial variation in the front wall plane facing both street frontages due to the private balconies that provide fenestration along the expanse of multi-story structure. Additionally the roof line has a varying height due to the fourth story unit cluster and rooftop trellis covers. The Guess Street frontage has a "stepped" building height that provides a reduced massing where it is closest to adjoining residential property to the east. The exteriors consist of smooth stucco plaster in a combination of Dunn Edwards colors, including "Peach", "Poppy Crepe" and "Royal Sable". The accent/trim colors include Dunn Edwards "Flaxen", and "Solar Wind" to be used on the architectural projections. Dunn Edwards "White" is used for all balustrades, window trim, and cornice trim. "Billiard Table" green is proposed for the metal railings, and green "canvas" awnings are proposed on the upper floor squared windows. The "copper" patina-colored domed roof and gabled-roof parapets will add an attractive accentuation to the proposed building's color schemes. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 12 of 29 The ground floor (storefront) elevations will incorporate horizontal banding with alternating red tones of Dunn Edwards "Arabian Red" and "Revival Rose" in conjunction with "Royal Sable" granite stone veneers on the bulkhead. The roof top trellises will be painted in "White" to match other trim colors. The maximum height of the structures is 45-6" to the top of the fourth story parapet. The elevator shaft and gabled-roof end on the south side of the building projects ten (10) feet above the fourth story deck. The domed roof tower at the corner of the building will project 22 feet above the fourth story parapet. The colored renderings of the elevations will be available to view at the Planning Commission Meeting. Landscaping and Fencing The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan showing a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover. A 6-foot high decorative masonry wall will be constructed along the south and east property lines adjoining residential uses. The proposed wall will be a precision block wall with two rows of split face block along the 2nd and 4th course from the top. A standard block wall cap will be used. The plans submitted show a total of 15 trees with 24-inch box sizing to include "Jacaranda", "California Sycamore", "Golden Trumpet Tree", and "Coral Gum Eucalyptus". Additionally, "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees in 15-gallon sizing are called out for the south perimeter of the on-grade parking areas. Staff has included a condition of approval to require 15-gallon "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees planted at nine feet on center, along the easterly property line planter. All entries into the storefronts and lobby area will have decorative stone/interlocked paving. For aesthetic purposes, the applicant will be required to install inter-locking pavers at both driveway entrances. The front planter along Rosemead Boulevard shows six feet of plantings to include "Japanese Boxwood" and "Rosemary" shrubs. Staff is recommending that the planter areas in front of the storefronts be removed and replaced with an expanded decorative sidewalk in order to enhance the pedestrian friendly environment, and encourage outdoor seating areas for the restaurants. Ornamental 48"-box street trees with appropriate tree wells and decorative grates are recommended in the public right-of-way, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director and Parks and Recreation Department. The conceptual landscape plans show a wood railing with vines growing on a raised planter bed for the rooftop gardens. Staff recommends that tubular steel railing be used in lieu of the wood trellis, to provide a more durable material that can withstand the elements, and provide a more decorative appearance. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. For purposes of the Planned Development review, staff is recommending that the Commission approve the conceptual landscape plans as presented, with the conditions of approval which require that street trees be planted along both street frontages, that "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees be used along the east property line planter, and that Planning Commission Meeting • • November 5, 2007 Page 13 of 29 storefront planting areas be removed in order to enhance the pedestrian and storefront interaction. Neighborhood Character In comparison to the residential and office buildings along Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to the site, development of the proposed project would be greater is scale and massing, but compatible in relation to the street orientation. Although there are single- family homes currently adjacent to the site, the entire area has a General Plan designation of Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay which will result in higher density residential and commercial mixed use developments in the future. The proposed development is sensitive to the surrounding uses and has a modern application of a traditional "new urbanism" concept. The rooftop gardens will provide an added attractive recreational and open space amenity for future residents, including young families. Overall, staff finds that the addition of this development will increase property values and improve the general aesthetics of the neighborhood, while providing much needed multi-family housing units, including three (3) affordable dwelling units, as well as commercial uses to serve the daily needs of the existing and future residents of Rosemead. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Site Plan The subject site is a corner lot with primary frontage on Rosemead Boulevard, and abutting residential uses to the east and south. There are multiple family residences to the north across Guess Street, and medical offices on the west side of Rosemead Boulevard. There is a six-foot Edison power easement on the south property boundary, and a three-foot Edison power easement along the eastern property boundary. The site will have adequate drainage on site, and a sump pump will be used in order to adequately drain the subterranean parking structure. Southern California Edison has stated that the front yard setback may have to be adjusted to comply with separation requirements for the existing power poles. As such, staff is including a condition of approval requiring the_ applicant to meet with Edison prior to submittal of construction drawings, in order to adjust the site plan as needed. The site is generally flat and can be utilized to its full development potential. The proposed site plan shows one freestanding building with storefront facades oriented towards the sidewalk along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street, and all parking located in the rear and below grade. Access to the residences is through an elevator and staircase at the north and south ends of the building. The residential lobby areas are easily accessible from the parking areas and from the sidewalk. Additionally, there are storage rooms provided in the basement, with individual compartments for use by residential occupants of the building. Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Page 14 of 29 Light standards are provided in the at-grade parking areas, and all parking lot lighting will be fully shielded to mitigate glare on adjacent properties to the south and east. A detailed lighting plan will be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. The first floor of the proposed buildings will have commercial tenant spaces ranging in size from 1,480 square feet to 2,425 square feet in size. The proposed occupancy frontage of tenant suites will range in width from 30'-2" to 35-6" along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage, and 60'-8" along the Guess Street frontage. One trash enclosure to serve the commercial uses will be provided on the southeastern corner of the parking area. Additionally, two trash enclosures with a "trash chute", accessible at every floor level, will be provided for the condominium residents. The residential trash enclosures would be located within the basement parking areas. All trash enclosures will be designed to comply with City requirements. Elevations The architecture consists of a contemporary vernacular with elements such as smooth stucco, vertical reveals, granite stone veneers, base trim, metal balcony railings, and decorative pop-outs, along with a stepped cornice trim that ties the buildings architecturally. The street-facing elevations provide both vertical and horizontal articulation by employing various parapet wall heights and by pushing the taller portions of the facade back from the street. The focal point of the building is the domed roof tower and cupola with rounded windows nearest the street intersection. This architectural feature will provide unique character and will create an inviting pedestrian entry into the restaurant suite at the ground floor. There are vertical column "pop-outs" proposed along both street frontages that provide variation for the storefront facades and upper floor massing. These columns create shadow lines and add interest to the elevations. Staff is recommending that all window surrounds, and the cornice trims along the top of the first story be constructed of pre- cast concrete. The cornice trim above the second, third and fourth stories may be of stucco/foam construction. Sion Program The elevation drawings show proposed wall sign locations on the front, side and rear elevations of the commercial tenant spaces. The proposed "sign area" consists of a recessed rectangular area measuring 18 inches in height and extending the full width of the storefront windows. As such, the tenants could place channel lettered signs that are 6 inches to 18 inches in height. Additionally, the architectural columns between the tenant spaces could be used for "projecting signs" to animate the streetscape, and provide better business identification for the vehicular traffic along Rosemead Boulevard. Staff is recommending that a comprehensive sign program be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. The sign program would restrict wall signs to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum lettering height of 12 inches, and maximum logo size of 18 inches. Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Paoe 15 of 29 Mixed Use Design Guidelines On September 25, 2007 the Rosemead City Council adopted the Mixed Use Design Guidelines for the City, prepared by design firm known as Downtown Solutions. The Guidelines establish a new set of design criteria that architects and developers can use in the conceptual planning, and in the design detailing portion of the entitlement process. The adopted Guidelines, in conjunction with the anticipated General Plan updates and the City's Zoning Code regulations, will establish the City's new policies for mixed use development throughout the City. The proposed development was submitted, and had substantial progress through the City's review process, prior to the adoption of the Guidelines. However, the project has incorporated many of the concepts stipulated in the Guidelines in an attempt to conform to City policies. While the proposed project is exempt from strict adherence to the Guidelines, the following is a brief discussion of the project's compliance with the Guidelines. 52.1 Public Realm and the Pedestrian Environment The project shows a six-foot wide planter area along Rosemead Boulevard, and a 12- inch planter along Guess Street. The resulting sidewalk width will be less than seven feet on both street frontages, once street trees are installed. In order to provide the seven-foot clear pedestrian passageway encouraged in the Guidelines, staff is recommending that the storefronts not have a front landscaped planter. Ornamental street trees with metal grates will be required in the public right-of-way. As conditioned, the expanded sidewalk areas will provide an enhanced pedestrian environment, and will accommodate outdoor dining areas as encouraged by the Guidelines. The use of canvas awnings, permanent or retractable, will be required for all storefront windows. §2.2 Site Design The project's site layout is substantially in conformance with the intent of the Guidelines to place buildings up against the street frontage with pedestrian-oriented storefronts. The buildings will be placed on the front property line, with a 12-inch setback on Guess Street, and a five-foot setback along Rosemead Boulevard. There is a small usable open space area behind the buildings that can function as an outdoor plaza, as encouraged by the Guidelines. S2.3A-B Building Design The project provides active commercial use for a majority of the commercial building frontage, in the form of retail and restaurant uses. Additionally, all residential uses are located on the upper floors. The fagade treatments are continuous on both street frontages, and the corner of the building facing the intersection provides a strong focal point, as encouraged by the Guidelines. 42.3C Building Elements While there is not a formal "modular bay" transition every 25 feet, the proposed building provides substantial architectural variation and wall plane relief due to the use of balconies, and architectural projections. The upper floor windows correlate Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Paoe 16 of 29 proportionally to the storefront windows. There is a strong base, middle and top element to the facades with the use of sign bands, cornice trims, and decorative railing. Building entries are designed to be seen from the street frontages and from the intersection. Additionally, building signage is proposed along a horizontal band above the storefronts. The project proposes a variety of quality building materials including smooth stucco plaster, stone veneer, concrete the roofing and copper dome structure, pre-cast concrete balustrade, wrought iron railing, and wood trellis structures. 62.4 Building Height The proposed buildings are three and four stories in height, consistent with the Guidelines. Variations in building height and massing variation has been incorporated into the design of the structures. 62.5 Storefront The proposed storefronts provide large windows and a bulkhead with stone veneer. The corner storefront provides substantial architectural interest that contrasts the more linear storefronts along the street frontage. Staff recommends that commercial public entrances at ground level be recessed two to four feet in depth to provide modulation. Additionally, all doors, including service entries, along Rosemead Boulevard Avenue and Guess Street will be conditioned to be recessed a minimum of two feet. 62.6 Lighting The plans submitted with this application do not show detailed lighting plans. Staff has conditioned the project to provide a detailed lighting plan, and will require all parking lot lighting to be fully shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. 62.7 Common Areas/Open Space The plans submitted show substantial usable open space for the residents in the form of rooftop gardens. Additionally, there is a small usable plaza in the rear of the buildings that can function as usable open space and/or outdoor seating for the restaurant tenants. 62.8 Compatibility with Adjoining Properties The project complies with the variable height restrictions of the City's General Provisions, and as such preserves the light, air, and lateral views of the adjoining residential properties to the east. There is adequate separation of buildings from adjoining properties to protect the aesthetic appeal of the streetscape. 62.9 Parking and 62.10 Access All parking for the project has been designed in the rear of the buildings or in a subterranean structure, and will be screened from view to the street. Pedestrian storefronts will line the street frontages, as encouraged by the Guidelines. The project has a single driveway on each street frontage, adjacent to the.interior property lines, in order to maximize the continuity of storefront facades. Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 29 Property Improvements Currently, the site is developed with older multiple family residential land uses that do not comply with the City's current development standards, and have outlived their economic viability, given the rise in property values of the vicinity. The proposed development requires a subterranean parking structure which entails significant excavation for constructing below-grade basement concrete retaining walls with steel reinforcement over most of the site. A construction staging plan, restrictions on hours of construction, and dust mitigation/erosion control best management practices will be required during the construction phase. All off-street parking for the commercial uses will be located to the rear of the proposed buildings at grade. The on-grade parking will be paved and landscaped with shade trees, shrubs, permanent irrigation system and a decorative masonry block wall around all interior property boundaries. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS On October 5, 2007 written notices of this public hearing were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and eight (8) notices were posted in designated public places and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk. During public hearing meeting on October 15, 2007, the Planning Commission announced continuance of the project and directed staff to bring back the project with corrections to Planning Commission at its public hearing meeting on November 5, 2007 for consideration. Prepared by: George Agaba, Senior Planner Submitted by: Matt Everling City Planner Attachments: A. Conditions of Approval B. Site/Floor/Elevation Plans C. Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program D. Traffic Study E. Assessor's Parcel Map (8594-009-001,002 &04) F. Zoning Map G. General Plan Map H. Applications 1. Resolution 07-50 G:\Planning\PC Reports\ZC\ZC 05-222, GPA 07-06, CUP 06-1064, PDR 06-04, TTM 069079 9016 Guess-3864 Rosemead MU Proje.doc • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 18 of 29 EXHIBIT "A" • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69079 Mixed Use Development 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street (APN's: 8594-009-001, 8594-009-002, and 8594-009-004) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 5, 2007 1. General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 69079 are approved for the construction of 10,845 square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space, and 32 dwelling units all totaling approximately 48,910 square feet of floor area at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street. The project shall be developed in accordance with the plan marked Exhibit "B," dated September 25, 2007 and submitted colored elevations and color and material sample boards. Any revision to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 69079 shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that they are aware of and accept all of the conditions including mitigation measures as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 3. General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Tentative Tract Map 69079 and Planned Development Review 06-04, are approved for a two-year period from the City Council's approval date. The applicant shall make progress towards initiation of proposed use or request an extension 30 days prior to expiration date. Completion of the proposed development and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for structures will constitute establishment of the use on site. Otherwise General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Tentative Tract Map 69079 and Planned Development Review 06-04 shall become null and void. 4. 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. 5. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 6. Building Permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 19 of 29 as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees are paid in full. 7. Each residential unit and commercial tenant space shall be constructed exactly as approved; no as-built plans will be accepted unless approved by the Planning Division. 8. The conditions listed on this Exhibit "A" shall be copied directly onto construction plans submitted to the Planning and Building Divisions for review. 9. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s).The commercial tenant spaces fronting on Rosemead Boulevard shall be occupied only with retail, restaurant, and personal service uses in order to maintain a lively storefront environment. The most east corner retail space along Guess Street (Unit F) shall be used for office uses only. No retail use operating beyond 8:00 pm or any restaurant shall be permitted in Unit F. Second- hand sales, and other non-retail businesses shall be prohibited on the property. 10. 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&Rs 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. All buildings within this project were designed and approved under a precise plan, planned development (PD) concept. As a result, some of the project lots and yard areas are smaller than would ordinarily be allowed under the development standards contained in the Rosemead Zoning Code. Purchasers of project dwelling units are hereby notified that they will not gain City approval for any expansion such as room additions, patio enclosures, etc. Any necessary 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&Rs will cover all aspects of property maintenance of the common areas, including but no limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, open space and recreational areas. 11.There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, or trailers. All trash and debris shall be contained within a city approved trash enclosure. The proposed trash enclosure structure shall be built with solid roof and provided with the same architectural elements as the main building including decorative cornices, decorative trims and contrasting fagade color. 12. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, litter free state in accordance with Sections 8.32.010, .020, 030, and .040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which pertains to the storage, accumulation, collection, and disposal of garbage, • . 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 20 of 29 rubbish, trash and debris. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. Any new litter and graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour Graffiti Hotline can be reached by calling the City of Rosemead main line at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 13.The numbers of the address signs shall be at least six (6) inches tall with a minimum character width of '/4 inches, contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. 14.The parking area, including parking spaces for handicapped, shall be paved and re-painted periodically to City standards. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible and orderly manner. 15.A 24-inch wide landscape planter with six inch curbing shall be installed along the western perimeter of the "guard wall" adjacent to driveway leading into subterranean parking structure. Said planter shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Division. 16.The applicant shall not provide more than 17 parking spaces (25% of total required parking spaces) as compact parking. The parking spaces adjacent to the rear of the building shall be increased to standard stall size. The landscaped areas shown adjacent to this parking row may be reduced accordingly to accommodate the required stall dimension of 9 feet wide by 20 feet in depth, double striped. 17.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. 18.AII open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped as approved by the Planning Division and maintained on a regular basis. 19.The property shall comply with all appropriate building, fire and health department regulations. 20.All roof top appurtenances and mechanical equipments shall be adequately screened from public view such that they are not visible from adjacent properties. 21.There shall be no accessory mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. 22. Prior to issuance'of drainage/grading permit, the applicant shall submit water quality management plan in compliance with the City's storm water ordinance and Los Angeles County's SUSMP requirements with respect to the planning and development of the project • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 21 of 29 23. During site grading, the sites shall be watered at least twice a day to eliminate fugitive dust. 24. Construction vehicle speeds shall be limited to a maximum of 15 miles per hour. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive 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. Wall signs shall be restricted to illuminated channel lettering with a maximum height of 12 inches, with logos up to 18 inches in height. All wall signs shall be placed flat against the wall, within the 18-inch horizontal band on the upper portion of the storefront windows. 26. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland concrete cement as shown on Exhibit "B"; and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition. 27.The applicant/developer shall incorporate decorative inter-locking pavers along both proposed driveways via Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street. Such pavers shall cover the entire width of the driveways and shall be a minimum of 35 feet long to complement the proposed building fagade articulations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall submit cut sheets/brochures of such materials to the Planning Division for approval. The planning Division shall make a final decision on what colors and materials to be used before installation of such pavers. 28. Proposed landscape planter areas in front of the storefront shall be minimized and paved as an extension of the sidewalk area in order to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. Decorative inter-locking pavers shall be extended across entire storefront walkway adjacent to the sidewalk along Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street to encourage outdoor dining along the storefronts. 29.All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right-of-way. 30.The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and low growing flowers. Ornamental 48"-box street trees shall be planted along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street public right-of- way with tree wells and decorative tree grates. The species of street trees shall Planning Commission Meeting • November 5, 2007 Paoe 22 of 29 be determined by the City Engineer, Planning Division and the Parks and Recreation Department. 31.The perimeter planter along the east side of the on-grade parking lot shall be planted with 15-gallon "Carolina Laurel Cherry" trees planted nine feet on center and other ever green shrubs to provide a buffer between the perimeter block wall and the parking lot. 32. The applicant shall install an 8 foot split face block wall along the south and east property lines of the subject site. Such block wall shall be constructed in phase 1 of the proposed project and shall avoid damage to adjacent properties. 33.The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be prepared, submitted to and approved by the City Building Official and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan. 34.The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 1/4", 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. 35.Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work done in or adjacent to the public-right-of-way. The applicant shall also install and complete all necessary .public improvements, including but not limited to street curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps and storm drains, along the entire street frontage of the development site as required by the City Engineer. 36.All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves and other equipment) shall be screened by screening walls and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 37.All on-site utilities, and distribution facilities and wires for the supply and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, and cable television shall be placed underground. The underground conversion of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 38.Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 39.The applicant shall meet with a representative of Southern California Edison's planning staff to finalize the location of all buildings, structures, and future electrical transformers on site prior to submittal of final construction drawings to the City. 40.The Planning Commission and/or City Council hereby authorize the Planning Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 23 of 29 Division to make or approve minor modifications to the approved plans. 41. Prior to submittal of final construction plans to the City, the applicant shall meet with the City's Building Official and Fire Department and submit detailed plans as deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the exiting requirements for the rooftop garden decks above the third floor and fourth floor. 42. The applicant shall re-design the "Plan D" floor plan for the one-bedroom unit, in compliance with the minimum 900 square foot residential floor requirements of Section 17.88.070 of the Zoning Code. Detailed plans showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 43. Prior to recordation of the final map, covenants and restrictions in a form approved by the City Attorney will be recorded against the three (3) affordable condominium units to guarantee that these units are initially sold to persons and families of moderate income. The covenants and restrictions shall provide for an equity-sharing agreement upon the re-sale of the affordable units, consistent with California Government Code Section 65915. 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) must be prepared by the developer and approved by the City Attorney, Planning Division and City Engineer and recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. The CC&R's will cover all aspects of maintenance of the common areas, including but not limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking stalls, recreation areas and sewer system maintenance. 45.All window trims shall be precast concrete, painted with Dunn Edwards "white" trim color, as shown on the elevation drawings. The cornice trims along the top of the first story elevations shall be precast concrete. Cornice trims along the top of the second, third and fourth stories may be of stucco/foam construction. All cornice trims shall be painted to match window trims as shown on the elevation drawings in Exhibit B. 46.The roofing material for the domed roof structure shall be mosaic tiles in contrasting colors to complement the proposed building color schemes and the vertical ribs shall match colors elevation drawings shown in Exhibit B. 47.All storefront windows on the ground floor shall be required to install permanent or retractable canvas awnings, in a color to complement the color schemes of the building. 48.All stucco finishes for the building's exterior shall consist of smooth-trowel stucco finish and a painted exterior, in a field color that is consistent with the approved color schemes for the project: 49.All windows shall be recessed a minimum of four (4) inches. Window surrounds • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paoe 24 of 29 • shall be dimensional pre-cast concrete sections with defined grout lines. 50.The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan showing adequate lighting for pedestrian safety, parking lot illumination, and for illuminated wall signs. All lighting shall be fully shielded to prevent glare onto adjoining properties. 51.All commercial public entrances at ground level shall be recessed two to four feet in depth to provide modulation. All doors, including service entries along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street shall be recessed a minimum of four inches. 52. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, the applicant/developer shall install "EXIT ONLY, NO RIGHT TURN SIGN" at the northerly proposed driveway along Guess Street. The applicant shall design this driveway in a safe-angled manner and install the "no righturn sign" at a point where it's clearly visible. The sign shall be installed such that vehicular traffic is prohibited from making a right turn onto Guess Street. 53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant or successor in interest shall meet with the Los Angles County Sanitation Districts to obtain a permit to connect to a public sewer system. 54. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City shall approve a site-specific and design-specific geotechnical investigation, prepared in accordance with the "Manual for Preparation of Geotechnical Reports (County of Los. Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2000, Revised May 8, 2001) or such other standards as may be established by the City Engineer and City Building Official. That investigation as prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, will determine the precise nature of excavation, footing and associated details that, when implemented will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with and in recognition of existing site-specific conditions. Each of the recommendations contained in that investigation will become project-specific conditions and construction activities will be monitored to ensure the implementation of those measures (Added by Planning Commission on November 5, 2007) Police Department Conditions 55. The applicant shall install a directory of tenants posted at each common entrance to the proposed building. The directory must contain the residents' name, floor, and unit number. Fire Department Conditions 56.The required fire flow for this development is 5000 gallons per minute for 5 hours. The water mains in the street fronting this property must be capable of delivering • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paqe 25 of 29 this flow at 20 pounds per square inch of residual pressure. 57. The applicant shall install two (2) Public 6" X 4" X 2 ''/z" fire hydrants, conforming to AWWA Standard C503-75 or approved equal. All installations must meet Fire Department specifications. Fire hydrant systems must be installed in accordance with the Utility Manual of Ordinance 7834 and all installations must be inspected and flow tested prior to final approval. 58. The applicant shall submit fire hydrant improvement plans to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for review and approval. The required fire flow may be reduced by Fire Prevention Division as necessary. 59.Access is approved as shown on the site plan dated December 28, 2006 filed in the office of the Fire Department. 60.The applicant shall submit architectural drawings to Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Division for additional Fire Department requirements during the Building Plan Check Phase. Fire protection facilities, including access, must be provided prior to and during construction to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Mitigation Measure Conditions: 61. Prior to approval of final plans, the applicant shall provide dedicated, secured bicycle parking racks to the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre-manufactured or custom racks, cemented in the ground, lockers, or similar bicycle storage device to encourage use of non-motorized means of transport. 62.Adequate watering techniques will be employed to mitigate the impacts resulting from construction-related dust particulates. The project site shall be watered three times a day during earth moving phase and during construction such that a crust is formed on the ground surface and then maintained as part of the construction specifications. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved ways shall be 15 miles per hour. The applicant shall post speed limit notice on all entrances of the job site. All construction access ways and the job site shall be cleaned after each workday. 63. During project phasing, any proposed vegetation and ground cover to be utilized on site shall be planted in phase one to reduce disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion from contributing to dust emission from the project site. Related irrigation system shall also be installed in phase one to minimize soil erosion and ensure reliable water provision needed for maturity of such vegetation. 64.The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. The project will also be required to • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 26 of 29 40 comply with BMPs per Los Angeles Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 65. Consistent with the construction plans, the applicant shall provide pedestrian walkways; thereby encouraging walking and bicycle use as a mode of transportation between the project site and related facilities on site and adjacent uses to minimize automobile use dependence. 66. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall have a Registered Environmental Assessor conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Study in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards to determine the presence of hazardous materials on the site, and shall prepare a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety and the California DTSC. If hazardous materials are found on site or within the site's existing structures and require DTSC supervision for remediation, then prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall certify to the Department of Building and Safety that all structure-related hazardous materials have been properly disposed off. 67.This project is granted or approved with the City of Rosemead and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit--including the conditions of approval--based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on this project 68. 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. CITY ENGINEER'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 69 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. 70 Final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, L Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Page 27 of 29 must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder for recordation. 71 A preliminary subdivision, guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final tract map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 72 Monumentation of tract map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is . required for a map based on. a field survey. 73 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. 74 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Rosemead Municipal Code. 75 Approval for filing 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. 76 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. 77 Prior to final map recordation, the developer shall submit condominium plan to City for approval. 78 Conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. The CC&R's s shall provide for maintenance of the private driveways and parking areas and maintenance of sewer laterals and mainline. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 79 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. 80 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. 81 Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and • • Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paae 28 of 29 directed by gravity to the street, a public drainage facility, or an approved drainage easement. 82 Surface water generated from the site shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveway into the gutter on Rosemead Boulevard or Guess Street. A parkway drain(s) is required. 83 Developer must comply with the City's storm water ordinance and SUSMP requirements. ROAD 84 New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 5' (on Rosemead Boulevard) and 3' (on Guess Street) from any above-ground obstructions in the public right- of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. 85 Four (4) existing drive approaches on Rosemead Boulevard and one (1) on Guess Street shall be closed with full curb, gutter and sidewalk. . 86 Developer shall construct all new full-width sidewalks along the entire frontage of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. 87 Developer shall construct 4'-square tree wells with metal grates on Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street. The tree wells shall be spaced 30' on center, planted with 24-inch box Australian Willow trees, and furnished with an irrigation system that is consistent with the City's Landscape & Irrigation Plans for Valley Boulevard. The proposed metal tree well grates shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to installation. 88 Developer shall obtain all required permits from Caltrans for work performed on Rosemead Boulevard. SEWER 89 Sewer mainline and laterals shall be privately maintained. 90 Sewers shall be sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. UTILITIES 91 Power, telephone and cable television service shall be underground where feasible. 92 Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 2007 Paqe 29 of 29 WATER is 93 Prior to the filing of the final map, the applicant shall file with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the project complies with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. 0 0 • MAYOR: JOHN TRAN MAYOR PRO TEM: JOHN NUNEZ OOUNCILMEMBERS: MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW GARY A. TAYLOR .4RT OF ATTACHMENT C Vi l l C~ yt ~ S~tc 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 FAX (626) 307-921 B NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ORIGINAL FILED AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP 13 2007 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOS ANGELES, COUNTY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ON OCTOBER 1 5, 2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Rosemead Planning Commission has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration and will conduct a public hearing on October 15 2007 at 700 PM, at Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead: CASE NO.: CUP 06-1064 PDR 06-04 ZC 05-222 and TTM 069079 - The City of Rosemead (hereafter referred to as "Lead Agency" has completed an .Initial Study (IS) of the proposed Mixed Use Project located at 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Blvd (South east corner of Rosemead Blvd and Guess Street) in the city of Rosemead, California. The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Rosemead requesting approval to develop a mixed use project consisting of 32 attached condominium units and 12,580 square feet of retail space along with subterranean parking. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Initial Study is undertaken to determine if the proposed project may have a F'-nificant effect on the environment The Initial Study was prepared and completed in accordance with the California onmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. 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 with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures aimed at addressing the project's potential significant effects and 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. Copies of the IS/MND are on file at the City of Rosemead Planning Department located at 8838 E. Valley Blvd, Rosemead, CA 91770, for public review. Any person wishing to comment on the adequacy of the ISIMND must submit such comments, in writing, to the City of Rosemead Planning Department, Attn: George Agaba, Senior Planner. Comments must be received within 20- calender days from September 13, 2007 to October 3, 2007. The City of Rosemead Planning Commission will consider the project and the IS/MND at its regular meeting on October 15, 2007 at 7:00pm. The Planning Commission meeting is open to the public and the public is encouraged to attend. If the Planning Commission finds that with the incorporated mitigation measures, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; it may recommend the MND to be adapted and the.proposed Mixed Use Project to be approved by the City Council. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the proposed Mixed Use Project at 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Blvd without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009 (b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rosemead at, or prior to, the public hearing date. George Agaba nior Planner EXHIBIT C • 0 Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration ROSEMEAD MIXED-USE 3862 Rosemead Blvd.; 9016 Guess Street Rosemead, Los Angeles, CA Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 8594-009-001 8594-009-002 and 8594-009-004. 0 Lead Agency: City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 626-569-2140 Contact George Agaba, Senior Planner Project Proponent: Eastern Investment Group, LLC/Owner 3226 North Muscatel Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Zone Change Application 05-222 Conditional Use Permit Application 06-1064 Planned Development Review Application 06-04 • PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/MitigatNegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The project purpose is to construct a mixed-use development, residential and commercial project, including thirty-two (32) residential condominium units, approximately 8,420 square feet of retail/office uses and 4,160 square feet of restaurant space as well as 143 subterranean and above ground parking spaces. 1.2 LOCATION The proposed project is located in the City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, Califomia, at 3862 Rosemead Blvd. and 9016 Guess St. The 45,426 square-foot (1.04 acres) site occupies three lots comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8594-009-001, -002 and -004 on the southeast corner of • Rosemead Blvd. and Guess St., extending approximately 232' south from Guess St. property line and approximately 196' east from Rosemead Blvd. property line. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes construction of a four-story, mixed-use structure that includes 32 condominium residential units, 4,160 square feet of restaurant space, and 8,420 square feet of retail/office space. The project also includes two levels of parking, one at ground level, and one below grade level with parking spaces totaling 143 parking spaces. As proposed, the residential units are distributed among the top three floors of the structure, above the restaurant and retail units. The applicant is proposing to reserve ten percent (10%) (3 units) of the proposed residential condominium units for "moderate income" buyers. Retail, office and restaurant spaces are located on the ground floor, with entrances along Rosemead Blvd., Guess Street and from the surface parking lot. The submitted floor plans indicates that there are three proposed retail shops each with a total floor space of approximately 1,735 square feet, two restaurants ranging from 1,735 square feet to 2,425 square feet of floor area, and one office with approximately 1,480 square feet of leasehold space. • Rosemead Mixed-Use 2 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • For project implementation, the applicant is requesting to demolish two existing single=family residence, three existing multifamily residential units and several accessory buildings as well as excavation and removal of approximately 463,953 cubic feet of soil for basement parking garage construction. • Existing Dwelling Units (looking East on Guess Street) L Rosemead Mixed-Use 3 City of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Permit No. 06-1064 Conditional Use Planned Development Permif No. 06-04 • 1.3.1 Proposed Building Layout and Architecture Layout. The proposed building footprint is designed in an inverted L-shape, with the apex of the "L" oriented towards the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street with its footprint positioned along Rosemead and Guess (see Figure 1.3, Site/First Floor Plan). The legs enclose a rear surface parking lot, which will to be screened from Rosemead Blvd frontage view by the building and a landscape planter. The proposed building facades spans approximately 200 feet long, along Rosemead Boulevard and extends approximately 140 feet along Guess Street; the total building footprint occupies approximately 14,064 square feet. Setbacks. The building is set back from Rosemead Blvd (west) property line by eight (8) feet, from Guess (north) property line by an average 2 feet and southeast portion to the office unit is approximately 137.5, and from the south property line by 32. The longer leg along Rosemead Blvd is approximately 165 feet long to the Lobby area, the shorter leg along Guess Street from the comer of restaurant to the retail unit on the street level is approximately 125 feet long. Height. Along the Rosemead frontage, the proposed four-story fagade is an average of • 48 feet in height, with a 68-foot tall domed tower at the comer of Rosemead and Guess and a secondary rectilinear tower on the south fagade. Along Guess Street frontage, the fagade decreases in three broad steps in overall height to approximately 18 feet at its nearest point to the east property line. The 65-foot long fagade along the south property line averages 48 feet tall. Architecture. The proposed architectural style is post-modem Italianate, characterized by the multi-story street-facing fagade, tall, narrow and arched windows with white painted form trims, plaster balustrades, the corner tower or cupola, predominately flat roofs with parapets at the rooflines, and smooth stucco plaster surface treatment (See Figure 1.4). The proposed colors range from light tans to deep reds, at the street level, glass storefronts punctuate the Rosemead and Guess fagades. Proposed visible roof material includes copper sheathing for the corner and secondary towers. Also proposed is a roof garden for the entire rooftop, as detailed on Project Plans. There one arbor-covered trash enclosures proposed at the southeast corners of the site. Finally, a concrete split- faced block wall, six feet in height, is proposed to be constructed on the south and east property lines. The applicant will work with the City of Rosemead to provide decorative landscaping and planters along walkways. The applicant will utilize a combination of split-faced block wall and landscaping buffer between walls and adjacent properties. • Rosemead Mixed-Use 4 • Initial Study/Mitigated9ative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit. No. 06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 1.3.2 Access, Circulation and Parking Vehicular access. Two 28-foot wide driveways are proposed to provide access to the subject site. One from northbound via Guess Street and the second at the south-west property line via Rosemead Blvd. Vehicles will be directed around the surface parking lot by an internal 8-foot drive aisle; central ramps provide access to and from the subterranean garage. Parking. The project proposes 143 parking spaces for the combined residential and commercial uses, including 26 compact spaces and eight handicap spaces. According to the City, of Rosemead Municipal Code, the project is required to provide 42 parking spaces for the restaurant uses, 34 parking spaces for the retail uses and 128 parking spaces for the residential uses. However, the applicant is proposing to reserve ten percent (10%) (3 units) of the proposed residential condominium units for "moderate income" buyers. Per the State of California density bonus requirement (SB1818), the applicant has requested that the number of parking spaces be reduced. SB 1818 amended California • Government Code Section 65915 to create a sliding scale in which developments with affordable units should be afforded density bonus and be given concessions. According to SB 1818, if a project qualifies for a density bonus, the developer may request and the City or County must approve modified parking standards or provide other "incentives" to the developer in order to provide affordable housing. Therefore, to comply with SB 1818 requirements, The City has provided an "incentive" to the developer by reducing the number of parking spaces from four parking spaces per residential condominium unit to two parking spaces per unit. Therefore, 64 parking spaces are provided for the residential units rather than the 128 parking spaces as required by the City Code. This reduction is consistent with the parking parameters established in SB 1818. In addition, this reduction is practical considering the number of ground level parking spaces that will be available for the retail businesses on the site and which can be utilized for guest parking, when needed. The proposed project will have 64 parking spaces in the basement parking area that will be designated, exclusively, for the residential units. Since there are 32 residential units, this allows for two parking spaces for each residential unit. Under this provision, the project provides sufficient on-site parking to meet the parking standards set under SB 1818. • Pedestrian .Access. Individual storefront doors on both the street-side and the parking lot fagadcs provide street-level pedestrian access to the retail, office and restaurant uses. There are two sets of stairs, on the north and south sides of the proposed building, which Rosemead Mixed-Use 5 • Initial Study/Mitigatedgative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 061064 Planned Development Permit No. 0604 • will provide access to the building's upper levels. Finally, there are two elevators for residents and guests, one at the southwest corner of the building and another near its northeast corner near adjacent to the lobby. 1.3.3 Conceptual Landscape Design The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape design that depicts 3,163 square feet of landscaped area to be provided in the parking areas as well as adjacent to the proposed structures. A final landscaping plan will be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to issuance of the occupancy permit. 1,3,4 Proposed Demolition and Excavation Implementation of the proposed project will require demolition of several occupied residential structures, including three apartment buildings, two single-family units and other accessory structures on site. There are two existing single story and double story structures on site constructed in 1928. The residence at 3864 Rosemead Blvd. appears to have been a single-family house that was later converted to apartment units. The apartments at 3862 Rosemead are single story and configured around existing central automobile courtyard; those on Guess Street are two-story, with the apartments located • above ground-floor garages. Before demolition, the applicant will submit demolition plans to the City and any other applicable agency for review. Demolition of existing units will be supervised by a licensed contractor who will ensure compliance with any applicable regulations including transportation of demolished building materials and debris to a landfill permitted to accept such debris and construction materials. /soil The project also will require excavation of approximately 463,953 cubic feet of dirt so during grading phase to pave way for construction of the subterranean-parkinag and structures above it, assuming a building footprint of approximately 450,426 square feet, ten feet basement height plus additional vertical feet for footing and placement of engineered fill. The project will require an off-site grading transport plan and an appropriate site for disposing the excavated material. 1.4 INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead and all other responsible, trustee or regulatory agencies to evaluate the project's environmental impacts and to develop appropriate mitigation. measures to reduce those impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to. • the regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code § § 21000 - 21177, and California Code of Regulations § § 15000 - 15387). Rosemead Mixed-Use 6 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Planned Development permit No. 06.04 • The applicant has requested the following discretionary approvals from the City of Rosemead: General Plan Amendment to allow 32 dwelling units per acre versus 14 dwelling units per acre. • Zone Change from R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential Zone) to PD (Planned Development Zone to allow commercial and residential land uses). Planned Development Review Permit, corresponding to the requested PD zone, to allow the particular design features proposed with the development, including variations in building height, farrade articulation, variations on window treatment, and various architectural elements on the fapade of the proposed structure and on site such as stamped concrete walkways, decorative patios, decorative landscaping etc. Conditional Use Permit to allow a Mixed-Use Development on the subject site I • Additionally, after the mixed use development concept is approved, to successfully implement this project, the applicant must later submit an application for a tentative tract map for an individual interest (condominium subdivision ) development, pursuant to • California Government Code § 66424 et seq (Subdivision Map Act). Rosemead Municipal Code § 17.112, Conditional Use permits, does not identify "mixed-use developments" as a use . However, the Rosemead General Plan identifies mixed-use overlay requiring a conditional use permit in any zone ditional districts (and corresponding developments) and indicates that a con use permit is required for such developments in specified districts. See Rosemead General Plan, Land Use Element, at LU-25, and the impact discussion under Land Use and Planning, at Section 3-41 below. • Rosemead mixed-Use 7 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitigat dNegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permil.No. 0644 • In compliance with variable height regulation (RMC) Section 17.12.290, which states that all commercial and industrial zones shall have a variable height limitations established when abutting R-1 and R-2 zones, the proposed project complies in the following manner: the project site is bounded to the north by R-3 zone to the east by R-1 zone, to the west by P-0 zone and to the south by R-3 zone. Since this project is not located within commercial or industrial zone, it shall not be required to comply with Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.12.290 (variable height requirements). However, since the proposed project is bounded by R-1 to the east, the project proponent established a height of 6 feet above finished grade along north adjacent property line and then a 20-degree incline was projected, the result shows that the maximum height of the proposed building is within that angle, thus complying with the variable height requirement. Although variable height regulations do not apply to P-D zones, it could be used as a policy guideline but it does not formally apply to this project. Additionally, to successfully implement this mixed use project, the applicant must also submit an application for a tentative tract map for a common interest (condominium) • development, pursuant to California Government Code § 66424 et seq (Subdivision Map Act. • Rosemead Mixed-Use On Rosemead and Guess Street 9 • • m m o ~a v m m q o~ m •p > m k m b 2 m ti m m E `m m a~ b w Mr's R. 11 ~ O b O 0 b ? O c E' 2 C Ed a E b CL C mm_ m n m > m o c o ~ c O = U U 4 C f0 ' a 0 O U- w. N d N r d V t~~ , I . 7 i lilt lint d's' I t I I I i u+ l ~ Ey!I 9 m v m x b m m m 0 Ez m m a U m m N 0 ~ m p > y k_ a ~ m ~ 2 m b m m E n m p, N yr z • O O O b ~ O O p i Z o d E ?a c ^ m aay m o m E~ 1 m N N oc~ C o -o m O T c UUa N O cc d W V T d LL • FIBIAA 0 10 m a k t a C m C • initial Study1mitigaA'diegative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING d existing Project site and surrounding property General Plan and Zoning designations, an land uses are as follows: General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use artments, Mixed Use R-3 One and two-story ap single-family residences and Site commercial/Residential other accessory structures. R-3 Single-family & multi-family North Mixed Use Residential/Commercial R-1 Residences Mixed Use R-3 Multifamily residences South Residential/Commercial Single family& multifamily • residences, single-family East Mixes Use R-1 residences begining at mid-block Residential/Commercial to the east of the site Commercial uses, including medical offices, two-story Mixed Use: P-O D multifamily uses; elementary West Residential/Commercial school district offices northwest of site The 1.04-acre site is located on the east side of Rosemead Boulevard, two blocks south of Valley Boulevard, between Guess Street on the north and Ralph Street on the south. Rosemead Blvd is a fully improved north-south arterial street, designated as State Highway 19 (SR 19); it has four lanes, central landscaped median, wide sidewalks, and street lighting. Guess and Ralph Streets are two-lane residential collector streets with intermittent sidewalks. The immediate neighborhood is developed with single-family as well as mixed • commercial and multifamily residential uses of varying heights, ages and levels of maintenance. None of the existing units appears to exceed 25 feet in height. The site itself comprises of three parcels occupying approximately two-thirds of the Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use 11 W - Initial Study/MitigateNegative Declaration City or Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06.04 • Blvd. street frontage between Guess and Ralph in a north, south direction. The site is presently developed with one and a two-story apartment units, a single-story multifamily residence that apparently was once a single-family residence, and accessory carports and storage sheds..All 15 existing units appear to be occupied, and no "vacancy" sign is evident on a site as of August 2007. Immediately south of the site is a single-story four-plex multifamily residence, also with accessory carports. Along the east property boundary are more one- and two-story multifamily units which front on Guess and Ralph, respectively. The east property lines of those properties appear to be the zone boundary between multi- and single-family residences, as the bulk of development mid-block between Rosemead and Rio Hondo to the east is single-family homes. The west side of Rosemead Blvd. is developed with one and 'two-story commercial and multifamily uses. These buildings appear to have been built in the late 20th century (1950's and later) except for the Rosemead Elementary School District offices northwest of the site. Architectural styles vary, from Spanish-mission style, stucco-finished school • offices to stucco- or wood-siding-finished ranch houses, duplexes and four-plexes, to contemporary strip commercial buildings. Landscaping includes a mixture of ornamental species, with no evidence of residual native vegetation, such as mature oak or sycamore trees. All properties show a reasonable level of maintenance. Many of the single-family residences show strong pride-of-ownership, with well-manicured front yards, garden ornamentation, clean and neat fagades. • Rosemead Mixed-Use 12 • • • • initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06.04 SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental FactorsThat Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed mixed-use project would not result in a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by cuhstantial evidence provided in this document. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Services systems On the basis of this initial evaluation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I frid that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upo e proposed project, nothing further is required. y Signed Date Rosemead Mixed-Use 13 • initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • SECTION 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 3) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how • they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures.- For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and • b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Rosemead roixed-Ilse Project 14 11 city of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • a) No impact. The predominant scenic vista is located north of the project site and the environs contains the foothills and high mountains of the San Gabriel Range (Transverse Ranges), encompassed by the Angeles National Forest, north of city of Pasadena. However, the site is approximately 8.5 miles south of the National Forest boundary, and the mountains are primarily visible from exterior locations, such as north-south oriented streets, large parks, or north-facing upper stories of buildings. The opportunity for viewing the mountains from inside the single-story buildings south of the project site is already limited by existing roof overhangs, trees over 10 feet high, existing buildings and other built environment even before construction of the proposed structures. Therefore, the existing uses will not be affected by the one-to-four stories of the proposed,building. Public views would be lamely unaffected, since mountain views would still be available from Rosemead Blvd facing northerly direction from. (both roadway and public sidewalks). Consequently, the proposed project will not affect scenic vistas. b) No impact. The proposed mixed-use project will not affect any scenic recourses as there is no known scenic recourses within the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located on or near a state-designated or eligible scenic highway (see htto //www dot ca ov/l, /LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, last accessed June 8, 2006). Furthermore, the site contains no listed or otherwise designated historic or scenic resources.` • Consequently, the proposed project will not affect scenic resources, historic buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway. 2 City of Rosemead General Plan Rosemead Mixed-Use Project initial Study/MitigateNegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental impacts 15 1. AESTHETICS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION) City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitiga[tegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 - • c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will introduce a 45 to 50-f00t high four-story post-modem Italianate facade adjacent to relatively old buildings presumably to have been built in the early to mid-20th century. There are various one to two-story commercial and residential buildings in this established neighborhood. The proposed structure will replace 15 existing residential structures, including an apparent converted single-family farmhouse, two mid-century apartment buildings and associated accessory buildings including carports and other accessory structures. These latter structures are in varying states of repair and maintenance (field visit investigation by case Planner August 30, 2007). Degradation of the existing visual character of a site is typically a subiective, judgment and depends on the aesthetic preferences of the viewer. DISCUSSION ALTERNATIVE A: The proposed building, with a maximum height.of 50 feet and average height of approximately 45 feet, is likely to appear disproportional to nearby exiting buildings, which do not exceed 25 feet tall. Where portions of the 50' facade are juxtaposed with the adjacent 25-30-foot-tall buildings with varying setbacks and distances between structures, the result may appear proportional. However, the tallest portions of the • facade, the 50-foot-tall corner tower, more than 35 feet taller than the adjacent 12 to 15-feet tall single-story buildings on the south and north, may appear out of proportion and scale, and may be considered to degrade the existing visual character of the surroundings. Additionally, an abrupt introduction of a new architectural style within an established development pattern may be subjectively sivnificant. However, with the use of modern architectural elements on the facade of the proposed structure, use of aesthetically pleasing design techniques, use of dense and different species of landscaping materials incorporated into the design.of this residential and commercial development will greatly improve the visual character of the site and its surrounding, thus minimizing the subjective visual impacts that may arise from the proposed project. The proposed building is about twice the height of many nearby existing buildings, and its architecture is somewhat modern and unique from the existing buildings in the vicinity. However, the building exhibits substantial attention to architectural detail on all facades, including articulation of wall surfaces, decorative balustrades, various decorative paint colors, copper-clad towers, cut-stone veneer/tile and treated wood trellises to mention but a few. Quality construction and quality finish details will mitigate negative effects that may result from the building's lack of proportion to surrounding uses. The project proponent will be • required to build the project according to the proposed plans, the building itself should not objectively degrade the existing visual quality of the site, but rather be perceived to upgrade the visual quality of site and its surroundings, although the building may appear relatively tall Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 16 Initial Study/Mitigatedgative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • adjacent structures. The proposed structure's visual impacts will be less than significant than simply because of its fagade articulation; architectural detail,.included amenities, when placed side-by-side with existing buildings that have varying setbacks and distances between them as well as landscaping materials screening. Planning staff will review final color schemes and building plans, and.will require strict adherence to the approved plans, which will reduce any residual negative effects to less than a significant level. d) Less than Significant I nipacL The proposed project may create a new source of light and glare, because it is three stories taller than existing buildings and the proposed uses (residential and commercial) will doubtless be illuminated at night. Additionally, exterior lighting is proposed for the building fagades and the exterior parking lot. Furthermore, future residents may be exposed to light and glare from street traffic and commercial buildings along Rosemead Boulevard in the project vicinity. However, incorporating dark or tinted selected window glass, downward-facing designed lamp fixtures and/or light poles, use of low-pressure sodium lighting and restriction on exterior signage lighting will effectively minimize residual negative impacts to residents and the surrounding neighborhood. All the • above will render produced light to have less than significant impact. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan for Planning Department review and approval. All high-pressure sodium (HPS) out door light fixtures/luminaries shall be fully shielded with landscaping, vines and directed on site, light bulbs will be designed to minimize glare. Proposed light poles shall direct light in such a manner that no light spills on adjacent properties or directs light into the public right-of-way. Although the proposed mixed-use project will introduce some lighting, the impact will be less than significant. • Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 17 • • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 061064 Planned Development Permit No. 0604 L7 - c) No impact. There are no }mown existing agricultural resources on or near the project site. The site and environs are currently developed with multifamily residential and commercial uses, accessory structures and paving. Consequently, there are no impacts to agricultural resources from this project. • Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Initial Siudy/Mitigat•Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 18 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - C C ity of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project onditional Use Permif No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts P lanned Development Permit No. 06-04 • Less Than . Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With. Significant: No, Environmentalissues Impact Mitigation 'Impact impact- IAir Quality. i r Where avmldble, the significance criteria established. by the applicable ad quality management or a pollution control district maybe relied upon to mak the following determinations.. .-Would.the.project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ applicable air qualiry plan9 b) violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ i d r a substantially to an existing or projecte quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an ❑ ❑ ® ❑ li ty applicable federal or state ambient air qua standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? _ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ • substantial number of people? 3. AIR QUALITY (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The City of Rosemead is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The South Coast Air Basin has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve the standards. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prepares the basin's air quality management plans with technical and policy inputs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), updating the plans every three years. The most recently adopted plan is the 2003 AQMP, adopted on August 1, 2003, • available at littp://www.agmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm. This plan is the South Coast Air Basins portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP outlines steps-required to achieve the standards while allowing for growth projected by the Southern California Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 19 _ City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitiga•Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • Association of Governments. This plan is designed to achieve the 5 percent annual reduction goal of the California Clean Air Act. The AQMP accommodates growth based on SCAG's predictions. Future regional levels of vehicular air pollution identified in the AQMP are based on SCAG's growth forecasts in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) coupled with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Thus, projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts are consistent with the AQMP. These forecasts are predicted using local land use plans, particularly zoning and general plan land use designations. The proposed project's residential density, 32 units per acre, is more than twice the current City of Rosemead's General Plan Land Use designation for the site at 14 units per acre for the Residential/Commercial - Mixed Use Overlay designation (City of Rosemead General Plan, Land Use Element pg LU-4). However, the current underlying R-3 zone permits 30 units per acre, which is almost equivalent to the proposed 32 units. Also, fifteen (15) of the proposed units would replace existing units and only 16 units would be new. In addition, the project proposes a mixture of residential and commercial land uses, and is located along a transit corridor that contains a mixture of retail, services, and residential uses in close proximity. • Both the project's area setting and the proposed development itself reduces dependency on automobiles - an important air quality management-planning goal. Developing the project at this location will not significantly affect regional air quality plans; because transit is more convenient and local, services will be reachable on foot or on bicycle thus reducing some vehicle trips and their associated emissions. During the project design, if was intended that residential and commercial units be located at this site because the proposed structure will be self-sustaining providng goods and services hence requiring no additional dependency on use of automobiles. Mitigation measures, such as providing bicycle racks in the parking area, can reduce this project's air quality impacts to less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1.0. Prior to approval of final plans, the applicant shall provide dedicated, secured bicycle parking racks to the surface parking lot. Bicycle parking may consist of pre- manufactured or custom racks, cemented or bolted in the ground, lockers, or similar bicycle storage device to encourage use of non-motorized means of transport. 1.1 Adequate watering techniques will be employed to mitigate the impacts resulting from construction-related dust particulates. The project site shall be watered three times a day during earth moving phase and during construction such that a crust is • formed on the ground surface and then maintained as part of the construction specifications. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved ways shall be 15 miles per hour. The applicant shall post speed limit notice on all entrances of the job site. All construction access ways and the job site shall be cleaned after each workday. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 20 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mifig• Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 1.2 During project phasing, any proposed vegetation and ground cover to be utilized on site shall be planted in phase one to reduce disturbed areas susceptible to wind erosion from contributing to dust emission from the project site. Related irrigation system shall also be installed in phase one to minimize soil erosion and ensure reliable water provision needed for maturity of such vegetation. 1.3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations including rule 403 insuring the clean up of construction-related dirt on site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. The project will also be required to comply with BMPs per Los . Angles Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 1.4 Consistent with the construction plans, the applicant shall provide pedestrian walkways, thereby encouraging walking and bicycle use as a mode of transportation between the project site and related facilities on site and adjacent uses to minimize automobile use dependence. Mitigation Monitoring: Planning Department Staff shall verify that all mitigation measures have been incorporated, and documented on project plans as conditions of approval. Building • inspectors and Public Works inspectors shall verify regulatory compliance before issuing building permits. The Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Departments will perform a final verification for compliance with all mitigation measures upon completion of project, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. b-c) Less than Significant Impact Air quality standards in southern California are set by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N.AAQS) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards have been established for five pollutants - ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine particulate matter (PM.Io), and lead. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds that correspond to these criteria pollutants. These thresholds are described in Chapter 6 of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (1993) and shown in Table 3.1 below. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 21 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/Mitig• Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • The proposed project may generate short-term air pollutants from construction activities and vehicle emissions and other operations associated with typical restaurant and commercial uses. The City's consultant calculated the project's potential air pollutant emissions using the "URBEMIS 2002 Air Emissions From Land Development" model (URBENUS),' and applying the following factors: 4,160 square feet of restaurant area, 8,420 square feet of retail and office area, and 32 residential units on a 1.04-acre site. Table 3.1 compares the estimated air quality emissions of the proposed project to the SCAQMD thresholds. None of the project's anticipated emissions exceed these thresholds. Consequently, as long as job-site practices comply with existing controls, the project will not create impacts to air quality that will reach a level of significance. Additionally, SCAQMD encourages mixed-use developments along existing transit corridors to minimize automobile dependence that undermines air quality in the area. • d) No impact. Sensitive receptors include hospitals, nursing homes, elementary schools or preschools, and other places where the immune-impaired, the elderly or the very young stay for extended periods of time. None of these facilities exists near the • I URBEMIS stands for "Urban Emissions Model" and was originally developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARS) as a modeling tool to assist local public agencies with estimating air quality impacts from land use projects when preparing a CEQA environmental analysis. The model was developed as a user-friendly computer program that estimates construction, area source, and operational air pollution emissions from a wide variety ty of land a d use also loidenties pment prmh ai on meornia, such model and as residential neighborhoods. shopping centers, office buildings, emission reductions associated with specific mitigation measures. URBEMIS 2002 for windows is the latest revised edition. Source: South Coast AQMD, lino /hvwu' aomd oov/ceoa/urbem_is.html, last accessed June 16, ?006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 22 initial Study/MidgatNegative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • project site. Table 3.1 indicates that the project's emissions during construction and pollutant thresholds. Consequently, no substantial pollutant operation fall well below poll concentrations will be generated, nor sensitive receptors will be exposed. e) Less than significant with mitigation. During project construction, objectionable i odors, such as those created by diesel emissions, may affect the immediate neghborhood of multi- and single-family residences. However, these impacts are short-term and will not extend beyond project completion and occupancy or reach a significant level: Environmental Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Less No ' . Significant With. Significant impact' Mitigation Impact Impact 4. Biological Resources would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly i es or through habitat modifications, on any spec identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special i ❑ ❑ I] es, status species in local or regional plans, polic or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife - • service? ~ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community olicies l ❑ , ans, p identified in local or regional p and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife service? c) Have a subs antial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of d i ❑ te the Clean Water Act (including, but not lim ❑ to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through - direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? - - f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted it El y Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Commun ❑ El Conservation Plan, or other approved local, • regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 23 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (a-0 No Impact The project site is fully developed in an urban setting. The project site has been disturbed before and is currently developed with residential units. No "natural" conditions exist on the job site, and consequently no biological resources are known to exist, with the exception of exotic ornamental plant material. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any adopted conservation plans nor have significant impact to biological resources. • 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) (a-b) Less than significant -The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, define "historic resources" as resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources,5 determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission, listed in a local register of historic resources 6, or determined by the local agency to be historically significant because the resource is (a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (b) associated with the lives of persons important in our past; ' California Public Resources Code § 5024.1 and § 4550 et seq of Title 14, Califomia Code of Regulations. ' California Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k), § 5024.1(g). Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 24 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - city of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project conditional Use Permit No. 0&7064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory. The project requires demolition of several residential structures on the project site and excavation for a parking garage. At least one of the structures appears to have been constructed more than 50 years ago. Although no state-listed historical or cultural resources .exist on the project site,° and the City of Rosemead does not maintain a list of cultural or historic resources, absence from a list does not automatically preclude historical significance .8 However, the apparent oldest on-site structure has been divided for multifamily uses, reducing its character-defining integrity and, diminishing its historical value. None of the other structures embody distinctive architectural characteristics. (c, d) Less than significant - The project requires excavation of approximately 46,395 cubic feet of earth for construction of a subterranean parking garage. The project site has been developed and used for residential purposes for many years. No known unique • geological or paleontological resources exist on the site. However, absence of records is not sufficient to preclude existence of such resources. Because of the extent of development, and Rosemead's agricultural history 9, the possibility, of discovering information important to prehistory or paleontology is possible but the possibility is relatively low. Examination of the site before and after demolition as well as during excavation should yield information as to whether such resources exist. Consequently, impacts to unique geological or paleontological resources are likely to be less than significant. In the event cultural resources are discovered, during excavation or construction, the project shall immediately stop operation, and the project proponent shall in writing inform an appropriate expert, based upon the finding, to conduct further investigation. A copy of such findings shall be forwarded to the City of Rosemead Planning Department immediately. The operation on the project site shall cease until a cultural resource study is complete and recommendations are received by the City of Rosemead Planning Department. r California Historical Landmarks, Los Angeles County, State of California office of Historic Preservation, at http://ohp.parks.cagov/default.asp?page_id=21427, last accessed. June 13, 2006. • e Pub. Res. Code ¢ 5024.1; 14 Cal Code Regs § 150645(a)(3) (a resource "shall" be considered historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the Calif. Register of Historical Resources in the state's historic pms-rvation law); however, the local agency has the discretion to determine whether the resource meets the criteria or not. Pub. Res. Code § 21054.1; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 150645(a)(4). s See City of Rosemead website, at hrp://www.ciryofrosemead.org/AbouiRosemead/RostmeadHistory/tabid/93/Default.aspx, last accessed December 11, 2006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 25 • Initial S tudylMitlgated Negative Declaration - C C ity of Rosemead d onditional Use Permit No. i Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pl t No. anned Development Permit No. 06-04 • - Less Than - - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No. ` -.Environmental Issues" Impact; .Mitigation Impact ;Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project a). Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map h ❑ ® ❑ e area issued by the State Geologist for t or based on other substantial evidence of a /7 known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ - iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? - ❑ ❑ ❑ Landslides? E sult in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ F psoil? • c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a i l ❑ ❑ ❑ n on t result of the project and potentially resu off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? _ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ [I (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? AND SOILS (LESS THAN SIGN IFICANT) 6. GEOLOGY a)(i) Less than Significant The project proposes constructing a four-story, mixed-use building with three stories of residential uses over a ground floor of restaurant and commercial uses, at the southeast comer'of Rosemead Blvd, and Guess Street in the City of Rosemead. The City of Rosemead's 1987 General Plan, Safety Element, describes the city's generalized exposure to seismic hazards, including those presented by the San Andreas Fault System, the Raymond Hill fault, two miles north of the City, and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault, • approximately five miles southeast of the City. There are no Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zones within project boundaries. There are two inactive fault traces that traverse the City, Rosemead Mixed-Use Project - 26 • initial Study/Mitiga• Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • corresponding to the Alhambra and Rubio washes.10 One of these is near the proposed traversing Rosemead Blvd. in a northwest-southeast direction at its intersection with project. the San Bernardino Freeway. However, since this fault trace is considered inactive, it is not likely to produce a seismic event with substantial impact to substantially impact the project area or residents. In addition, since the project is not within a mapped Alquist-Priolo zone, no impact to residents/occupants of the project resulting from the project's proximity to an Alquist-Priolo zone is anticipated. Additionally, the City of Rosemead's Building Code, (incorporating the California Uniform Building Code) addresses specific seismic construction methods that reduce seismic damage risk. Some or all of these methods will be required of the proposed project as part of the building permit process. a)(ii) Less than Significant- Virtually all structures in southern California are subject to strong seismic shaking because there are many known and unknown earthquake faults present in the California region. However, current building codes and contemporary methods of construction, with site-specific design criteria and specifications, as required by building codes, will reduce impacts of seismic shaking to the greatest extent possible to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. • a)(iii) Less than significant- The California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey has identified the project site's area as subject to liquefaction.ll Liquefaction is the sudden failure and fracturing of saturated ground resulting from an earthquake, which can cause structural failure of buildings, roadways, bridges, etc. Structures presently on the site, as well as any future structures, are subject to this liquefaction. to However, current building codes and contemporary methods of construction, with site specific design criteria and specifications, as required by Building Codes, will reduce impacts of seismic related ground failure to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed. project would not result in significant impacts related to strong seismic ground failure including liquefaction because the project will be required to comply with the building code before issuance of the building permits. a)(iv) No impact. The project site and surrounding area is flat and not near any slopes, cliffs, or hillsides that are prone to landslides; consequently, no impact from landslide danger is anticipated. . • 11 City of Rosemead, General Plan, Safety Element, Figure PS-l. 7W CQnsrv Ca / 1 State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones. El Monte Quadrangle, March 29^ 1999, ovot~bad~2FID=Los°o20M~elesRlyic last accessed June 19. 2006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project - 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Evaluation or Environmental impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • b-e) No impact The project site is already developed at an urban scale and is being proposed for redevelopment at a greater urban density. Additionally, the surrounding area is no longer dependent on agriculture and retention of topsoil is not an issue for the project site. Finally, sediment runoff from the project site will be controlled by construction site methods, such as sandbags or straw rolls as required by the project's storm water pollution prevention plan (see Section 8, Hydrodology and Water Quality, below). No impact from soil erosion or loss of topsoil is expected. Additionally, the project proponent will be required to install ground cover and other landscaping to mitigate loss of top soil. The project does not propose using septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, conventional sewer systems are in place and available to serve the project. No impact to soils resulting from such alternative disposal systems is expected. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than. Significant : - With Significant No. Environmentallssues Impact Mitigation Impact :Impact E,Hazar ds andHazardous Materials the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ • environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable ❑ ❑ upset and accident conditions involving the Z El likely release of hazardous materials into the environment9 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? - d) Be located within one-quarter mile of a facility that might reasonably be anticipated to emit ❑ ❑ hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste? e) Be located on a site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site unless wastes have been removed from the former disposal site; or 2) that could ❑ release a hazardous substance as identified by 13 the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and • Safety Code? Be located on land that is, or can be made, ❑ O ❑ sufficiently free of hazardous materials so as to be suitable for development and use as a school? Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 27 • C ity of Rosemead initial Study/Mitigate Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project C onditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts P lanned Development Permit No. 06-04 • d use l an g) For a project located within an airport plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑ use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? h) For a project within the vicinity of a private f t i ❑ e n a sa y airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ hazard for people residing or working in the project area? i) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ El with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injuryor death involving wildland fires, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? k) Be located within 1500 feet of'. (i) an above- ground water or fuel storage tank, or (ii) an d ❑ ❑ ❑ easement of an above ground or undergroun pipeline that can pose a safety hazard to the proposed school? • 7, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project will involve development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above approximately 12,550 square feet of commercial, retail and restaurant uses for lease. The proposed project is not anticipated to routinely store, use, generate, or transport substantial amounts of hazardous materials, and would have no associated significant impacts. b) Less than Significant Impact- The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease on a currently multi-family residential occupied site. The proposed project does not propose to use hazardous materials. Operation of proposed residential, retail, and restaurants land uses would not involve use of a substantial amount of hazardous materials; and thus, hazardous material release because of these uses is not anticipated. • For the most part, construction of the proposed project is not expected to release hazardous materials. The project site will be excavated to medium dense native soils and partially filled with clean and compacted engineered fill prior to pouring concrete for the subterranean Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 28 • • u • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts school is anticipated. d) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located with one-quarter mile of industrial- zoned land or an existing industrial use, and thus is not located near a facility that may be an to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore the project will not be subject to industry-related impacts. e) Less than Significant Lnpact with Mitigation. The project site has been developed with residential uses for many years and is not anticipated to have been a site of hazardous waste disposal or hazardous substance releases. It does not appear on the DTSC's Brownfields Reuse Program list '2 nor on the DTSC "Cortese List" of hazardous waste and substances r See httn:!/www.em,irostor.dtsc.ca. aov/oubiid, Icsr accessed November 30; 2006. to City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Per_ rni p4 garage and building footings. Depositing engineered fill is a reasonably safe activity, because engineered fill must be free of contaminated debris and hazardous materials.. Therefore, e proposed project would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, construction will involve demolition of structures built prior to 1977, which might contain lead-based paint or asbestos-based construction materials that could be released into the environment. Furthermore, Rosemead's history as an agricultural area indicates that there might be residual pesticides in the site's surface or underground soil. If toxic material exist on site, whether on existing buildings or as particulates in the soil, it must be removed and the site cleaned according to California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DSTC) and Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department regulations. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall obtain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Study by a DSTC registered environmental assessor to determine if ant toxics exist. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall identify if toxics are present on site and indicate whether further analysis will be required as well as identifying particular remediation measures. With proper remediation, lead asbestos, and pesticide residuals can be adequately removed and disposed off in a safe manner if any is found on site. c) No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Muscatel Intermediate School, which s located approximately one-third of a mile northwest of the project site, two blocks north of the intersection of Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue, followed by Rosemead High School, located approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Mission Drive. Both locations are far from the project site more than one-quarter mile. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, and no impact to either fixed-Use Project 29 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration emead Mized-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Ros Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • sites. 13 Therefore, there is no anticipated significant impact with respect to release of significant quantities of hazardous substances. However, as discussed in (b) above, there is a reasonable probability that hazardous substances may be released into the environment during demolition due to the age of the existing residential structures demolition of structures which were built prior to 1977, which might contain lead-based paint or asbestos-based construction materials that could be released into the environment. The probability that significant amounts of hazardous materials would be released is low; however, mitigation measures are listed below to reduce possible impacts to less than a significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES 1.5 Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, the applicant shall have a Registered Environmental Assessor conduct a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Study in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards to determine the presence of hazardous materials on the site, and shall prepare a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety and the California DTSC. If hazardous materials are found on site or within the site's existing structures and require • DTSC supervision for remediation, then prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall certify to the Department of Building and Safety that all structure-related hazardous materials have been properly disposed off. Mitigation Monitoring: Planning Department Staff shall verify that all mitigation measures have been incorporated, and documented on project plans as conditions of approval. Building nspectors shall verify regulatory compliance before issuing building permits. The Planning Department and the Building Department will perform a final verification for compliance with all mitigation measures upon completion of project, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 01\'o Impact. The proposed project is not a .school. Nonetheless, were a school proposed for the site, and the investigations discussed in (b) above performed, the property could likely be rendered free of hazardous materials so as to be suitable for development as a school. There is no present impact to school development on the site. g) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor • within two miles of an adopted plan, nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public i 11 See http://www.dtsc.ca-gov/SiteCitanup/CDrtcse_L s'.cfm, last occessed November 30, 2006. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 - - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04- • use airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on or near the project site, and would have no related significant impacts. h) No Impact The project site is more than two (2) miles from the closest private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would have no associated impacts. i) No Impact The proposed project comprises of re-development of properties located at 3862 Rosemead Boulevard and 9016 Guess Street in the City of Rosemead. Rosemead Boulevard, between the San Bernardino Freeway to the south and Mission Drive to the north, is part of the City of Rosemead Evacuation Route. 14 The project is not anticipated to interfere with this evacuation route or otherwise interfere with any existing emergency response or evacuation plans because it is not proposed to block Rosemead Blvd. or to add additional driveways providing access to Rosemead Blvd that may impede emergency services. Therefore, the project presents no significant impact to Rosemead's emergency response or evacuation plans. j) No Impact. The project area is, in a completely urbanized area of the City of Rosemead. • The site is not adjacent to any undeveloped natural areas and is removed from any wildland fire risk areas. In addition, the project site is not within a specific fire hazard zone. is Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and. the project would have no associated impacts. k) No Impact. The proposed project site is not within 1500 feet of an above ground water or fuel storage tank, nor is it located within a pipeline easement. Furthermore, as discussed in (f) above, the proposed project does not involve the development of a school, thus no impacts to a proposed school are anticipated. • City of Rosemead General Plan, Public Safety Elemeni, Fig. PS-2. 1b id, Table P-1. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 31 • • • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06:1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 - Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than, No Significant . With ' e . . , Significant dltigation -:Impact _Impact Impact. M . s Environmental Issu 8.: Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: t ® ❑ e a) Violate any water quality standards or was ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local i d ❑ ❑ ® ❑ uct on groundwater table level (e.g., the pro rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the hi h ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c course of a stream or river, in a manner w would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the or i ® _ ❑ ver, alteration of the course of a stream or r ❑ ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result n flooding on- or off-site? or contribute runoff water which would reate - the capacity of existing or planned xcee d ® t r ormwater drainage systems or provide ubstantial additional sources of polluted unoff Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard d ❑ area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazar ❑ ❑ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area . i ❑ ❑ ❑ rect structures, which would impede or red flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk di ❑ ng, of loss, injury or death involving floo ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ? ❑ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 32 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts • initial Study/Ntitiga•Negative Declaration city of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 8, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact The project proposes constructing a four-story, mixed-use building with three stories of residential uses over a ground floor of restaurant and commercial uses, at 3862 and 3864 Rosemead Blvd, and at 9016 Guess Street., in the City of Rosemead. The proposed development would not be a point-source generator of water pollutants. However, during construction the proposed project may temporarily expose loose soils, which are prone to erosion during storm events. If a storm event occurs while loose soils are exposed, the project could increase the sediment load in onsite and downstream runoff. Thus, the construction of the proposed project could contribute to non point-source water pollution. Another concern for water quality during construction is accidental spillage of vehicle equipment fluids. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR 26 Section 1342) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This act requires all construction activity resulting in land disturbance of one (1) or more acres to obtain a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit (NPDES General Permit). In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers NPDES General Permits. General Permits • require projects to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As described in the SWRCB's "Fact Sheet for Water Quality Order (99-08- DWQ)", the SWPPP must list the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the applicant will use to "prevent all construction pollutants from contacting storm water", and BMPs must be developed "with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters." The S WPPP must also include a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants. NPDES also requires local governments to obtain an NPDES Permit for stormwater induced water pollutants in their jurisdiction. In California, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) of the SWRCB administers NPDES Permits. Los Angeles County and most of the incorporated cities therein, including the City of Rosemead, obtained a MS4 permit (Permit 4 01-182) from the LARWQCB in 2001. The permit establishes a countywide Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) to control pollutants that can collect in the countywide storm drain system, including trash, sediment, metals, and vehicle byproducts/fluids. Pollutant control measures in the SUSMP include both structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as sediment traps, and non-structural BMPs, such as operation and maintenance practices. As a co-permittee, the City of Rosemead has adopted an ordinance 16 to implement the countywide permit and corresponding SUSMP. The • countywide permit and the City's corresponding ordinance require certain types of development projects to develop and implement project-specific SUSMP compliance plans. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 33 • • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 , D.,it No. 06-04 • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Since the project involves more than 10 residential units, .a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan is required for the project. In summary, the proposed project is required to obtain a NPDES General Construction Permit, develop and implement a SWPPP, and implement a project-specific SUSMP compliance plan before issuance of the building permit. Complying with these requirements would ensure the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not have any related significant impacts. b) Less than Significant InipacL The proposed project involves the development of a mixed- use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above approximately 12,580 square feet of retail and restaurant uses currently known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 8594009-001, 8594009-002, 8594009-003 in the City of Rosemead. The proposed structures and associated driveways and parking lots would be impermeable surfaces on the project site. These impermeable surfaces could decrease the groundwater recharge potential of the project site. However, the project site is not significant to local or regional groundwater recharge. The site is in an urban area that drains into the City's storm drain system. Thus, as existing, only minimal rainwater on the site reaches groundwater. In addition, the proposed less than 1 acre of impermeable space is negligible in comparison to the size of the underlying aquifer's watershed. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and the proposed project would not have a significant impact to groundwater recharge. • c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with multiple family residences. The site is virtually flat and does not include discernable drainage courses. The site plan indicates that runoff from the site flows from north to south. The proposed project does not involve grading that would alter drainage patterns. The proposed project would involve minor changes in the site's runoff patterns due to the placement of structures and impermeable surfaces. Additionally, the proposed project includes excavation for a subterranean parking garage that may affect the volume and velocity of the site's stormwater runoff. Increases in the volume or velocity of runoff can result in an increase in erosion and siltation. However, since the project site is currently covered with structures and impermeable surfaces, the site's runoff closely resembles the runoff of a paved surface, and the proposed development would negligibly change surface watenvolume and velocity on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would 16 City of Rosemead Municipal Code, § 13.)6 et seq.. Stomlwater Management. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 34 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 - • result in substantial erosion or siltation, and the proposed project would not have any associated significant impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would involve only minor changes in the site's drainage patterns and does not involve altering a discernable drainage course. The proposed minor chances to the site's drainage patterns are not expected to cause flooding. Regardless, the project's potential to cause flooding would be eliminated through required compliance with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates to not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. Since the project does not involve alteration of a discernable watercourse and post development runoff discharge rates are required to not exceed pre-development rates, the proposed project does not have the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase runoff that would result in flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause flooding and would have no associated significant impacts. e) Less Than Significant Lnpact. As discussed in Sections 8, a b, c, and d above, the • proposed project would have a negligible affect to the site's surface water drainage. In , a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for the proposed addition project, and the proposed project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). These plans would further ensure that the proposed project will not increase runoff and water pollution. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planted stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, which result to significant environmental impacts. f) Less Titan Si; nificant Impact As discussed above, the proposed project involves the development of a site that has been excavated, filled, and graded with engineered soil. Because of the site's current condition, the proposed project will require only minor grading and infrastructure development. Consequently, the project will not result in substantial temporary modifications to drainage patterns. In addition, during construction, runoff from the project will be governed by a SWPPP. This plan will eliminate the project's potential to increase the flow rate of stonnwater, violate water quality discharge requirements, or result in substantial erosion on or off-site during construction. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any significant storm water impacts that may affect the environment. • Operation and use of the proposed residential, retail, and restaurant uses are not anticipated to degrade water quality. The proposed residential, retail and restaurants could generate typical urban water pollutants, such as trash, sediment; metals, and vehicle byproducts/fluids. However, the proposed land use is required to develop and implement a SUSMP compliance Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 35 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • plan that identifies the project-specific BMPs that will be utilized onsite to prevent/reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants., overall, the proposed project is not expected to otherwise substantially degrade water quality and would have no associated significant impacts. g) No Impact The City of Rosemead does not include any FEMA-designated flood prone area, and the project site is in an unmapped area of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regional map No. 060153. Furthermore, the proposed project area is not mapped on any other flood hazard map, nor is it in a known 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the project will not place housing in a known flood hazard area, and no impacts from flooding are anticipated. h) No Impact As discussed in (g) above, the project site is not in a designated or otherwise known flood hazard area. Consequently, the projects proposed structures would not impede nor redirect flood flows, so no corresponding significant impact to surrounding or proposed structures is anticipated. i) No Lnpact The proposed project site is not in the vicinity of a man-made lake or flood • control facility, such as a levee or dam. The project site is within built on an urban scale therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam since there is no existing dam within the project site area. No corresponding significant impacts are anticipated. j) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is approximately 29 miles from the Pacific Ocean at 281 feet above mean sea level, farther than any anticipated tsunami would reach. Additionally, the proposed project site is not in the vicinity of any surface waters or potential mudflow sources. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to impacts from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. • Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 36 • Negative Declaration Initial study/Mitiga - City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • Less Than T han -Potentially Significant Less Significant With Significant No, Environmental Issues ` - Impact Mitigation, Impact - Impact 9. Land Use and Planning. oject. ? ❑ ❑ y divide an established community with any applicable land use plan, r regulation of an agency with M on over the project (including, but not l ❑ ❑ o the general plan, specific plan, loca program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an forthe environmental effect? c) Confl ict with any app licable habitat i i 13 F-1 t es conservation plan or natural commun conservation plan? AND PLANNING (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) 9. LAND USE a) No impact The proposed project will not divide an established community. Examples of • "dividing a community" include new roads, rail lines, transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts. The proposed project will replace existing residential uses with mixed-use, residential and commercial uses, but will not divide. the community by creating a physical or visual barrier, and existing public rights-of-way will remain unimpeded by the project. Consequently, no significant impact is anticipated. b) Less than significant impact with mitigation. The project is located in Planning Area 3 of the Rosemead General Plan, and Mixed Use Overlay District C.i' The General Plan designation for the site is Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial, and site zoning is R-3, Multi Family Residential. District C indicates that the intended site zoning is Planned Development/High-Density Residential (PD/R-3).18 The Mixed-Use designation of the General Plan currently limits residential density to 14 units per, acre and commercial floor area ratio to 1:1 for residential/commercial mixed uses at this location.19 District C permits residential development by right, but requires a conditional use permit for any commercial or office development.20 The General Plan sets forth broad standards for mixed-use development, requiring scrutiny of the particular proposal for compatibility of the project with the site and environs, whether the proposed uses are allowed in the underlying zoning • City of Rosemead General Plan, Land Use Element, Fieure LU-9. 's id., Table LU-3. Id at LU-4. 'D Id., Table LU-3. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 37 • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • designations, and the specific development standards identified in the District's Implementation Plan. • The zoning designation of this site is R-3, Medium Multiple Residential Zone. The R-3 inning designation would allow up to 32 dwelling units per acre with no entitlement permits needed prior to submitting architectural plans. The project proponent has applied for a Zone Change from R-3 to PD (Planned Development Zone), a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development Review to enable construction of a four-story, mixed-use structure that includes 32 condominium residential units, 4,160 square feet of restaurant space, and 6,685 square feet of retail space on a 1.04-acre site. This represents a residential density of 29.8 units per acre and floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.11. The proposed residential density is almost the same allowable number.of units i.e. 30 units per acre pursuant to the City's General Plan high- density residential desisnation. Additionally, the project site is currently occupied by 15 residential units, with 32 proposed units, the developer will only be adding 17 units. The City is in the process of amending its General Plan to allow 30 units per acre for mixed- use projects. The proposed General Plan text amendment, permitting -greater residential density in the mixed-use overlay districts, will make this project comply with the General Plan policies. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. c) No impact. The project site is not located within a habitat or natural communities conservation plan, and has been developed at an urban scale for many years. Consequently, no impact to conservation plans will result- 0 Environmental Issues . 10. _ Mineral Rbsources Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the sate? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally: important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? " Id., at LU-29. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With. Irbpact Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit Nc..06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 10. MINERAL RESOURCES (NO IMPACT) a) Less Titan Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve excavation and grading to build the subterranean parking garage and residential, retail, restaurant development. This grading will be minor since the site has been excavated, filled with engineered soils, and previously graded. Consequently, the proposed project is not likely to encounter any mineral deposits that may exist in subsurface materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) No Impact. The City of Rosemead General Plan does not identify any known mineral resource sites within the City limits; and the project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not affect locally important mineral resources as identified in local plans. l. oise , - . ould the project result inr Exposure of persons to or generation of noise the d i li h ® ❑ r n e s levels in excess of standards estab ❑ ❑ • local general plan or noise ordinance, or ies? applicable standards of other agenc - _ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of db ❑ ❑ ® ❑ orne excessive eroundbome vibration or groun - noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient l ❑ ❑ s noise levels in the project vicinity above leve existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in it i i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ y c n ambient noise levels in the project v above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use . plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public ❑ ❑ ❑ use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ® ❑ excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ • 0 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Project 39 City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 11. NOISE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate noise that would result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Rosemead's General Plan or Municipal Code. Noise generated by the project would be produced as the result of additional traffic generated by the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above retail and restaurant uses for lease. Due to the amount of trips generated by the project and"the existing volume of traffic on the surrounding roadways, the project-induced vehicle noise would not cause a perceptible change in the ambient noise levels. The activity/operational noise generated by the project would consist primarily of retail activity along the proposed storefronts and parking lot operational noise. Storefronts are proposed along the Rosemead Boulevard frontage and extending partially onto the Guess Street frontage. Exterior noise generated by commercial activities would be minimal in comparison to the existing street noise, and would be compatible with the surrounding uses along Rosemead Boulevard and at the Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street intersection. Parking lot operations would occur in the rear of the proposed structure, which would be surrounded by a decorative block wall, six feet in.height, along the property line. Tress and a variety of landscaping materials are proposed to screen off residual noise levels. With the proposed property perimeter block wall fence, potential residual parking lot noise would not significantly impact the adjacent residential uses to the level of significance. The proposed residences on site would be exposed to the street noise along Rosemead Boulevard. Title 24 of the Code of California Regulations (CCR) requires new structures to be constructed such that the interior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in all habitable rooms does not exceed 45 decibels (dB). Noise insulation techniques that can be utilized to achieve acceptable interior noise levels include dual-glazed windows, use of sound-rated building materials, and conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning. Compliance with Title 24 requirements would ensure the proposed residences would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Rosemead's General Plan or Municipal Code. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would be the only possible source for ground-borne noise or vibration. Construction of the project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or excessive ground-borne noise levels. Ground-bome vibration is measured in terms of velocity of the vibration oscillations. When these vibrations exceed 0.01 is in/sec, it is usually perceived as annoying by building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon the land use, the degree of sensitivity of the occupant and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 0.1 in/sec. before building Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 40 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/MitigatNegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • damage occurs. In connection with construction activities, large bulldozers are the most likely source of vibration. Typical bulldozer usage will generate an approximate vibration event of 0.02 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet. This is below the threshold of significance and, therefore, the project would not result in significant , oundborne noise or vibration impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a significant ground-borne noise or vibration impacts. c) Less that. Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to produce substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As discussed above in Section 11(a), the proposed project could generate noise by both increase traffic volumes and increased activity on the site. However, the potential increased activity onsite would not likely result in a measurable increase in ambient noise levels at any surrounding sensitive receptors. Similarly, the traffic generated by the proposed project is minimal and would not cause a perceptible increase to the ambient noise level of any of the adjacent roadways. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, and the project would have no related significant impacts. • d) Less than Significant Impact. With the exception of construction noise, the project will not produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site above existing levels without the project. The City's Municipal Code, § 8.36.060 sets forth noise level standards for sites adjacent to residential areas at 60 dBA between 7:00 A.M. and 10 p.m., and 45 dBA between 10:p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; § 86.36.030 limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and excludes Sunday and Federal holidays. During construction and implementation of this project, the applicant will be required to comply with City noise standards. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code will reduces any construction impacts to less than significant. e) No Impact. The proposed project is not be located near a public airport, and the project would have no airport related noise impacts. 0 Less Titan Significant Impact. The proposed project is located approximately three miles from a private airstrip in the City of El Monte. However, the airport does not generate air traffic with the associated noise on a large commercial scale to result into significant noise levels. Additionally, the project is at a sufficient distance from the existing airport. As • discussed above in Section I I(a), the proposed project is required to comply with building standards, ensuring adequate noise insulation for residential dwellings. Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant noise impacts. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 41 • LJ city of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 064064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Environmental Issues 12 Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Less.Than Potentially . Significant Significant With Impact - Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Impa ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING (NO IMPACT) • a) No Impact The proposed project will not induce substantial new population growth, because it is introducing only 17 new units and replacing 15 existing units (see also discussion of density issues in Land Use and Planning, above), in a General Plan-designated area for multi-family uses. b) No Impact The proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing . housing units - it will displace 15 existing units, but will provide, if permitted, 32 new units. Consequently, the displaced units would be replaced by new units, without necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Less than significant Impact. The proposed project may displace some existing residents on the project site who might not be able to afford the new units. However, substantial numbers of people will not be displaced and the sitting tenants will be given adequate time to vacate the units before construction. This will provide them with ample time to look for rentals else where in Rosemead without being significantly affected. The project would not result in the need to construct new housing elsewhere to accommodate the displaced residents because there is sufficient housing stock in san Gabriel valley. Consequently, although there may be some impact to existing residents, this impact does not reach to a level of significance • Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 42 City of Rosemead • Initial Study/MitigatNegative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • 13. Public Services would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associatedwith the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, needfor new or physically altered governmental facilities, fhe.consiruction of which could causesignificant.environmental impacts, in order to maintain abceptdble service ratios; response times or other performance objectives for any ojth®ublic serv❑ces. a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? El LN C) Schools? E ® O d) Parks? 0 ® 13 e) other public facilities? 13. PUBLIC SERVICES (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will slightly increase the residential dwellings in the project area from 15 units to 32 units thus may result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services. However, the proposed project will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. The nearest fire station is the Los Angeles County Fire Station 42 located at 9319 East Valley Boulevard in the City of Rosemead. Required compliance with the Uniform Fire Code, the California Fire Code, and the Los • Angeles County Code, will ensure the proposed project would not significantly affect the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the City of Rosemead. b) Aro Impact: The proposed project would not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and will not alter acceptable service ratios or response times.. The nearest police station is Los Angeles County Sheriff Temple Station located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive, in Temple City. The proposed project would not significantly impact the level of service provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department in the City of Rosemead. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The construction of the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above retail and restaurant uses for lease may result in minor indirect and direct increases in the local and regional population by attracting new residents. The retail and commercial portion on this project is not of a significant size to increase the local or regional population. Additionally, the residential portion of the project will replace the existing 15 units and increase dwelling units by 17 units. The project is, therefore, not expected to significantly impact the City's existing schools. Payment of school development fees will offset any potential demand for increased • services regarding schools and the project would not significantly affect the level of service provided by the Rosemead School District. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 43 • Initial Study/MitigatNegative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-7064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • d) Less Than Significant Impact: As stated earlier, the construction of the proposed mixed- use project may result in minor increases in the local and regional population. However, these minor increases are not anticipated to significantly impact population and housing demand nor create a demand for new park space. e) Less Titan Significant Impact: As stated earlier, the construction of the proposed mixed- use project may result in a minor increase in the local and regional population by attracting new residents, as well as new residents seeking employment in the new commercial space. However, the project is not expected to significantly impact the City's existing public facilities, such as libraries. 14. Recreation _ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other ❑ ® ❑ recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? - b) Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ recreational facilities, which might have an • adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. RECREATION (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed development involves the construction of mixed-use project consisting of 31 condominium apartment units located' directly above commercial, retail and restaurant uses. They could slightly increase the demand for recreational facilities. However, 15 dwelling units would be replaced by the project and only 17 dwelling units would actually be added. The increase in park use resulting from the addition of 17 residential units to the City would be negligible. The construction of this mixed-use project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities in a manner that would result in substantial physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact exiting parks and recreational facilities. b) No Impact: The project does include private recreational facilities, a roof garden, and would not require the expansion of public recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed development will minimally increase the residential units on the project site, and the project provides on site recreation that so there is • no need to provide recreational facilities or expand recreational facilities elsewhere. Thus, the proposed mixed-use project would not result in the development of new recreational facilities and would have no related impacts. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 44 Initial St udylMitigated Negative Declaration Ci ty of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project C onditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 E valuation of En vironmental Impacts Pl anned Development Permit No. 06.04 • Less Than - - Potentially Significant Less Than Significant No - Significant. Impact With Mitigation Impact Impact Environmental Issues 15. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: which is substantial ase in traffic i , ncre a) Cause an the existing traffic load and in relation to capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? - b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a h ® ❑ e level of service standard established by t ❑ ❑ county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or n ti ❑ ❑ ® ❑ o programs supporting alternative transporta (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g, sharp curves or dangerous ❑ El ❑ ntersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm • equipment)? inadequate emergency access? lt i - ❑ ❑ - ❑ n e) Resu ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC (LESS T HAN SIGNIFICANT) 15. TR a) Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use project consisting of 32 residential condominium units located directly above retail and restaurant uses on an approximately one-acre parcel located in the City of Rosemead, on the east side of Rosemead Boulevard, between Guess Street on the north, and Ralph Street on the south. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (MME'.) prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project dated April 06, 2007. This study determined the proposed project would generate 969 daily trips, including 67 trips during the AM peak hour and 90 trips during the PM peak hour. 2 MMA examined the existing, future, and proposed conditions of the following three (3) intersections to determine the potential traffic impacts: • Trip generation assumes a pass-by trip reduction and a walking/intemal capture trip reduction. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project - 45 • • City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 Table 15 -1 Study Area Intersections Control Intersection Signal 1 Rosemead BoulevardNalley Boulevard 2 Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street- North Leo (U) No Signal Rosemead Boulevard/Guess Street-. South Leg (U) No Signal 3 1 Rosemead Boulevard/Marshall Street Signal Jurisdiction City of Rosemead City of Rosemead City of Rosemead City of Rosemead Existing traffic volumes for these three (3) intersections were obtained through combination of traffic counts conducted by the City of Rosemead and -MM. Based on the existing traffic volumes, and using TRAFFIX software 7.7, the Transportation Research Board Critical Movement Analysis Circular 212 Planning Method (for signalized intersections), and the Highway Capacity Manual Special Report209 method (for unsignalized intersections), MMA determined the levels of service (LOS) and volume/capacity ratio (V/C).for the following scenarios: • • Existing conditions (2005) • Future conditions (2006) without Project Future conditions (2006) with Project Table 15 - 2 shows the LOS and V/C ratios of the 3 analyzed intersections during each of these three scenarios. Table 15 - 2 Volume Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service for the Analyzed Intersections diti ns • Existing Conditions V/C Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - South leg (U) AM PM Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street AM PM (U) This intersection is non-signali: Rosemead Mixed-Use Project • Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Evaluation of Environmental Impacts LOS Future Conditions Future Con o (2006) without Project (2006) with Project V!C LOS VIC LOS 1.013 0.970 F E 1.038 1.004 F F 1.043 1.013 F F 19.6 19.6 C C 20.6 20.7 C C 22.2 22.9 C C 49.0 41.6 E E 26.8 19.1 D C 27.5 20.3 D C 0.885 1.006 D E 0.915 1.039 E F 0.923 1.049 E F and the LOS result is shown in seconds of delay rather than VIC - 46 • Initial Study/.gated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • Table 15 - 3 identifies the criteria followed by the City of Rosemead and the County of Los Angeles to evaluate the significance of a project's impacts to intersections. Table 15 - 3 Level of Service Threshold Criteria As defined by the 2004 wngestion Management Program for los angles County, the City of Rosemead considers a project to have a significant impact on a roadway's Level of Service if: • The proposed project causes an increase in traffic demand on a intersections of two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02) or greater, causing the facility to operate at LOS F (V/C > 1.00); or • The facility is already at LOS F and the proposed project increases traffic demand on an intersections by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02). Peak hour impacts. Table 15 - 2 illustrates that three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hours. While the overall demand on these intersections does increase with the addition of the • proposed project, the incremental increase associated with project-related traffic is less than two percent. Therefore, the proposed project does not significantly impact traffic operations at any of the study intersections. Short-term construction impacts. The project will result in temporary street or lane closures as the result of construction activities. Along Rosemead Boulevard, while this proposed improvement is being constructed, traffic operations may be briefly interrupted. However, these impacts will be short-term and temporary in nature thus will cause a less than significant impact to local traffic circulation and street capacity load. b) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above in this report, the project would develop a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units, generating 969 daily trips including 67 trips during the AM peak hour and 90 trips during the PM peak hour. Additionally, the condominiums would be located directly above approximately 12,550 square feet to be utilized as commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease, generating 969 daily trips. MMA analyzed the effects of project-related traffic growth when added to the Future Base plus Related projects conditions. The future conditions with the proposed project were • analyzed based on an estimate of the number of new trips generated by the project. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were calculated based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. 7`, Edition. Due to the small Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 47 • • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental impacts planned Development Permit No. 06.04 • size of the retail component, the Specialty Retail Center (Land Use Code 814) trips rates were selected to be used in calculating project-related trips; ITE has not developed AM peak hour trips rates for this land use. Additionally, The City of Rosemead and MMA determined that the small trips rates for a Shopping Center (Land Use Code 220) were to be utilized in the AM peak hour to ensure that any potential impacts that may occur as the result of project- related traffic were identified. A summary of these calculations is shown in Table 15 - 4. Furthermore, the proposed project site is along a Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Highway Or Roadway, State Route 19, Rosemead Boulevard. This segment of Rosemead Boulevard operated at a LOS level F in 1992, the base year established by the MTA, and the LOS has experienced no change between 1992 and 2003. Furthermore, the proposed project would not noticeably affect any CMP Highways or Roadways. As such, the proposed project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the project would have less than significant impacts to designated Roads or Highways. Table 15 - 4 is Trips Ends Generated Land Us Weekday AM Weekday PM Daily e Size Units In Out Total In Out Total - Shopping 1,000 Sq. - Center (AM 13.6 ft 29 18 47 onl Specialty 1,000 Sq. _ 24 30 54 620 Retail (PM 13.6 ft only) Dwelling 4 16 20 23 13. 36 349 Apartments 33 Unit 33 36 67 47 43 I 90 969 Total c) Less than Significant Impact: The project may have temporary impacts to the sidewalk and Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street during construction. However, once completed, the project would maintain adequate pedestrian-friendly access along Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street and during project design process, the applicant will be required to provide required bicycle racks. The proposed project would not otherwise impact alternative transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans; or • programs supporting alternative transportation, and the project would have no related significant impacts. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 48 • E • 0 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06-7064 Planned Development Permi_ t No~06-04 d) No Impact: The project will not result in increased hazards due to a design feature. There are no sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses proposed as an activity related to the construction of this project. e) No Impact: The proposed project's ingress/egress and circulation are required to meet the City and County Fire Department's standards, which require that new developments provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project site and surrounding roadway network do not pose any unique conditions that raise concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. Thus, standard engineering practices are expected to achieve the Fire Department's standards during permit review period. Final project plans are subject to review and approval by the City's Traffic Engineer and the City's Fire Marshall to ensure that the site's access complies with all emergency access standards. With the required compliance with all City's Traffic Engineer and Fire Marshall's standards, the project would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access. f) Less Than Significant Impact: As discussed above, the proposed project will develop a mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium apartment units located directly above office, retail, and restaurant uses for lease. Accordingly, the project would need adequate parking to accommodate the parking needs of future retail clients and residents of proposed condominiums. As such, based upon the City of Rosemead parking requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 138 on-site parking spaces including handicap van accessible parking spaces. The total number of available parking spaces proposed in the ground level parking lot and the subterranean parking garage is 143 with 8 handicap accessible spaces located immediately ground level and in the basement of the project. The proposed project will be provided with adequate parking and will not result to inadequate parking capacity 16. Utilities and Service Systems - "Jf'ould the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of l ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Contro Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ❑ n ti ❑ ❑ o expansion of existing facilities, the construc of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new f i ❑ ❑ on o storm water drainage facilities or expans ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 49 . . 0 Initial StudylMitiged Negative Declaration Evaluation of Environmental Impacts E J 0 City of Rosemead Conditional Use Permit No. 06.1064 Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve to serve it ❑ ❑ ❑ y the project that it has adequate capac the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted lid ' ❑ ❑ ® ❑ s so capacity to accommodate the project waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (NO IMPACT) a) Less Than Significant Impact. Domestic sewage typically meets wastewater treatment requirements because wastewater treatment facilities are designed to treat domestic sewage. Industrial and commercial sewage, as well as construction waste, however, may contain toxic materials that a wastewater treatment facility is not designed to handle, and therefore, could exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Rosemead has two drainage systems - the sewers and the storm drains. The storm drain system was designed to prevent flooding by carrying excess rainwater away from the City streets out to the ocean. Because the system contains no filters, it now serves the unintended function of carrying urban pollution straight to the ocean. Rain, industrial and household water mixed with urban pollutants creates storm water pollution. The pollutants include oil and other automotive fluids, paint and construction debris, yard and pet wastes, pesticides and litter. Urban runoff flows to the ocean through the storm drain. Urban runoff pollution contaminates the ocean, closes beaches, harms aquatic life and increases the risk of inland flooding by clogging butters and catch basins. • The Los Angeles County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (LACCSM treats wastewater from the City of Rosemead., Rosemead facilities are operated and maintained by LACCSMD, which has adopted policies and programs that have been approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The LARWQCB requires Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be adhered too, to ensure a cleaner Water Sources and cleaner environment. Due the proposed project scale, it is not anticipated to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of LARWQCB. Further more, the project will be required to comply with such wastewater standard requirements and BMPs will be incorporated to the project throughout the permit application process. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project C Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 50 • initial Study'gated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 0644 • b) No Impact. The project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, thus causing significant environmental effects. The carrying capacities of the current water and wastewater systems are adequate to support the proposed mixed-use project consisting of 32 condominium units and the associated commercial units to be utilized as, retail, restaurant and office uses. c) No Impact. The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). This SUSMP requires post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates to not exceed pre-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of the existing facilities, and would have no associated significant impacts to storm water drains. d) No Impact. The project would have sufficient water supplies available to service the project from existing entitlements and resources, so new or expanded entitlements will not be required. The California American Water Company provides water to the subject site and proof of water availability and willing to supply water to the project will be required to be • provided to the City of Rosemead from the California American Water Company prior to issuance of any building permit. The City of Rosemead is supplied with water from various sources, including the Colorado River Aqueduct, Local Ground Water and the State Water Project. These existing water supplies are adequate to serve most of the proposed project, this particular one inclusive. e) No Impact. The proposed project would develop condominium apartment units located directly above. commercial, retail, and restaurant uses for lease. All proposed uses would not significantly increase the population or the need for wastewater services in Rosemead. Wastewater in the City of Rosemead is serviced by LACCSMD, and the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider serving the project that it has an inadequate capacity to serve the project. Thus, the proposed project will not have a significant impact. i) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no landfills in the City of Rosemead. The project would be served by either of the following Landfills: Arvin Sanitary Landfill in Kern County, Bradley Landfill West and West Extension in Los Angeles County, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Los Angeles County; City of Whittier - Salvage Canyon Landfill in Los Angeles County, Puente Hills Landfill 46 in Los Angeles County, Scholl Canyon Sanitary • Landfill in Los Angeles County, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF in Orange County, Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in Orange County. Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 51 Initial Studyy oted Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • The proposed project would not affect the handling of solid waste on the regional scale and would not generate solid waste in excess of the landfill capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. g) No Impact. The project will comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project site is located in an area that is served by Consolidated Disposal Services Inc and a landfill able to accept the solid waste material that complies with federal, state and local statues regulating to the disposal of solid waste. Less Than Potenti ally . Significant Less Than No - - Significant. With , Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact u es Environmental Iss 17.: Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below ❑ self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ plant or animal community, reduce the number • or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" ❑ means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ® are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, ❑ ❑ ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT) a) Less than Significant: As discussed in Section 4 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the local, • regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. Similarly, as discussed in Section 5 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and thus, would not eliminate any important examples of Rosemead Mixed-use Project 52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Rosemead Rosemead Mixed-Use Project Conditional Use Permit No. 06-1064 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Planned Development Permit No. 06-04 • California history or prehistory. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to impacts to biological or cultural resources. Less than Significant: The proposed project will not cause impacts that are cumulatively b) considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, population, public services, traffic, and utility impacts. However, the project's contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts. c) No Impact: As discussed in Sections 8 and 15 of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to flooding or transportation hazards. Section 6 of this document explains that occupants of the proposed project could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The earth and geology conditions of the site would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Code and, thus, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on human beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. • \J Rosemead Mixed-Use Project 53 0 0 0 0 • 0RT OF ATTACHMENT C' FINAL REPORT 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Prepared for Eastern Investments Group, LLC. Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4810 Los Angeles, CA 90017 October 31, 2007 JOS-1672 0 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................1 PROJECT ANALYSIS ............................:...1 EXISTING CONDITIONS I DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INTERSECTIONS ................................3 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROAD NETWORK ................................3 EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES ................................5 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS .................................6 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD CRITERIA ................................7 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 7 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................8 FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS 8 CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS 16 TRIP GENERATION 16 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 17 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 21 SITE ACCESS ...............................21 ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS ...............................24 PARKING ANALYSIS 24 CONCLUSIONS 24 APPENDICES A, B, C & D Mohaddes Associates • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citv of Rosemead LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE I - PROJECT SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2 - EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS.......... E Eastern Investments LLC 2 4 FIGURE 3 - EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9 FIGURE 4 - RELATED PROJECTS LOCATIONS 10 FIGURE 5 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION RELATED PROJECTS 1, 2, AND 3 12 FIGURE 6 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION RELATED PROJECTS 4 & 5 13 FIGURE 7 - TOTAL RELATED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 8 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 15 FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED TRIP DISTRIBUTION... 18 FIGURE 10 - PROPOSED PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 19 FIGURE I F- CUMULATIVE PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 20 FIGURE 12 - PROJECT SITE PLAN 22 FIGURE 12 - PROJECT DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS .23 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I - LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TABLE 2 - LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TABLE 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 4 - RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION TABLE 5 - FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECT CONDITIONS TABLE 6 - PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TABLE 7 - CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS 6 7 8 .11 .11 .16 17 Mohaddes Associates • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study is for a proposed mixed-use project consisting of 33 condominium apartment units located immediately above approximately 13,600 square feet of leasable space to be utilized for commercial, retail and restaurant uses. The project site is located along Rosemead Boulevard, north of the I-10 Freeway, in the City of Rosemead. This analysis evaluates the operation of three selected intersections, agreed to by City of Rosemead staff, as potentially being significantly impacted by the proposed project. The following report provides key traffic information regarding existing traffic volumes, an analysis of impacts at study intersections and a determination of Levels of Service (LOS) using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. Mitigation measures are recommended where appropriate. Proiect Description The proposed project would be constructed on an approximately one-acre parcel located on the eastern side of Rosemead Boulevard, between Guess Street to the north and Ralph Street to the south. The project would consist of 33 residential condominium units (6 three bedroom units and 27 two bedroom units), approximately 13,600 square feet of retail and restaurant space and a single-level subterranean parking structure with a capacity of 128 spaces. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the surrounding street network. • Project Analvsis In conjunction with City of Rosemead staff, a total of three intersections, two signalized and one unsignalized, were selected for level of service (LOS) analysis. The three intersections represent locations that may potentially be impacted by traffic due to the proposed project. The study intersections are: 1. Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard; 2. Rosemead Boulevard and Guess Street; and 3. Rosemead Boulevard and Marshall Street. Traffic counts were conducted at the three study intersections on Wednesday, October 5, 2005. The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location. EXISTING CONDITIONS MMA conducted a site visit in order to assess existing conditions at the project site and within the study area. The field inventory included review of intersection geometric layout, traffic control, lane configurations, posted speed limits, transit service, land use, and parking. r1 I•J Mohoddes Associates • LJ 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments Group, LLC • D M: e d',D E:2 mlm NOT TO MAX N. O' tY' Valley Blvd i i Guess St , rr~. rab.~. . Ralph St • a business unit or lions, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 1 City of Rosemead Project Site Location FS]MrYI~xYZYLW'ArceneK in} puYC,Y. CpX M' ~ 1N Molaaddes Associates 2 • 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citv of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC Description of Existing Intersections Figure 2 illustrates the existing intersection lane configurations for the four analyzed intersections. A brief description of each study intersection follows. Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard is controlled by an eight-phase traffic signal with permitted phasing for all left-turn movements. All four approaches are striped as a one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. Rosemead Boulevard at North Guess Street is an unsignalized T-intersection that is stop-controlled in the westbound approach. The northbound approach is striped as one through lane and one shared through-right lane. The southbound approach is striped as two through lanes. The westbound approach is striped as one right-tum lane. A raised median prohibits westbound traffic from turning left onto Rosemead Boulevard. Rosemead Boulevard at South Guess Street is an unsignalized T-intersection that is stop-controlled in the eastbound approach. The northbound approach is striped as one left-turn lane and two through lanes. The southbound approach is striped as one through lane and one shared through/right lane. The eastbound approach is striped as one left-turn/right-turn lane. Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street is controlled by an eight-phase traffic signal with protected phasing for all left-turn movements. The northbound approach is stripped as one left-tum lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. The remaining approaches are striped as one left-turn lane, one through lane and one shared through/right lane. Description of Existing Road Network The following describes existing conditions at the major roadways within the study area. Rosemead Boulevard is a north-south major arterial that is designated as State Route 19 (SR-19). This facility provides a linkage between the Foothill Freeway (SR-210), the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), and the Golden State Freeway (I-5). This facility is located immediately adjacent to the western edge of the project and provides access to the parking area associated with the project. The existing lane configuration of this facility consists of two travel lanes in each direction with 'a raised landscaped median and exclusive left-turn pockets at all intersections with the exception of the northern intersection with Guess Street. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street in mid-block segments during non-peak hours but is completely restricted near study intersections. Valley Boulevard is an east-west major arterial, located north of the project, that parallels the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) from San Gabriel Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue to through the City of Rosemead. This roadway consists of two travel lanes in each direction with a striped median and exclusive left-turn pockets at all intersections. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street in mid-block segments but is restricted near study intersections. Guess Street is an east-west local street that west of Walnut Grove Avenue and extends east intermittently to Rosemead Boulevard where it travels through an offset intersection and continues eastward to Baldwin Avenue. This facility consists of one unstriped travel lane in each direction. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street. • • r1 U Mohaddes Associates 3 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC a m e E> ~ > Mlm scut NOT TO O: K; Valley Blvd ~ :~ttr • u . Guess St Guess St ~ "1 w:•mka~„ ~ 11 Ralph St 4k L r Marshall Street ~ittr i' • a business unit a/ae&, Inc 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 2 City of Rosemead Existing Lane Configurations ti'llS I R53C]5'JO%%K4X*PAR-TMUdi " Wlm LO1 0"15 Associates 4 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • Marshall Street is a collector street, located south of the project, which parallels the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) from San Gabriel Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue through the City of Rosemead. In the immediate area of Rosemead Boulevard, this roadway consists of two travel lanes in each direction then narrows to one travel lane in each direction. Curbside parking is allowed along either side of the street but is restricted near study intersections. Existing Public Transit Services Existing transit service operating in close proximity to the project site is operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). The City of Rosemead also operates a local circulator route that travels through the study area. The METRO transit routes passing through the study area include three local routes, one limited-stop route and one express bus route. Brief descriptions of these routes are provided below: Route 76 is an east-west line that travels between Downtown Los Angeles and the El Monte Busway Station. This line utilizes Valley Boulevard when traveling through the study area. This route operates 24-hours daily, seven days a week and on holidays with 10 to 20 minute headways from early morning to mid-evening. Headways then lengthen to 30 to 45 minutes before reaching one hour for "night owl service." Route 176 is an east-west line that operates between Glassell Park and the El Monte Busway Station, utilizing Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This route operates on weekdays only with 30 to 60 minute headways from early morning to mid-evening. • Route 266 is a north-south line that travels from the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line Station to the Lakewood Center Mall. This line utilizes Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates weekdays and Saturdays from 5:OOAM to 11:OOPM with 25 minute headways and Sundays and major holidays from 5:30AM to 10:00PM with 40 to 50 minute headways. Route 376 is an east-west peak period limited-stop route that operates between Downtown Los Angeles and the El Monte Busway Station, utilizing Valley Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates weekdays only from 7:00 to 9:OOAM and 3:00 to 6:OOPM with 15 minute headways. Route 489 is an east-west express line that travels between Downtown Los Angeles and Temple City, utilizing Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard as it travels through the study area. This line operates during the weekday peak periods from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM with buses traveling south along Rosemead Boulevard and west along Valley Boulevard in the mornings. During the evening peak period, from 4:20 PM to 6:20 PM, the buses travel in the opposite direction. Headways are generally between 20 and 40 minutes. The City of Rosemead operates the following local circulator route through the study area: Rosemead Shopping Express is a local circulator that consists of two shuttles traveling in opposite directions along a fixed route throughout the City of Rosemead. This route uses the Rosemead Square shopping center as a transit hub and travels along Garvey Avenue at it passes through the study area. This service operates on weekdavs from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM and on weekends from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM with 50-55 minute headways. 11 Mohaddes Associates C 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Traffic operations in the project vicinity were analyzed, as discussed with the City of Rosemead staff, using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, as defined in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County Guidelines for CMP Transportation Impact Analysis. The ICU methodology was used to determine volume to capacity (V/C) ratios and service level characteristics for each of the three signalized study intersections. The one unsignalized intersection level of service was calculated based on the average delays-based methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Level of Service Definitions Table 1 describes the level of service (LOS) concept and the operating conditions expected under each level of service for signalized intersections. Table 2 describes the level of service concept and operating conditions expected under each level of service for unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1: LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS I Level V/C of Description Ratio Service A Unwrigested operations; all queues clear in a single signal cycle. < 0.600 B Very light congestion; an occasional approach phase is fully >0.600 to 0.699 utilized. C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. >0.700 to 0.799 Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection D functional. Cars required to wait through more than one cycle >0.800 to 0.899 during short peaks. No long-standing queues formed. Severe congestion with some long-standing queues on critical B approaches. Blockage if intersection may occur if traffic signal >0.900 to 0.999 does not provide for protected turning movements. Traffic queue may block nearby intersections upstream of critical approaches.. F Total breakdown, stop-and-go operation. > 1.000 Source: Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, 1980. Mohaddes Associates 0 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stop-Controlled Level Intersection Description Delay (seconds Service er vehicle Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite A open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find < 10 freedom of operation. Verv good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted B within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach >I0 and < 15 to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 C seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most >15 and <25 drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 >25 and < 35 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. - Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on E critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several >35 and < 50 minutes. Forced flow. Representsjammed conditions. Backups form locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of > 50 F vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: Highway Capaciry Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000. Level of Service Threshold Criteria The significant impact definitions provided in the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County were utilized in this study. These definitions are generally applied to all CMP facilities within the County, but the City of Rosemead has adopted these standards and they are to be applied to all study intersections. The definitions state that a significant impact is deemed to have occurred if the proposed project causes the following conditions: An increase in traffic demand on a facility of two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02) or greater, causing the facility to operate at LOS F (V/C > 1.00); or • The facility is already at LOS F and the proposed project increases traffic demand on a facility by two percent of capacity. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATION'S ANALYSIS The morning and evening peak hour level of service analyses were conducted at the three existing study intersections based on the existing traffic volume counts and the methodologies described previously. The level of service analysis was performed using TRAFFIX software, version 7.7. C F_ 1 LJ Alohaddes Associates C 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC Traffic Volumes New traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday, October. 5, 2005 at the three study intersections. The traffic impact analysis is based on the highest single hour of traffic during each time period at each location. Figure 3 illustrates the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes at the existing study intersections. Traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 summarizes the level of service calculations for the study intersections under existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. T ART F. 9• EXISTING CONDITIONS • • Existing Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS VIC LOS V/C 1 Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard F 1.013 E 0.970 2 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) F 19.8 C 19.6 3 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street- South Leg (U) 49.0 E 41.6 4 Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street 0.885 F 1.006 (U) This intersection is unsignalind and the LUS result is shown in seconds of achy ramer man vn.. The results indicate three of the four study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service in both the AM and PM peak hours. In the AM peak hour, the Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection operates at LOS F and the Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection operates at LOS F in the PM peak hour. As defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, these intersections are considered to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. FUTURE BASE PLUS RELATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS Traffic forecasts for Future Base plus Related Projects conditions are calculated through a two step process. The first step consists of the application of an ambient growth factor to existing traffic volumes. Ambient growth is the traffic growth that will occur in the study area due to general growth in employment, housing and regional trips in the region. Based on consultation with City of Rosemead, an ambient growth rate of one percent per year was used in the analysis. The horizon year for this project has been assumed to be 2007 and will be used as the timeframe for future conditions since full occupancy of the proposed project is expected to occur during that time. In the second step, traffic growth due to specific, planned or approved development projects in the study area were then added to the existing plus ambient growth traffic volumes. The list of related projects included in this study was compiled by MMA in conjunction with the City of Rosemead staff. It was determined that five planned projects are. located within close proximity of the proposed project site. The location of these related projects are shown in Figure 4. Mohaddes Associates 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC m my I:, > !m NOT TO SCALE O i it! I 14492 « n n 535418 J ~ LEI rstrzoz Valley Blvd 17rz9sl l.-~ } r 3e41627rI *$g 20811927! zaZ ,81 mf Guess St Guess St v3-e.,~ t 691401 C Ralph St LEGEND xxwxxx AMIPM I "an'-L9Tnn a=~ ~~-311169 "I B7 Marshall Street Seas .a 'x,11 r 89706 n41e5-,, a,. 'i I-IOW B Ramps Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a business unit 9f hens, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 3 City of Rosemead Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • • 11 Mohaddes Associates 9 I • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead 101 Eastern Investments Group, LLC 4 m• a' e CO m NOT TO SGLE y l Valley Blvd Guess St c, Guess St o is LEGEND ED Levitt Store Renovation Q Target Back Office UE Rosemead square vacancies Ralph St HI 8930 Mission Dr E9 3824 Rosemead Blvd. Marshall Street i 3 M 0 i 1-10 WB Ramps i \ Meyer, Mohaddes Associates C J a business unit of ftens, Ix 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 4 City, of Rosemead Related Project Locations . useaseros~ox.xxvx:nroronn,n~_,a no o.>am4~ con aeer:as Mohaddes Associates 10 • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citv of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • These projects consist of the following developments: I . Revitalization of a Levitz Furniture store containing approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space; 2. Development of approximately 80,000 square feet of back-office space at an existing Target store; 3. Renovation of approximately 10,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space in the Rosemead Square shopping center; 4. A mixed-use project containing 16 condominium units and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail, office and restaurant use; and 5. An eight-unit apartment building currently under construction. The total number of vehicle trips generated by these projects is given in Table 4. Based on discussions with City of Rosemead staff, the trip distribution assumptions utilized in assigning the vehicle trips associated with Related Projects 1 through 3 to the regional roadway network are shown in Figure 5 and the vehicle trips associated with Related Projects 4 and 5 are shown in Figure 6. TART F A- DFl ATFn PI2C) IV 'TR TRIP GFNFRATION Trips Ends Generated Land Use Size Units WeekdayAM Weekday PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total I Levitz Store Retail 20 KSF 1 3 4 5 9 101 Revitalization 2 Target Store Back- 80 KSF 15 124 20 99 119 881 office Develo ra"t 3 Rosemead Square 10 KSF r 4 10 18 20 38 429 Renovation 8930 Mission Drive 20 / KSF / 24 9 33 22 32 54 527 4 Mixed Use Pro ect 16 DU 5 38 Rosemead 24 8 DU 1 3 4 3 2 5 53 Bl vd Total 142 32 174 67 I 158 I 225 1,991 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Genermion, i-' Edition. Note: KSF = 1,000 square feet; DU =Dwelling Unit The related projects trip assignment, shown in Figure 7, was then added to the existing plus ambient growth traffic volumes. The resulting traffic volumes were utilized in calculating the levels of service for the study intersections for the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions for the AM and PM peak hours as summarized in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 8. TABLE 5: FUTURE BASE PLUS RF.I,ATED PROJECTS CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS V/C LOS V/C 1 Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard F 1.038 F 1.004 2 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - North Leg (U) C 20.6 C 20.7 3 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess Street - South Leg (U) D 26.8 C 19.1 4 Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street E 0.915 F 1.039 (U) This intersection is unsignalized and the LOS result is shown in seconds of delay ranter than v,i,. Mohaddes Associates C J 11 11 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments Group, LLC 1~ 0%~ a• O' n7. E' > NIm O'. {1 1 t omo 10% n' Guess St • LEGEND 2 Levitz Store Renovation ©R, Target Back Office EM Rosemead Square Vacancies 1 <~3."1Dt „ ~z G NOTTO~ Valley Blvd Guess St . z1- Marshall Street 1111' i d 1-1o WB z.-~%. Ramps r R " 20% ` Meyer, Mohaddes Associates • a business unh of hens, Inc 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 5 City of Rosemead Trip Distribution Related Projects 1, 2, and 3 Mohaddes Associates 12 • 9 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • a e E!> E > E : ~ a,,m Pv 0 NOT TO XAI pi ~i i $ I NI T li Pro Valley Blvd i~ 0 Guess St IV rl i ..J#pf~.' m Guess St • I ..m.. 1;e•~ LEGEND E 8930 Mission Dr ~....XX Related Project 4 Trip Distribution EO 3824 Rosemead BNd. n ar Ralph St r-XX Related Project 5 Trip Distribution i i I o N I Marshall Street ~ e Sr 1-10 WB Ramps M Meyer Mohaddes Associates e business unll oRrnrs, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 6 City of Rosemead Trip Distribution Related Projects 4 and 5 ,.-1e114t. rYNMAmm 4, AYWo- D ~:w • Adohaddes Associates 13 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments a'v E' dim NOT TO SME O tY: b~. Mils Valley Blvd Tva ry i, -1 °sa • ^ . Guess St Guess St ~ +~m • Ralph St c • j i, am Marshall Street 2/0-. ~1r LEGEND XXX/XXX AM" I-10 we Ramps i g. M Meyer, Mohaddes Associates s badness unit otltens, Im 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 7 City of Rosemead Total Related. Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4n d-t-CDR IW:17:V, Mohaddes Associates 14 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC B m 9 E i > mlm NOT TO SGLLF 0 +1]1O1 m ~._s+wan J 1 lir+„ Valley Blvd 391/610~ ^ n m 11a2OO- c ~ c _ ~ssrz1 Guess St m Guess St J 4 d ~~p X3 -0 t ]ma+Z i m Ia4 E • LEGEND XXX/XXX AMIPM A 1-31W172 j ~ ~~,r,1vs+ Marshall Street sar]J i1 t r 9,253-~ °n m It we)1, 1-70 WB Ramps I - - Mohaddes Associates business unfit o/Iteris, W. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 8 City of Rosemead Future Base + Related Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Mohaddes Associates is • r~ u 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC is As can be seen in Table 5, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection are expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. As defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, these intersections are considered to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. CUMULATIVE PROJECT CONDITIONS The Cumulative Project scenario analyzes the effects of project-related traffic growth when added to the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions. The number of new trips generated by the proposed project was calculated and added to the Future Base plus Related Projects traffic volumes.. Levels of service for each of the study intersections were then calculated for these new volumes and compared against those calculated under the Future Base plus Related Projects conditions to determine if the proposed project would create any significant traffic impacts. Trip Generation The future conditions with the proposed project were analyzed based on an estimate of the number of new trips generated by the project. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were calculated based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7`h Edition. The land uses were identified as 13,600 square feet of retail space (Land Use Code 814 and 820) and 33 residential dwelling units (Land Use Code 220). Due to the small size of the retail component, the Specialty Retail Center (Land Use Code 814) trips rates were selected to be used in calculating project-related trips. Unfortunately, ITE has not developed AM peak hour trip rates for this land use. Based on discussions with City of Rosemead staff, it was determined that the trips rates for a Shopping Center (Land Use Code 220) were to be utilized in the AM peak hour to ensure that any potential impacts that may occur as the result of project-related traffic were identified. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trips Ends Generated Land Use Size Units Weekday AM Weekday PM Daily In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center (AM only 13.6 KSF 29 18 47 Specialty Retail Center PM only) 13.6 KSF 24 30 54 620 Apartments 33 DU 4 16 20 23 13 36 349 Total 33 34 67 47 43 90 969 Note: KSF = 1,000 square feet DU = Dwelling unit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generalion, 7ih Edition. • Mohaddes Associates • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Trip Distribution and Assignment • Eastern Investments Group, LLC Trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of new vehicle trips associated with the project. The geographic distribution of project trips is based on the locations of local activity centers, street system that serves the site, and recent traffic data collected in the project study area. The trip distribution utilized for the Cumulative Project conditions analysis was developed in conjunction with City of Rosemead staff and is shown in Figure 9. Trips generated by the project, as shown in Table 6, were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the distribution patterns, shown in Figure 9, to estimate the project related peak-hour traffic at each of the study intersections. Figure 10 illustrates the project trip assignment onto the future roadway network for the AM and PM peak hours. The project trip assignment was then added to the Future Base plus Related Projects traffic volumes. The resulting Cumulative Project traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figure 11. These traffic volumes were then utilized to calculate levels of service for the study intersections for Cumulative Project conditions. Table 9 summarizes the results of the Cumulative Project traffic analysis. TARIT, 9- CiIMi1LATiVE PROTECT CONDITIONS Future Without Project Future With Project AM AM Peak Hour PM Peak our Intersection Significant LO LOS V/C A V/C" LOS V/C 4 V/C• Impact? 1 Rosemead Boulevard at Valley F 7 F F 1.043 0.005 F 1.013 0.009 N N Boulevard 2 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess C 20.6 c 20. C 22.2 1.6 C 22.9 2.2 N N Street - North Leg (U) 3 Rosemead Boulevard at Guess D 26.8 C 19.1 D 27.5 0.7 C 20.3 1.2 N N Street - South Leg (U) 4 Rosemead Boulevard at E 0.915 F 1.039 E 0.923 0.008 F 1.049 0.010 N N Marshall Street A V/Crepresents the difference in the volume to capacity ratio between the Future Base with Project and the future base analysis scenarios. As can be seen in Table 9, three of the four study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service in the AM peak hour and only two of the four in the PM peak hour. The Rosemead Boulevard at Valley Boulevard intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. The Rosemead Boulevard at Marshall Street intersection are expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. Significant impact criteria thresholds, as defined by the 2004 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, state that a significant impact is deemed to occur when a proposed project increases the demand on an intersection that operates at LOS F in the Future No Project scenario by two percent or more of overall capacity (V/C > 0.020). While the overall demand on both of these intersections does increase with the additional of the proposed project, the incremental increase associated with project-related traffic is less than two percent. Therefore, the proposed project does not significantly impact traffic operations at any of the study intersections. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix B. Mohaddes Associates u • • 17 • • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments Group, LLC a m' a m.m nor TO sr~ w 0 m r ,o Valley Blvd Nevada St j t ~e 11-58 rr 10 Guess St t 1) r Guess St m r is ALI' r O Q CJ r22 Ralph St t S 0 NNN + s s Marshall Street s-4 } • IAO WB Ramps _ Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Wsinsss un11 e11Mtls, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 9 City of Rosemead Proposed Trip Distribution Mohaddes Associates 18 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • a m e E> q:ro NOT TO SCALE 0 rx e j rvs Valley Blvd Nevada St ; ~ a t,s rn Guess St 1 zt~ r t a~5'm Guess St `i Qltn ~ a. ' " r rya r7A Ralph St tab t CnC J 1 l."- . Marshall Street ~f t a LEGEND XMXXX AMIPM 1-10 WB Ramps + a M Meyer, Mohaddes Associates a Dusm"s unit of Reis, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 10 City of Rosemead Project Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes o•use«saoosm..xxxrr,«nu,w..,.n+,wnwm.M CO« re.++.m • Mohaddes Associates 19 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead • Eastern Investments Group, LLC 8 NO]TOe E ~ 'rn ~14]t9~ J it, ~ (118WX216 16 Valley Blvd 1]41301-0i,) f r 39 0~i roc- 2nrioe~ na ffi Guess St • Guess St i sm Guess St J 1 , ]6N1-1, ~m m , refs Project._ . } r Driveway a^ it m~ a Ralph St ~ o I SCm~L101H15 m~3191111 J ~ l;rt49nat 911253+ 12 11e9]~ . AmC LEGEND XXXMXX AMIPM I-10 WB-- Ramps \ Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Marshall Street a.r • a business untro1116(a. inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 11 City of Rosemead Cumulative Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes rzsamrwF.4xu.rnc.xo.~r:.u rvo 0.vmw~+c38 ia~~1m Mohaddes Associates 20 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS Site Access The project site plan, as shown in Figure 12, with provide access into the proposed project via two driveway locations, one along Rosemead Boulevard and the second along Guess Street. The proximity of these driveway locations to the existing roadway network is shown in Figure 13. Driveway "A" will be located approximately 250 feet south of Guess Street along Rosemead Boulevard. This facility will form a T-intersection with Rosemead Boulevard. This intersection will be stop-controlled in the westbound approach and consist of two travel lanes, one entry lane and one exit lane. Traffic movements at this intersection will be limited to a northbound right-turn from Rosemead Boulevard into the project and a westbound right-turn from Driveway "A to northbound Rosemead Boulevard. Driveway "B" will be located approximately 175 feet east of Rosemead Boulevard along Guess Street. This driveway will form a T-intersection with Guess Street and will be stop-controlled in the northbound approach. Traffic movements at this intersection will include an eastbound right-turn and a westbound left-turn from Guess Street into the project and northbound left and right turns from Driveway "A" onto Guess Street. A landscaped median currently extends along the center of Rosemead Boulevard in the proximity of the project. A break in the median is provided at the Rosemead Boulevard at Westbound Guess Street intersection, which is located directly west of the proposed project. Southbound left-turns at this intersection are prohibited. Residents and patrons wishing to enter the site must travel south to Ralph Street, and make either a U-tum and continue north on Rosemead Boulevard to Driveway "A" or turn left onto Ralph Street and continue east to Hart Avenue. At Hart Avenue, drivers would turn left and continue north to Guess Street where they would turn left again and travel west to Driveway "B". These access routes are not expected to impact traffic operations along either Rosemead Boulevard or Ralph Street due to the small number of vehicles expected to make this movement. Traffic exiting the proposed project and wishing to travel south along Rosemead Boulevard would have the choice three options: 1. Exit using Driveway "A" and make a U-turn at Westbound Guess Street; 2. Exit using Driveway "A" and continue north to Nevada Avenue before making a U-turn; and 3. Exit using Driveway "B" and turn right onto Guess Street and travel around the block before accessing Rosemead Boulevard by making a left-turn from Ralph Street. Due to the limited distance between Driveway "A" and Westbound Guess Street, the initial traffic impact analysis assumed that Option I was not feasible and therefore was not included. A supplemental analysis was conducted for Option I and it was determined that this movement would not impact traffic operations at the Rosemead Boulevard at Westbound Guess Street intersection. Level of service analysis worksheets for this scenario are provided in Appendix D. Mohaddes Associates • 11 21 • 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • • OFrX Meyer; Mohaddes Associates a business unit of Ileris, Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project FIGURE 12 Citv of Rosemead Project Site Plan Mohaddes Associates 22 GUESS Sr. NOT TO SOLE e 0 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Traffic Impact Study Citv of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC • 7 . :4~a + m j Ciiln m E . Guess St 1 P cc ' " t w pE P E 4 i~ ! ' 3 e r r ~ tt Crr. AAMZ w z x t fn 'Y :t x 1 I F A N ~ 7b P t{aa I t1 " ~e z F t ~ * b v r;yAz N Meyer, Mohaddes; Associates NOT TO SCALE a business unk of llais. Inc. 3862 Rosemead Blvd Mixed Use Project City of Rosemead G:USER SaWS I67I Rmemeee Siw ieYrc IM 9WyZ"P^-s•ieb 20'.PF4e S&e Rr TRSGI P J FIGURE 13 I • Project DrivcN%av Locations I 23 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Project • Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Eastern Investments Group, LLC On-Site Circulation Analysis Based on an analysis of the site plan provided in Appendix C, no significant on-site traffic circulation issues were identified. Parking lot aisles and garage ramps have been designed to meet City of Rosemead Municipal Code requirements, Both driveway locations provide adequate vehicle storage with only Driveway "B" expected to experience temporary queuing when vehicles are vacating parking spaces. PARKING ANALYSIS Based upon City of Rosemead parking Requirements, the project is required to provide a minimum of 133 on- site parking spaces and 6 handicap accessible spaces. The total number of available parking spaces proposed in the ground level parking lot and the subterranean parking garage is 143 with 8 handicap accessible spaces located immediately adjacent to the project. CONCLUSIONS The results of this report show that the proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections in either the AM or PM peak hour. This evaluation was conducted as if each use was a free- standing separate facility, and there were no non-auto trips between adjacent uses. This provides a conservative analysis, since a mixed-use project like this would incorporate trips between the residential, retail and restaurant uses made as pedestrians and not by autos (i.e. internal trips). Were this taken into account, the estimated auto-related impacts would be reduced to a measurable extent. Since this analysis • defines no significant traffic impacts, incorporation of the internal trip reductions would even lessen the non- significant impacts. Mohaddes Associates 24 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 0 0 Mohaddes Associates • TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd./valley Blvd. Project 05-2369-001 APPROACH LANES D v 0 n N ~ v m ~ m iti ~ N b N y ~ O O O N N ' Valley Blvd N W AM MD PM AM MD PM TOTAL g 171 0 295 s 144 0 92 236 3 -F mr a 384 O627 535 0 416 953 2 : 209 0 192 'a,u, 167 D 202 369 i'-1':z. _ T o ° O £ Nmi N iQ- N O m O Y N N APPROACH LANES C AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 0 AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM 26 0 TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd. /Guess St. Project 05-2389-002 v v n x zz `Guess St -%r TOTAL AM MD PM 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 Iwo* 105 65 0 40 APPROACH LANES 0 2 0' 0 e s ~ f o 0 0 c u' m o N Guess5t a £ N n N O O O TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT N n ~ w m (Intersection Name) e n ~o w m m n APPROACH LANES AM MD M+ TOTAL 58 0 22 80 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p! °a 001 .RO3emead eNd../'Guess54. - . Wednesday - f0/SY05 il Day Date COUNTPERIODS am 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM - 6A0 PM m 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 0 AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM u u 27 TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd, /Guess St. Project F: 05-2389-002 • v v D S z p(A L11~1 ° -o 0 0 E n N m ~ Y1 0 m M APPROACH LANES &Cy S.J I&1'3 fm woL L 001 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT Lien! !ROSeFnead (Intersection Name) Lh' r ut;z. L: AKPdPesOaY 0`S0~~`>' Day Date COUNT PERIODS am 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM - 600 PM m 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM APPROACH LANES s,a {i3;9RY1 ~ N O 'ey R~I N,q a ~o o` o ° 0 0 0 s L Ne L Ft`I~W.. 4`Vlrf~{f~7 5 : f 'i t £ VI ~ Q J. y^ i jll§4: fE~. les. k, i_ G t'; !3 y w TOTAL AM 'MD PM 2 0 3 * AM MD PM TOTAL 58 0. 22 80sU$i S l 5 L:Do 0 0 ) 00 - D 0 0 0XSy 105 65 0 40 Fool 0 0. 0 RMA °d 5N ~ Y T [tlk3 t LL P _ ' , 15~ 5 1b1~ 1a€~vza 5~w_s. L 159E T 15 1 L4 40 z~ /3828 AM PEAK HOUR 730 AM NOON PEAK HOUR O AM PM PEAK HOUR 500 PM • • • TMC Summary of Rosemead Blvd./Marshal/ SG Project 05-2389-003 APPRO ACH LAN ES a 1 z ..a= N d " m ` i 0 a ' '-Marshall St'' = -Marshall:Sti . v 9 O z AM MD PM AM MD PM TOTAL 58 0 75 97 0 111 208 0 ; u 89 0 248 313 0 169 482 2't e 114 0 85 144 D 187 331 -:.1Ei~ a m N ro 001 ° £ 0 0 0 TURNING MOVEMENT 0OUNT 0 - - a m ti n - ~S Ro3emead Blvd j~llarshall SL a m n (Intersection Name) 1 o m M " i 2 0}, ! m , WeanPSdav 1075/05 Day Date " w APPROACH LANES O..' COUNT PERIODS y p'aF=, am 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM noon 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM m 4:00 PM - 6:DO PM AN PEAK HOUR 715 AM NOON PEAK HOUR 0 AM PM PEAK HOUR 415 PM • 29 C 0 APPENDIX B 9 TRAFFIX ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Mohaddes Associates • • • EX AM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead - Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service In tersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 4 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.013 F xxxxx 1 .013 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 19.8 0.000 C 19.8 0. 000 + 0.000 D/V M 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou E 49.0 0.000 E 49.0 0. 000 + 0.000 D/V S 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St D xxxxx 0.885 D xxxxx 0. 885 + 0.000 V/C is Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to M14A, LOS ANGELES, CA E 31 • • • EXAM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16: 16:17 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed -Use Traffic Impact Stu dy - City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computat ion R eport ICU 1( Loss as Cycle Len gth 8) Method (Fu ture Volume Alternativ e) Rf#+*kRRY*R*Y #YY+* R##k+}w**R4R «RftYw«Y**lfiRtT!« fk**# 4+}ff 4f lYff*«f k#4 ii4ifi k«#«hk Intersection #1 Ro semead Blvd at Valley Blvd +fsatka+#Rfi#Y ##k#. Rk}Y*faawwRk w«fa+ka#+}+a++ifa wx*+k a+kf#kfrtff#f«lkRk Yt++#xfiRl+f cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X): 1.013 Loss Time (se c): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXXXXX Optimal Cycle : 100 Level Of Serv ice: F ff**«*«k**Yk} +++rtf k*ff##k4t**4 tf****kk**k!*wk4* *R*#+ #h#tRkRf R}f *+fiM}} Rlwf*+*4YYY Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound Ea st Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I L - I T - R ----------I Control: Pr II otected II Protected Pr otected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 ti 1 0 2 0 1 II 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ----------I Volume Module : Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << AM Peak Base Vol: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Fut: 219 1386 103 51 1462 247 171 384 209 167 535 144 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 180 404 220 176 563 152 RednCt Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 180 404 220 176 563 152 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 231 1459 108 54 1539 260 160 404 220 176 563 152 Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ----------i I Capacity Anal ysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.46 0.07 0.03 0.48 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.18 0.09 Crit Moves: +Y}w k+k+ +!«w ***k#k+ik#4+* ihh** #kk+}**#}kaR R++k****k****#*+f k*#*f k>*t## YRk}fRtt}f«!**R#* • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 32 EXAM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 4-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) !wf#IrR*RRw*R+R*ffzxwrf#}1Fw**r*k4Y+fffffflfzfYfffifi*Rxlzzf+lfaaa#R*r#x*r#e**R+*i Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) xif#*kF1FxzRRxRR*Rkik4R**{+4Y4*4t*ft+fi**kk+Rfi*R1t4#fkxk*f*}Rf*x*#ffxkf+kkkf*ff# Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.8) +fifxfYZYkYkYxYxfffz+xt+x+rRf++*+z+Y+++t*Fxwxkkakfi*+#*trrx+f«RaxkkzaxFx xx****R41f _ Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach:, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II II ---------------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 H II I Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << AM Peak Base Vol: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 1627 8 0 1859 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1713 8 0 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 • Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1713 8 0 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FOllowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 I--------------- ~ Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 861 Potent cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 303 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 303 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxcx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 _ I--------------- ---------------i Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ~ xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.8 LOS by Move: * " z z a a * x r C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx _ Shared LOS: * ' " * • a " " " r ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxic xxxxxx 19.8 ApproachLOS: * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA Cl 33 • • EXAM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2 000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternati ve) Y}R#fii£R*IR£ tfRf#t#Rtt{YfiRfi+#RllfTt#}#«T1f/!R«1tT*f##{f Y}RtRt#t tf RR**#fR*#t{*fi Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) {R{tiflRRR}# RRrt#+!#*1rtYf}R£Flf1T//41tYftlf/f#fifR##}11{TTT1R*1}Yf f*YtR}R *R£RR1fR+ Average Dela y (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 49.0) #iTTR##1{Yf1 fRR**{iTYY**#fitlRikRfRR*RRi*Riff**iYRfRR#R{#*#RkRti* #/rt{fR*R#fYt**t# Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R - - L - T - R Control: - - Uncontrolled Uncontrolled StopSign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Modul e: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 « AM Peak Base Vol: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 initial Bse: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 1633 0 0 1844 15 2 0 65 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 60 1719 0 0 1941 16 2 0 68 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 60 1719 0 0 1941 16 2 0 68 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 x xxxx xxxx xxxxx FOllowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 x II xxxx xxxx xxxxx ---------------I Capacity Mod ule: Cnflict Vol: 1957 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2928 xxxx 978 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 302 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 12 xxxx 253 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 302 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 10 xxxx 253 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.20 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 xxxx 0.27 H xxxx xxxx xxxx ---------------I Level Of Ser I--------------- vice Module: Queue: 0.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 19.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C « « x * * * ! « + £ + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 149 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpOel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 49.0 xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * « • • * " * E # f f + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 49.0 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * E • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 34 Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:17 Page 6-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) ##*r***Fra***kR+**kkk**FfY+*FFFFYkk*+r**#k*F**}}f**f*#k#**##ik+xkYkkY4#*4#k#Y%*M Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St Yr+ffaa+r+wxxlxxkR}!lf+xf}xl+krk+x+xF+frl.+rff+f++wf++xklxrrfa+fr+rRklaf+++r++fY Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.885 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optimal cycle: 100 Level Of Service: D k*}k}llrrxltk**#x4tikk*wtiffar}+f+ff+i*k1#i+af rraR*R**Yk***ff}!#kk}Y*iF**+Y*4*#** Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound [Vest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II ---------------i Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1. 0 1 1 0 I--------------- II--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: » Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << AM Peak Base Vol: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Fut: 51 1430 75 95 1710 48 58 89 114 144 313 97 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: D.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 54 1505 79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 1505 79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 54 1505 .79 100 1800 51 61 94 120 152 329 102 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00-1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 0.47 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3113 87 1600 1600 1600 1600 2443 757 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.47 0.05 0.06 0.58 0.58 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.13 Crit Moves: k'rf •*f+ afR+ terl+x+*r}xfal+irr**f#xrrxx}!*Rxxxx}}x++++xkx++rw++rxxxf++x*xfaf:#+*+xa1flk+*f xf _ ' Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA C I 35 • • • 11 0 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 2-1 3662 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd - E xxxxx 0.970 E xxxxx 0.970 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 19.6 0.000 C 19.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou E 41.6 0.000 E 41.6 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.006 F xxxxx 1.006 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 36 • • EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 3-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study Cicy of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) **f+#**#R+%*RRR#R#Y#kY}YffY**%%**#f{RY*Y}{###k%*%kRk*R!*fffYYf+}*I*#*R#k#f*#*YR* Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd ######+w#+fYYfwf{f#xf*#+#*Y+k#+#*{#*RY+*+R**f*{#w+Y}{#f+*f+#R#Yx+#x*%#flk.f lfff} Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.970 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optimal cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E •w}f4#++*###Yw{}*}**#*{4RR#*Y#YI+YfT#RR*R•ffS#fk}kk##YR#'F%**RRt*#**}*Y%Yf 1f wY4SY Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II ---------------I Control: Protected -Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I--------------- il--------------- ---------------I Volume module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 418 92 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 418 92 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Fut: 196 1484 180 65 1223 257 295 627 192 202 418 92 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 206 1562 189 68 1287 271 311 660 202 213 440 97 . Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.49 0.12 0.04 0.40 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves: #***kf#RR#Yt4T!#!1f*fi**+t##}*4##fi#+wx*###k****}{i#4#T4#+x*#ff4#*Yk#x*xRkRfYxw# Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA C 37 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) k4kS*Y}}fRffff*Y*RfffRff!#tf4llRkY*f*f!##Rfi#i##ffR*#Rf##ik####4YRff*}ffff i#RR## Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) ####k#kRR44#fRRRit###4kf***fk*Sf*R#kfikkRfff*ff*RI}4ffff*!f#*lflR4f kflk<kf 4k#YYRR Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C( 19.61 ~!i!f#f#f#k#4kk4#R*f##R#kf#4k*f#k*R#f*RRfRRf*R###Rff RR*RRRf#R*}tif#RRhRff#*Rf*Rf Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 0 1754 28 0 1602 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1754 28 0 1602 D 0 0 0 0 0 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1754 28 0 1602 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 • User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1846 29 0 1686 0 0 D 0 0 0 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1846 29 0 1686 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FolloWUpTim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXXX 3.3 I--------------- ---------------II---------------II---------------1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 938 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 269 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 269 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.09 ~ Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.3 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 LOS by Move: * * * ' * * * " * * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx XXXXXX xxxxxx 19.6 ApproachLOS: * * * C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 38 EXPM Mon Oct 31, 2005 16:16:47 Page 5-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) }Ya*ftfrxlrrfffxt+#frfr•rxxrtf*Yrxiwwrf•ffwfrf+f+r+f wri+rwffY**+kwww}waw#*#+#+kk Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) #wi#**+##rY*#}fiYiw}}###rk4*1f}#tYfYff}Rkf}fa*###*f kwrw}xxkf k*•*Yr*r*iwr#xt#akYf Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 41.61 ix*k4*kwtrxi*'Y+A**f*Y+##rx4+k#w+Y+*+##k#k*w**#w***+wwawww*w*w+k*###k4kk*wt*#}#f* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled - Stop sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 Volume Module: Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 1782 0 0 1596 6 3 0 40 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 28 1876 0 '0 1680 - 6 3 0 42 0 0 0 • Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 28 1876 0 0 1680 6 3 0 42 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: - Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx . Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1686 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2678 xxxx 843 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 384 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 18 xxxx 311 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 384 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 17 xxxx 311 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.07 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx I--------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 15.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C • * * * * ' ' ` ` ' Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 143 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 41.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * • * * * * E ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 41.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * E Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 39 • • EXPM Mon - Oct 31, 2005 16: 16:47 Page 6-1 3862 Ro semead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Stu dy City of Rosemead Level of Service Computat ion Report ICU I(LOSS as Cycle Len gth t) Method (Fu ture Volume Alte rnative) *+#1Rf***#wRR RR4Rl4iY44#f+Rrt}R f1*}4YiftrtRlRRf+F t4f Yklf#fYYYRRFR if*fiRfYf4ff+#w1f Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St *f4frtR**4f*#f if*fi**#**if#RF#R ###*ii#*###Rrt###* #44*Lfi Yih*hR*!*# Ri###W44#Rf#f#*Yf Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.006 Loss Time (se c): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxx X Optimal Cycle : 100 Level Of Service: F i#*#RR##iRw4l fRfrtRR+i41tY4*iff #rtifiiRRiR4f#*41Y4 YRfRf RffRfF*Yfff ff*R Rf 4if #RFwRRR} Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marsha ll St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound. Movement: L - T - R L - T - R II L - T - R 1 L - 1__--- T - R ---_----__I -----____---I Control: II Protected Protected - Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 11 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1---__--__--___-I -----__-----I Volume Module : 11 Count Date: 5 Oct 2005 << PM Peak Base Vol: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Fut: 74 1708 212 169 1495 37 75 248 85 187 169 111 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 78 1798 223 178 1574 39 79 261 89 197 178 117 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 78 1798 223 178 1574 39 79 261 89 197 178 117 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 78 1798 223 ____II 178 1574 39 _---__---______il 79 261 89 -_______----__-I 197 I__-- 178 117 _---_---__-I -----__-__--I Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 -1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.21 0.79 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 - II 1600 3123 77 il 1600 2383 817 I 1600 I---- 1931 1269 -----------I I Capacity Anal ysis - Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.56 0.14 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: i*i*4i*4+YY4f Y*#Rfih*R#4*h+Yf** h+#i*f*+f+*h**#+f *hRhhifF#*i**i+* R##+R f#+f*!*+YfRR • Traffix 7.7.0715 (C) 2004 DOWling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 40 • FutNOProjAM _ Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 2-1 _ 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed -Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report - Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in , LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.038 F xxxxx 1. 038 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 20.6 0.000 C 20.6 0. 000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou D 26.8 0.000 D 26.8 0. 000 + 0.000 D/V - # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St E xxxxx 0.915 E xxxxx 0 .915 + 0.000 V/C • Traf£ix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 41 n LJ FutNOProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15: 04:42 Page 3-1 3862 Ro semead Boulevard _ Mixed-Use T raffic Impact Study City of Rosemead - Level of Service Computat ion Report ICU 1(Loss as cycle Len gth Method (Fu ture Volume Alternative) 1tf**RkMRRRR#t*#+1f*RR*Rft*k}R R#{4R{<R}Rf<*R<R} fY#R*kR*R+#{R1Rltiffi#tif 4#*RRk#R Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd R{f{1f*};1ff}*}**fR***tffflRk# Y****#ktR#RRfR*t* R#ttlR*t*tR**+ktt4R}ffRkftt*fitR*R Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.038 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxx x Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F }}t*1**«*1k*lffR*kf**+Y*i#+YR} ff*t#+{Rttf#*RRRR f 4RRtkk4tf {RRf{RRRt}++iff {f Rff+#i Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R ~ L - T - R ___--II L - T - R __-__I ____________I_______________II Control: Protected -_________-----I Protected Protected Protected Rights: include - include - Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 7_1 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 initial Put: 224 1424 107 52 1511 252 174 392 224 182 546 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 413 236 192 575 155 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 d13 236 192 575 155 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 236 1499 113 55 1591 265 183 413 236 192 575 155 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 .1.00 Final sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.47 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.10 Crit Moves: «*f* - f}+* ###RFRff*f#+f+fft#1f*RR#lfRkR4 R##1RR*RR*Rk}+{+* k*Rf R4*}41 RtRk1*1«}tt tttlk;R<fRt< L Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 42 0 • • FutNOProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) f1flww*+++4!}4x+w*x*x###**4xlRlxwlwwx*+#wxxxkxxff++:fY4+kf4fifwxx*++kkxRlxxRxlxx* Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) f1f+llwY4f;*4R}f!}lRftlt**fifi1+1*f!!f*{+ffll44R4*4+ff{kt##f*!ltl ltR#x*x*Yf4R 1RxlR Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level-Of Service: C[ 20.61 **x*fxw++4t#Rw*#Rxx***kk+4+ftx*RtRww****f***f xxR1Rl14fRY*Y4*++R4R!*4ifl1fYY4fYlR Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: - L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------II--------------- ---___________-I---_-______--__ Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ---------------I--------------- _----_______---I~__---___-----__I Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 1673 8 0 1939 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1761 8 0 2041 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1761 8 0 2041 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 _11 11 I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 885 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 Move Cap.: xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 292 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.21 - _-_____---__I---------------I___-----___-___II__-__________--I____---__------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.8 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx.xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 20.6 LOS by Move: ' " * * * * * * " C Movement: LT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx:xx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxa x SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: " * * * " * * x * x } x ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 20.6 ApproachLOS: * ' * C Traffix 7.7,0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 43 • . 9 FutNoProj AM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 20 00 HCM UnsignaliZed Method (Future Volume Alternati ve) #f*f11ff*#*## *#ff ifYlff*R#ffY#*!*##kfRlff###fif!!i#}kM!#lf rtkflf # f#k;*!k#f**k*#Yf Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) 11f*f!***t*** *f*##kY#k**##fY***##i#fiffYff*}#}}#1f#Yif lff*1ff1f# ###*#*f!#*****## Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 26.81 #*#*##}#!f#f# *!#fff**k#fYf#f#**k#4Y*#Yf11ff##ikif l#fff#iiiff#SR" ***Y#i#}11fi**## Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound west sound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R -----------I Control: II Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume module : AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 58 1679 0 0 1924 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 User Ad5: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9S 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 61 1767 0 0 2025 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 61 1767 0 0 2025 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 x xxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Modu le: Cnflict Vol: 2041 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1021 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 280 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 238 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 280 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 238 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.31 - xxxx xxxx xxxx --------------I I Level Of Serv - ice Module: - Queue: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 21.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 26.8 x xxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C D Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Sharedqueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: x xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx x xxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 26.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: • ' D • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 44 • • FutNOProjAM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:04:42 Page 6-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Los5 as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) ff}tktk*t44fi RxR}wttt+fifit+it*.ffftitlt+#YYi}tf++i+f kir++ktit++t+##+fifffwYw#YY444 Intersection Y.4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St flflfY+it*YY#*f*+tf 4kYYY4*4**f#t##fYfftkti4}wRlffftif 4444kY}}ktf}kttR*RRfRtf lt#Y Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.915 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E Y4}**RwY#Rff#44kw+}wk***fftYRf444ffiwRfflflwf4++44**f*#t}Rf4f }wi4ffl##41f kk**t#ff Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Put: 52 1472 77 97 1789 49 59 91 118 149 319 99 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 1549 81 102 1883 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 1549 81 102 1883 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 . PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 55 1549 81 102 1883 52 62 96 124 157 336 104 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.0D 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.53 0.47 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3115 85 1600 1600 1600 1600 2442 758 I--------------- --.-------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.48 0.05 0.06 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: f"+" fRf+ 4w"" #R#####*#**#*#**#*wki##i*rt*+f#t++4ffk+#+}R+}4*R4Y#k***kw+RR*}ifk*t*f*}ffiY#4f4RY Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 45 0 • • FutNoProj PM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.004 F xxxxx 1.004 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 20.7 0.000 C 20.7 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou C 19.1 0.000 C •19.1 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.039 F xxxxx 1.039 + 0.000 V/C is Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • " 46 FutNoProj PM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 3-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) rf1+1+f1+Y4#4!***t#1*+#ff4iw lrtwrtr<fw4f #Yf LY44ffr11R tff 4##+4444#1!(*fffli!*4fwR## Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd t#r#*f!!*Rf#*4141###1*f*f*#4r*wrt}«ff<1Y#f#f##1z4*!!4144<1##f##44*###*##4**#}##*# Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.004 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F }+#R«f Yf4wl+Sfllfwl*wR#k}f<1R+#4rt##w4**+f#ff<f<f44!*1+**1f 1f w4f<*#Yfflfl*fkf*+# Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II H II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 212 1538 197 66 1262 262 301 640 200 211 426 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 223 1619 207 69 1328 276 317 674 211 222. 448 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 223 1619 207 69 1328 276 317 674 211 222 448 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 223 1619 207• 69 1328 - 276 317 674 211 222 448 99 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves: ***f w### f«f# +##k4rlfxlrl<f<x1*tfzfl+frzlrwffY4•Yrt+r4##w•r4ffrzfff+++w+w##+x+##+*##+t1f#1f}* Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 47 0 0 0 FutNOProj PM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ' }+R#a###+#YYf1+###4*+##R#RrtRkkf+#4*####Rf#RRR+R#+#4#*i44R###t#i!t*kY4Y}rt**f4*+Yk Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) #f##i#4S#R#RYRfif#f*4ft#Y4}lYRY##!f1*Yt#t!#i#+T##t##f Yif#*fRk#f#ii#if#4f#Rfff*R## Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 20.71 lRR4#t#*f##Ri#kRRR#RRx##+4rtfil4lkRt#R##+lY4RYk#R}#4+#4f4fff}!#Rlfi i#R}#f##YY###R!f Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1838 29 0 1657 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 Initial Bse: 0 1838 29 0 1657 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1838 29 0 1657 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1935 31 0 1744 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1935 31 0 1744 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTia:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 983 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 252 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 252 Volume/Cap: rxxx.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.09 I--------------- ---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.3 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 20.7 LOS by Move: t Y # t * + # * + Y } C Movement: LT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: x . * f a # R + x f R ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 20.7 Approachl,OS: - R f • C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 48 0 0 FutNOProj PM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:05:07 Page 5-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) 4fffYffflf##Yf 11*Rff#kt###fYYfR4fRlT*4//*Rfl+flt#i*4YY##MYfY##Yf Af#f##RtR##4fRMf Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) **#R1R*#*R#R**k4##*#R4*ittkRt#f#RRYflfYfif#f*Y*R*44t##/Yf#tfklf*Rtt**/#*tf#Y#f*4 Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.11 Yfif/tfff4fl/tt/#4t4R#4#RffRf#ffRF44t141R4tififff#fYf>#fY#YY4#Rf 4ifl1ff 111f tt1f# Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II_____----_----_I--------------- Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ___------___I_______________II___--__--___--_I~-------_____-____-_--__-~ Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 1867 0 0 1651 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 1867 0 D 1651 6 0 0 41 D 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 1867 0 0 1651 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 29 1965 0 0 1738 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 • Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 29 1965 0 0 1738 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx _______________H 11 11 I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1744 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 872 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 298 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 365 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 298 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.14 xxxx xxxx xxxx ___________________________11 11 11 Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 15.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C C f # + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ' * + # + 4 * t R t # f ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C ' Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 49 • FutNoProj PM Thu Oct 27, 2005 15: 05:07 Page 6-1 3862 Ro semead Boulevard Mixed-Use - T raffic Impact Study City of Rosemead - Level Of Service Computat ion Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Len gth 8) Method (Fu ture Volume Alternativ e) R}RTfIRf*fkY# ffiR**R#fff#fTR**k liRkkl4lt##4*4#!# !##Rt#kYR#kfi#R44kk}kYh f RR*}#k4lRT Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St 1111#8*}t#}1 R }*4fR*tf 4R*R!!t*f #41111}1t*kIRRRRR tTYlf i1!*Yff1*T1t4!*1f Rtf lT4f11kT Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.039 Loss Time (se c): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xscxxxx Optimal Cycle : 100 Level of Service: P 1f 4484!R*fRRR **}ttllfi4!!Rt#kt* t*!!*T#FF***}}#l1 lYt*4R1t1Y4144Yt*tR4#t lik4!*tk*T* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound We st Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I L - I T - R ----------I Control: II Protected Protected Protected Pr otected Rights: Include Include include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ----------I I Volume Module : PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Fut: 77 1790 218 172 1548 38 77 253 87 191 172 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 81 1884 229 181 1629 40 81 266 92 201 181 119 Saturation Fl ow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600'-1600 .1600 1600 1600 1600. 1600 _ 1600 1600 adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.49 0.51 1.00 1.21 0.79 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3123 77 1600 2381 819 1600 1931 1269 ----------I I Capacity Anal ysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.59 0.14 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.09 D.09 Crit Moves: r}" h1f 41 RRt11}RR RkR#!4}14##418#*f }R*}fT4MRRRRlIIRfII fiTT*fiR#1R*!*tf k#llkR t4YtT+T*4!f • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 50 • 0 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead impact Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection Base Del/ V/ LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.043 # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 22.2 0.000 # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou D 27.5 0.000 # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St E xxxxx 0.923 Future Change Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C F xxxxx 1.043 + 0.000 V/C C 22.2 0.000 + 0.000 D/V D 27.5 0.000 + 0.000 D/V E xxxxx 0.923 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • • • 51 0 • • FutProjAM wed - Nov 30, 2005 10: 26:19 Page 3-1 - 3862 Ro semead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Stu dy City of Rosemead Level of Service Computat ion Report ICU 1( Loss as Cycle Len gth Method (Fu ture Volume Alternative) if RRfiRlfR#11 R fkYtk Rf RRYfRftRtt }Yf#Rif RRRYYRfIfR ##fYlkffRRR4RRflffYff# rtYf R#YffY*R Intersection N1 Ro semead Blvd at Valley Blvd ##+f+YYf#tfff 44*RY 4RrtfRRRR}R#! #R}!4#fR##tR+lRh# 1f4#4RhRRR1ti}R}#ff#1ft#YffffMffR cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.043 Loss Time (se c): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle : 100 Level Of Service: F #}4R!}RR##1R} f##tY tRR1f*i#4t4f flRfifflfffYfRIRRR }!f*RRRttIfRf#Yfif IRYRRfRtRlfftrtfY Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: Nor th Bound South Bound Fast Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R 1 L - T - R 1 L - 1 T - R Control: Pr 11 otected 1 Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Lanes: -----------I I Volume Module : AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 228 1430 110 52 1517 252 174 392 227 185 546 147 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 228 1430 110 52 1517 252 174 392 227 185 546 147 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • PasserByVol: 0 6 0 0 1430 110 0 0 0 52 1517 252 0 0 0 174 392 227 0 185 0 0 546 147 Initial Fut: 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 240 1505 116 55 1597 265 183 413 239 195 575 155 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 240 1505 116 55 1597 265 183 413 239 195 575 155 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 240 - 1505 116 55 1597 265 ---------------I 183 413 239 I____---------__I 195 575 155 __--_---_--I ---__----_--I---- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: .1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 ,1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 -----------I I----- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.47 0.07 0.03 0.50 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.10 Crit Moves: '•f# «R#R R+f+ i#Rf++R+#Y*f+f#fi+#t#tRRflR4++fYitRflftt4fRY## Rt+Yf 411f1R*R+llR tfi l4R R*R#YY4RRRRR • Tra£fix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 52 0 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 4-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) }4Rf*YY*#k*}Mf4*Y##tR}41tif*R*RRffflfitflt#YYiiki*YfffiifStfl1111f ifF*#Ff *F4t#4f Intersection ,42 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) !*R*##*ilkfrtR#R*Y!1!#fiffit**t#*{R#4tY##ttR*fi**RF141f#t**#4if }t1f RRt**ff114i*fY Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 22.21 rtkfikRt#Y#Yfi}*4*Rf!**#fklflk#tYfififflt!!**kt444Y#*rt#tft*f#4i#it#itRf***RfRR##*4#4f Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 _ Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 1679 8 0 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 • PHF Volume: 0 1767 8 0 2067 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1767 8 0 2067 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ---1--------------- II---------------I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 888 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 291 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 'xxxx xxxx 291 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.28 I--------------- II---------------I Level of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.1 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 22.2 LOS by Move: ! 4 f f f * R i f f R C Movement: IT - LTA - RT LT - LTR - RT IT - LTA - RT IT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * ' * * * * * ' * ' ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.2 ApproachLOS: * * * C , Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MM.A, LOS ANGELES, CA • 53 61 0 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 5-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report - 20 00 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternat ive) ##f114**R#4RR f*tff*#fMf}*kkRtt#}IfYY#Yff4f1R1kf####RYffY#f 41*## #if#f#IfiY#kkffff Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) #Yf#i#R#tkff# f*#}#*#Y#fff4RkYf#*f*itt#YY#Y*f11f#*###*#411Yf11R* fklf #kRf#t#f1RRkf Average Delay Isec/veh): 0.9 Worst Case Level Of Service : D( 27.51 ♦#tYt#k#k###f f1*#kYt#flfRf##f#kkt4#####t###1R#f#*R#+#f Yi4#f#Rf R *f###*#t*k##kflfY Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Gues s St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------------I I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ---------------I I Volume Module : AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 ' 0 70 0 0 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Flit: 58 1679 31 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 • PHF Volume: 61 1767 33 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final vol.: 61 1767 33 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 6 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowupTim: - 2.2 root xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 - - Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2067 xxxx xx xx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1034 xxxx xxxx 900 Potent Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx 285 Move Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx 285 Volume/Cap: 0.22 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 xxxx xxxx 0.02 ---------------i I--------------- Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxx 0.1 Stopped Del: 21.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 27.5 xxxxx xxxx 17.9 LOS by Move: C k • # ` ` # # D C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXXx xxXXX Shrd StpDel:x xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: # ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.5 17.9 ApproachLOS: * # D C • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 54 FutProjAM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26:19 Page 6-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study _ City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) f{R{t 1fik11x4iRYYYYf4R*tft{RtY*ffifYf*Yttllft*tkYYfttll kRfl rtttt4tflf#RYYrtlk#k4fYtf Intersection #4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St f4fiiifF*{4f#kfi4{Y#f##4***#1#44##4{#ff#fi{#k#44YhtfkRRR#!f{4R{!RR#1ff*R*###4#Rf Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.923 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXXXXX Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E t{11hf 4iRtRRttRRR#fR1R**}44{ttRlFRfit1R*iRRf#1R14ffitRf klkk#R}R}11 }ff 11 R*}f1f*{k Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 11 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Nodule: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Initial Put: 52 1488 77 99 1805 51 61 91 118 149 319 101 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 1566 81 104 1900 - 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Reduced Vol: 55 1566 81 104 1900 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 55 1566 81 104 1900 54 64 96 124 157 336 106 ____________I_______________II_______________II_____________-_II_______________ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.52 0.48 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3112 88 1600 1600 1600 1600 2430 770 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.49 0.05 0.07 0.61 0.61 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: ++f+ +frtf +4Rf k*kitf{ktt#**#**k*+R*{*#**i***#}#f44}##*#!##Yt#i*R#R#R*#14i*R**ffk****#*#*R{i*** Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to YMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 11 55 • FutProj PM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 2-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd F xxxxx 1.013 F xxxxx 1.013 + 0.000 V/C # 2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Nor C 22.9 0.000 C 22.9 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (Sou C 20.3 0.000 C 20.3 0.000 + 0.000 D/V # 4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St F xxxxx 1.049 P xxxxx 1.049 + 0.000 V/C • • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 56 FutProj FM Wed NOV 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 3-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) i#kRff#f44fhifl;#tf44f4Yf!*iklktf#Ri#it#;k##!##*4**iikfk};44#hYRk;#t#RfYYiY44Y4f Intersection #1 Rosemead Blvd at Valley Blvd *k#*R#ftfiffYf%*};*f1f4YYf*I4#*ff#Rf#kk*R*k**#k#}**4*}}!#4Y4!*ikiiif#f i4W4i#i}}k Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 1.013 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F 44k}lY4ilk}lkflk4WRfiWfi4Y4Yk!*lktkfifiRii##1fi RRRkR TikiYR4#ffhfiYf;ifflfkRRY#Yf1f!!R Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Valley Blvd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement': L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R '11---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 -----_-__---I--------------- Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216 426 94 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216 426 94 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 217 1546 201 66 1270 270 301 640 205 216 426 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 228 1627 212 69 1337 284 317 674 216 227 448 99 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.51 0.13 0.04 0.42 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.06 Crit Moves: flkf aff Rf.f }f44f4#i4ff4ffYf4kf44}**##f#R44fifR*}*ii*4#*!};*fffYf Yf#f##4ff14f R41k**#f#f*'+;*k Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 57 • 0 n LJ FutProj PM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 4-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) }+}}+f#}+rffrtt♦r}afafw+rf+•f*tf##t}}ff#t}}}tt+t+f+x**f}t}+#f##f+af#+Y+#f wf xf+ff Intersection #2 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (North Leg) f}#*}***++*#}44+1*}Y##w+f}}ofkt+###Y}4##asf#tY*4*fr**f###f+f+###t}}k*tfRf tt#fitt Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 22.91 +}w}}f+f##*xtf#+#}f++wff#f}++*a+#+a**f♦aa*}}#}}f*fff+++*f#}+++x##}+++t++#**+#a}f Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include 'Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ,_-11 Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 1846 29 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 • User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 D.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 1943 31 0 1780 0 0 0 D 0 0 49 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 0 1943 31 0 1780 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 _______________11 11 11 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx XXxX xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 987 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx XXxxx xxxx XxxX xxxxx xxxx xxxx 250 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx >o= xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 250 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.20 _______________11 11 11 Level Of Service Module: Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.7 Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx XXXXx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 22.9 LOS by Move: # ' ` - ' ` f r # ` } + C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ' } * * t * f ' } # * + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 22.9 ApproachLOS: C • Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 20D4 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 58 0 • FutProj PM Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 - Page 5-1 - 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) i#f+f}}fYY*f f#lhfi rlfY#SYY**k*ff*#*##14#ffxff4kkk*Yf 1f l+Y#1*wl++Y+#*##Rf###*xYf#k Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) k***f**+k##fw*##++rtkf#w##*Y**Y*x*xkR!#YY###w***Y4#rtxf#+}f*kR4#t*#*ff+*4iff+*hw*k Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 Worst Case Level Of Service : C( 20.31 r#xexfifxffYf+r++fff#lf+fr##*f##+++*#*#+**ff#+*+f#+fYfkw+f rflf#fY*#f11+f•rrYfYYf Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound - South Bound- East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R - L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 8 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6" 0 0 41 0 0 8 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 28 1867 42 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 8 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 29 1965 44 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 8 • Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 29 1965 44 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 8 Critical Gap Module: - Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 x xxxx xxxx 3.3 - -Capacity module: Cnflict Vol: 1780 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 890 xxxx xxxx 1005 Potent Cap.: 354 xxxx.xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx 243 Move Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx 243 Volume/Cap: I 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx 0.03 - Level of Service Module: -----i Queue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 x xxxx xxxx 0.1 Stopped Del: 16.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 x xxxx xxxx 20.3 LOS by Move: C * * • * * * * C * * C Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.6 20.3 ApproachLOS: * * C C Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to 1,Mk, LOS ANGELES, CA LI 59 n LJ FutProjPF. Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:28:42 Page 6-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length Method (Future Volume Alternative) *t#lkflkllftlif#RRRf*tt*111#1#fY#R1R111f*fitfft*****}lf Rf *f ###***#ttt}tf It*t##!R Intersection N4 Rosemead Blvd at Marshall St *ftilltRt}t4**1R#*f#1t*4f#111#1##R#1114}##f#ffflttt!14#!41#Y##***##!1111*****### Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 1.049 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXXXXX Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: F #*11114111f1if!*t1t1RR#RRt*}R}ltttt#R}111 141!!1!!!!#f*!###**#*#*f ##111*ffft***1t Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Marshall St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 11_,____-________--------------- 11 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ___________________________11 11 Volume Module: PM Peak Hour Base Vol: 77 1814 218 174 1569 40 79 253 87 191 172 115 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 1814 218 174 1569 40 79 253 87 191 172 115 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Put: 77 1814 218 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 1909 229 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 1909 229 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 81 1909 229 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3200 1600 ____________I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.60 0.14 Crit Moves: ;f.f • 0 0 174 1569 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 183 1652 0 0 183 1652 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 183 1652 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.95 1600 3120 0.11 0.53 f*## k*#t#*#*RR# 0 40 1.00 0.95 42 0 42 1.00 1.00 42 1600 1.00 0:05 so 0.53 !#YRf* 0 0 79 253 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 83 266 0 0 83 266 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 B3 266 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.49 1600 2381 0.05 0.11 rfff!#1RR** 0 87 1.00 0.95 92 0 92 1.00 1.00 92 1600 1.00 0.51 819 0.11 0 0 0 191 172 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 201 181 121 0 0 0 201 181 121 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 201 181 121 2600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.-00 1.20 0.80 1600 1918 1282 0.13 0.09 0.09 Traffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA 60 4/ 0 APPENDIX C PROJECT SITE PLAN C, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates • 61 GUESS ST. m 0 w y 0 C I ~IF:o an' 9LF ~ pe x9.x i¢ a:~a1°xe ass ~ ~ ~1 _ _ x ~ ~ fp R n 4n yy a } $ F.. ao as{ ~ C S 'Y3, 35R BB p~ e ~ ~4~' xxE F 3 aE e 8 g ~ u n~g x~ ~ ~30 ~ ~ex ~gg Ea~3g 4n~~ p "saa ~.918s~9 119§ 5 .n Et WH U F7 e ~ ~ ~ 6F 3~i x oj4 £p r i 3 P~11B ®3O xIR T.P L I I' I. I, I~ I~ i I. I: I: I~ I' I Y® F I' I I ~ I j IPA g I S I' I I I I'. L-Lil I' F-- I l I ®v ~I I ®Y I ,ry,L. I I: I • • _ _ 9. e. s 9 n. 9 E { 3 a::s.. {8 f a { p R E i ,3 2 0 ro I d %q° a 6 E Jill~ 3'fP ~~j % ?E~ n H ~e994y P a 6 i•{Sp~~,a 93 Ry ; E sM.Rc$§ %i ~ T% 9. d 2 4A R 4 3Pa EP^Y$ o§ { R~a{ { ~ ~t s~T c ~ia 6x4 B4 f• ~ i~jA Yx9 ~ 8~ k ag'n•°E3' 4 6P{s § a 9 %p {t i B e. 4 ' i'' 'Tg °4 iY L r' S i` • ~ s ~ ° ~ g,~ 3~§~ 5y~ 4]3~ j ~ ;%p~~pp ~iF 4%5~S a{E Ts~~jx~•3{~,.t ~~pp~% t3 9t~q PI i ~ ~ ~s EJ {YrP s 6a tl-§ $ 4$E8 =%F t~ :8 P° ~ 3 E zsf S p§ 9 B 8 i A ,3 g§~ n' Z F~~4~.~ SEtd¢ P~ a ~4 r 36 t 3§3 ^ff ea !!!•si~ :$F§ aBB '41 oR ?s°~ 4 8.4t'S x 5 a3x3 6 SB 6 % p o e R 63 0 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTAL INTERSECTION IMPACT ANALYSIS 0 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates FutPro5AM Thu Mar 1, 2007 15:04:55 Page 3-1 • 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) *k+*wY#*wY#*Y+*#Y*##+#k+#####+x#a#hh*i##**#++h%#.,+w*k#+#+#YY*+R#+*Yt *I.R#h#*#k#+R Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) #k*+R*wkk*###*Y*r+Rr*R***»+*»k»r+Y#rYr****Rk+#+++++*+*+w *w*w*»+*+**#»YkkY»r**Y+Y Average Delay (sec/veh): D.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.51 R+#k#YYY**+*#YR4*#Y+Y*#+#i*ii#+i*R4+###fYk#rrR+####+Y*4i#***+###RYf *###+*k##+##w Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R _______________II_--__---______-II_--------_---__II-__--____--_---I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 _------__---I---------------If___--____---___II-__-----------_II---------- -----I Volume Module: AM Peak Hour Base Vol: 70 1679 0 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 1679 0 0 1949 is 0 0 70 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 70 1679 0 0 1949 15 0 0 70 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 74 1767 0 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 74 1767 0 0 2052 16 0 0 74 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx --______---_I---------------II--------------- II--------------- II--_--__-------_I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 2067 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1034 xrrx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxr. xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 274 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx rxrx xxxx 233 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.27 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 xxxx xxxx xxxx I II------II_-_____-----___II---------------I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 1.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 22.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxr. xxxxx xxxx 27.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C * + ` * # * * D * . # Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx rxrx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ` + + « « Y + * + Y + ApproachDel: xxxxxx xrxxxx 27.5 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * D Tra£fix 7.7.0715 (c) 20D4 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to YYA, LOS ANGELES, CA • 65 • FutProj PN, Thu Mar 1, 2007 15:07:20 Page 3-1 3862 Rosemead Boulevard Mixed-Use Traffic Impact Study City of Rosemead Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCN. Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) x##xw+*x«x*r#xxxx«}x+x+##*«*#«rr«##+rrrRrx*«r«r«w**}r w.r x«xkwe}rrR**«*r##wr+R++}r Intersection #3 Rosemead Blvd at Guess St (South Leg) Y}+*«4*Y*#Y4+*Rk#Y4+#RY+i##*}«#Y}##}*#{}}+}*}4t***##k*44kkk*}Yhxk*#}4k#k#**R#*}* Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.61 xxYtxr}«+xkx#+r}}rxrY«*«k#}+«Y«}+r«+rxrrr++rrxrr***+*}r**x*+#*«w*}x+wr}***}«x+}* Street Name: Rosemead Blvd Guess St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I---------------II_---____-------II---------------II-----_--------I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0 1 0 _____________II-__-----_______II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: PM Peak Rour Base Vol: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.U0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 '0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 initial Fut: 43 1867 0 0 1685 6 0 0 41 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • PHF Adj:- 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 45 1965 0 0 1774. 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Final Vol.: 45 1965 0 0 1774 6 0 0 43 0 0 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx _______________II--------------- II--------------- II--___---__---__I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 1780 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 890 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290. xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 354 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 290 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 xxxx xxxx xxxx I II -------II--------------- 11--------------_I Level Of Service Module: Queue: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 0.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Stopped Del: 16.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: C C * * + Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0 SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: ` * * * * * . * * * ` k ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx. 19.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C ?raffix 7.7.0715 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to MMA, LOS ANGELES, CA E 66 4/ L George, • Attached is the revised report for 3862 Rosemead Blvd. As you requested, we reviewed the previous traffic impact analysis, originally showing project-related traffic traveling down Guess Street, to determine if any significant impacts occur at study intersections if the project driveway located on Guess Street were to be restricted to a left-turn only exit. Our review determined that this restriction would not result in any significant impacts at either of the Guess Street at Rosemead Boulevard intersections. Matthew Simons, T.E. Senior Traffic Engineer Iteris, Inc. 707 Wilshire Boulevard 1 Suite 4810 Los Angeles 1 CA 190017 tel 213.488.0345 1 fax 213.488.9440 email: mis@iteris.com <<Final Rosemead Mixed Use Report 3rd Rev.10-29-07 • • 67 40 0 • •ART OF ATTACHMENT C CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. Commissioner Vuu led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice-Chairman Kunioka delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice-Chairman Kunioka, Commissioners Bevington and Vuu ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Bermejo, Trinh, and Yin EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Attorney Yin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forward. None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. General Plan Amendment 07-06. Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-106.4 Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 069079 - 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Boulevard. Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new mixed-use development project consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant space on 1.04 acres of land located at 9016 Guess Avenue 3862 Rosemead Boulevard, in the R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential) zone. Resolution No. 07-50 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 EXHIBIT D Page 1 of 27 0 0 • PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 AND RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET ZONE (APN: 8594-009-001, 8594-009-002, and 8594-009-004). Presentation: Senior Planner George Agaba Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07-06, Zone Change 05-222, Conditional Use Permit 06-1064, Planned Development Review 06-04, and Tentative Tract Map 069079. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 07-50. Senior Planner Agaba stated the applicant and representatives were present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the applicant or architect. Mr. Michael Sun of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, the architect of the project, stated since the last meeting, they've been working closely with staff to come up with a • solution. He said they feel comfortable and accept all conditions. Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he wants to clarify some things before these issues come up later. He said the current mass of the structure makes it look very imposing. He said the traffic generation is less than what was expected. He said although the structure is quite large, most of it is residential. Mr. Sun stated the traffic report shows very minimum impact. Vice-Chairman Kunioka discussed about the rooftop garden. He questioned if they have any awareness of how that will affect the energy cost to the building. Mr. Sun stated it will have a green building effect. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Brian Lewin questioned if the use of the unit on the corner of Guess Street is now office only. Senior Planner Agaba stated yes. • Mr. Adrian Suzuki of 8608 Edmond Drive, a resident, stated he is all in favor of mixed use projects. He said several elements should be incorporated and a lot is ignored in the developments in Rosemead. He would like to inquire the developer on how they are Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 27 • • 0 • • • occupying the spaces. Mr. Sun stated the office portion will be subdivided. He said there will be one owner and tenants that may rent the space. He also said there will be some retail shops and one restaurant space as well. He then said the upper levels will be residential. Mr. Sidney Rubinstein of 9026 Guess Street, a neighboring resident, stated he is not against the project, but questions if sound wall can be installed first. He said his neighbor, residing at 9020 Guess Street, is an ill man who had a stroke, is on a wheelchair, and has breathing problems, so he would like that to be built first. Chairman Lopez said they have resolved that issue at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View; a resident, stated he would like to talk about Table 6 of the EIR. He said under item 6a)(ii), "less than significant with mitigation" should be marked, not "less than significant impact." He said the reason is, we're putting up projects in the city and not adjusting for nearby earthquakes or soil. He said it will just be like the Mission project. He said no one in our staff is checking the draft EIR. He then referred to the text of 6a)(iii) and said it talks about liquefaction, but we haven't been doing the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. Chairman Lopez questioned if staff is looking at faults or any possibilities when these • projects are submitted into the city. City Planner Everling stated those items are reviewed through the CEQA process. Mr. Flournoy stated it's clear that there's a seismic hazard zone, but it doesn't say what mitigation is required to fix it. Senior Planner Agaba stated the proposed mitigation measure says this project is not within an identified fault zone, however, it's within a liquefaction zone. He said the map that the city has, signed by the city geologist, refers to another code, Public Resource Code Section 2691, which says if the Planning Commission approves this project; it will come back before building permit issuance. He said the applicant must comply with all the recommendations by.the geologist. Chairman Lopez questioned where this information is stored and where it can be obtained. He questioned if the right staff is determining whether the site meets state requirements. . Senior Planner Agaba stated if the Commission approves this project, they can condition that. City Planner Everling stated at the time of building permits, the plans will be stamped by a licensed structural engineer and that is reviewed. He said building permits are not ® issued to projects that are in violation. Flournoy stated not in this City and referred to other projects. He said a condition should Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 27 • • • • 0 • 0 be added requiring this. Mr. Bevington stated let's only discuss about this project. City Planner Everling stated seismic issues are not something the Planning Commission should review. He added that he and the Assistant City Manager has met with Mr. Flournoy last week and staff is adding level of review to projects. He said while Willdan is reviewing building permits, we will add another level of review by a staff geologist. He also said he knows that state law allows a civil engineer to review building plans for structural and/or a geologist. He said we are adding two opinions on these reports as they come in. Mr. Flournoy stated we are making progress. He said we want to make sure things' are done. He also said we need to give the heads up to people and formalize the fact that this is a condition that needs to be done. He then discussed about item 6c). Chairman Lopez stated we need to move on with this project. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. O Commissioner Bevington said he thinks the revised project has answered all his questions from the previous meeting. He said the only thing that concerns him is staffs mathematics on page 8. He wants to make sure there are only 32 residential units. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated the conditions in the staff report are not consistent with those in the resolution. He pointed out condition 21 in the staff report does not appear in the resolution. City Planner Everling stated that is a standard condition and staff will add it. Vice-Chairman Kunioka said the numbering is different as well. He said he has figured out that some conditions are combined. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff is transitioning into bringing the resolution with the staff report. He said the final conditions approved by the Planning Commission with be the final Conditions of Approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-06, ZONE CHANGE 05-222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06-04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079. • Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 27 • • C~ 0 0 • NO: NONE • ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Conditional Use Permit 06-1076 - 3201 Muscatel Avenue. Terence Kwok has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on an existing 6,645± square foot parcel currently occupied by a 940± square foot single-family residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling unit and replace it with a 2,990± square foot house and attached three-car garage. The subject site is located at 3201 Muscatel Avenue in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone. Resolution No. 07-51 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1076 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 2,990± SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED AT 3201 MUSCATEL AVENUE IN THE R-1; SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN: 5289-009-089). Presentation: Associate Planner Sheri Bermejo • Staff Recommendation: APPROVE - Conditional Use Permit 06-1076, subject to conditions, for six (6) months and ADOPT Resolution 07-51. Associate Planner Bermejo stated the representative was present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Sam Yam of 260 E. Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, the designer of the project, stated he is the designer and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Vice-Chairman Kunioka stated he is looking at the pictures and the property map and it appears to him that to the north of the proposed home should be a driveway going to the back house. Mr. Yam stated it's a subdivided lot and there is another driveway. Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned the driveway width. Associate Planner Bermejo stated 15 feet. • Vice-Chairman Kunioka questioned why the side yard setbacks are different. He then questioned if they are closer to the driveway or the other wall. Mr. Yam said it's closer to the other wall. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 27 • 0