HomeMy Public PortalAbout15) 8A TTM71721 Conti PHDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA
ITEM 8 .A .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
May 01,2012
The Honorable City Council
Jose E. Pulido, City Manage~
By: Steven M. Masura, Community Development Director
Via: Hesty Liu, Associate Planner
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
71721 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-1796 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TEN (10) CONDOMINIUMS AT 5549 SULTANA
AVENUE (DEXTER CORPORATION/HANK JONG).
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to:
a) Review this staff report, the draft resolution (12-2343 PC) from March 13, 2012
Planning Commission meeting recommending the adoption of a Negative
Declaration to approve Conditional Use Permit 11-1796 and Tentative Tract Map
71721 , conduct the continued public hearing ; and
b) Adopt Resolution No. 12-4812 and a Negative Declaration approving Conditional
Use Permit 11-1796 and Tentative Tract Map 71721 .
BACKGROUND:
1. On November 17, 2011, the City received an application proposing a residential
condominium subdivision project consisting of ten (1 0) units at 5549 Sultana
Avenue.
2 . On January 19, 2012 , city staff held a subdivision meeting with the property
owner/developer, developer's engineer, and staff from the Los Angeles County
Public Works to review conditions recommended for the proposed development.
City Council
May 01, 2012
Page2
3. On March 13, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposed
project. The Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and made the
recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796 and Tentative Tract Map 71721 .
4. On April 17, 2012, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review the
proposed project. After receiving the public testimony and in response to the
potential issues brought forth by the audience, the Council directed staff to provide
additional information and analysis concerning parking and traffic impacts of the
project. The item was continued to the Council's next regular meeting.
5. On April 18, 2012, staff contacted the City's Traffic Engineer and Local Sheriff's
station for comments regarding the project impact and data associated with crime
level in the past few years. Responses were received thereafter and are provided in
Attachments A, E, and K.
ANALYSIS
In response to the Council's concern and the issues raised related to the project, staff
conducted site visits, researched the existing data on file, and consulted with the Sheriff,
City Traffic Engineer, and the City Attorney.
As a result of the information compiled and the analysis by Staff, it is recommended that
the City Council approve the project. Staff believes there is adequate evidence to
support that there are no significant impacts associated with this project.
Below listed are the conclusion summaries of the areas of concern as understood by
Staff (Attachment A provides a detailed analysis of these items):
1. Projected Added Traffic Impact of The Project:
Conclusion : Existing levels of service on Sultana are well below capacity and the
project contributes a very small percentage increase in peak AM/PM hour trips that
would not change the level of service. No significant impact.
2. Overnight Parking and Factors Associated With Parking Demand (Between
Las Tunas Drive And Broadway Avenue):
Conclusion: There is remaining on-street parking capacity observed of over 25%
and existing overnight parking permit restrictions per unit will greatly limit the
number of new overnight parking permits issued . No significant impact.
City Council
May 01,2012
Page 3
3. Future Development/Redevelopment Potential In the Area:
Conclusion: The built out condition in the area will not result in a significant
amount of new residential development in the area. No significant impact.
4. Cumulative Traffic Impacts:
Conclusion: Declining traffic counts in recent years contributes to reduced overall
cumulative traffic impacts. No significant impact.
5. Number of Incidents in the Subject Area (3-year record with the local Sheriff
Station):
Conclusion: Sheriff's provided this data and will be available at the meeting to
further explain any significance. It appears that there is nothing abnormal here
compared to citywide statistics and given the high population density of the area .
6. Consideration of a Moratorium versus waiting for the Housing Element and
General Plan update:
Conclusion: A moratorium cannot be applied on a site specific basis and could
have unintended or negative development consequences citywide that should be
carefully weighed.
7. Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA:
Conclusion: There is not an imminent concern to not comply with the Permit
Streamlining Act provisions, however extended delays in the project decision must
take these time constraints into consideration
CONCLUSION:
The development is consistent with its land use designation having a below-the-maximum
density of 13.7 units per acre, as compared to the 18 units/per acre allowed by the zoning
standard. The project will also contribute to the 417 units of ~~affordable to above-
moderate income households" housing stock required by the State as part of the Housing
Element update . Potential traffic impact has been assessed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
and according to the trip generation projection, would not be a significant impact.
City Council
May 01, 2012
Page4
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration to
approve Tentative Tract Map 71721 and Conditional Use Permit 11-1796, based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution .
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 City Budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Analysis Details
B. Draft City Council Resolution No . 12-4812
C . Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-2343 PC
D. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 13, 2012 PC Staff Report dated March
13, 2012, and attachments thereto
E. Traffic Impact projection for the project
F. General Plan Circulation Elements
G. Citywide Traffic Count
H. Photos concerning Parking on the Street (AM and PM)
I. List of the Properties and Redevelopment Potential Rating
J. City Zoning Map
K. Sheriff information regarding Incidents from the Subject Area
L. CC Staff Report Dated April 17, 2012
M. PC Staff Report Dated March 13, 2012 and Attachments thereto
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF ANALYSIS DETAILS
In response to the Council's concern and the issues raised related to the project, staff
conducted site visits, researched the existing data on file, and solicited professional
opinions. The following provides a summary of collected information concerning the
various aspects of the project impact and potential ramifications. Staff finds that this
information and analysis provides evidence to support that there are not significant
impacts associated with this project .
1. Projected Added Traffic Impact of The Project:
• Trip Generation of the project is projected at 5.86 trips/per units at a total of 59
trips for the project. The peak hour trips are projected at 5 trips for AM and 6 for
PM using the project as the trip generator.
• The projected impact on the adjacent intersection is minimal at increased rate of
.003%.
• The current level of service (LOS) is A and B, and the project will not affect the
LOS of the street.
• Sultana Avenue is a collector street and the General Plan calls for a minimal of
LOS "C" to be provided.
• Total traffic counts on the affected street: 1,752 (note : between Olive Street and
Las Tunas).
• Latest traffic count indicates a reduced number of trips in the subject area in the
past five years (from 1,942 in 2005 to 1,752 in 2010). The general explanation of
the trend of reduced trips is the result of slower overall development and the
economic downturn in the past few years.
(Reference material : Attachments E, F, and G)
Conclusion: Existing levels of service on Sultana are well below capacity. No
significant impact.
2. Overnight Parking and Factors Associated With Parking Demand( Between
Las Tunas Drive And Broadway Avenue):
• Total number of housing units on the street (including single family residences):
255.
• Total number of condo units on the street: 49.
• Total number of overnight parking permits issued for the street: 34 (Total of
overnight parking permits city wide: 623).
• Number of overnight parking permits requested from condo projects: 12
• Total length of Sultana Avenue in the affected area (Approximation): 1,750 Feet
• Total capacity of street parking in the area (Approximation): 80
• Survey of the existing older developments (prior to 1960) indicates that onsite
Page 1 of 4
parking is generally provided at 1 per unit ratio.
• Survey of actual parking conditions AM (conducted on 4/24/2012, 11 :30 am,
reference pictures are attached).
o Total of 33 cars parked on Sultana Between Las Tunas and Broadway
o 11 could be identified with overnight parking permits.
• Survey of the actual parking conditions PM (conducted on 4/26/2012, 2:00AM).
o Total of 46 cars parked on Sultana Between Las Tunas and Broadway
o 44 identified with permits ( 4 Disabled Placards, 9 Daily Permits, 31 Annual
Permits, and 2 cars received citation).
• City regulations limit overnight parking permits to no more than two per unit and
are only approved with evidence of cerlain on-site parking limitations.
(Reference material: Attachment H)
Conclusion: There is remaining on-street parking capacity and existing overnight
parking permit restrictions per unit will greatly limit the number of new overnight
parking permits issued . No significant impact.
3. Future Development/Redevelopment Potential In the Area:
• Research factors include: total land area, lot dimension, existing number of units,
potential maximum number of units if redeveloped, the age of the existing
structure(s), and if land consolidation is a premise for redevelopment.
• 14 of the parcels built prior to 1970s exceed the current zoning density and
therefore would not be likely to redevelop in the near future since under the current
zoning density those parcels would result in less total units than built on those
parcels.
• 2 parcels are indentified with higher potential -which are highlighted in red in the
attached spreadsheet (Total of 83 parcels in the affected area). Each could be
potentially redeveloped with a maximum of 3 additional units.
• Likely potential of 3 to 6 new units within the next few years, under the current
zoning standards.
(Reference material: attachment I and J)
Conclusion: The built out condition in the area will not result in a significant
amount of new residential development in the area. No significant impact.
4. Cumulative Traffic Impacts:
• A full citywide study would take about 3-4 months to complete and would require
extensive local and regional growth information.
• Cost to complete such study is estimated at $30,000 to $60,000 depending on the
scope and available data.
• Latest traffic counts indicate a reduced number of trips in the subject area in the
past five years (from 1,942 in 2005 to 1,752 in 2010).
Page 2 of 4
Conclusion: Declining traffic counts contributes to reduced overall cumulative
traffic impacts. No significant impact.
5. Number of Incidents in the Subject Area (3-year record with the local Sheriff
Station)
Type of Incidents: 2009 2010 2011
Arrests 4 5 1
Traffic Citations 1 0 0
Family Disturbance 13 9 10
Audible Alarms 7 5 3
Suspicious Persons 4 6 1
Parking Citation 7 1 0
Loud Music 2 4 9
Reports 11 10 5
Stolen Vehicles 1 0 0
Traffic Collisions 5 3 0
911 Hang Ups 2 0 0
Impounded Cars 2 0 0
Fights 2 0 0
Neighbor disputes 2 1 5
Total number 63 44 34
(Reference material: Attachment K)
Conclusion: Sheriff's provided this data and will be available at the meeting to
further explain any significance. It appears that there is nothing abnormal here
compared to citywide statistics and given the high population density of the area.
6. Consideration of a Moratorium versus waiting for the Housing Element and
General Plan update:
Moratorium
• A Legislative decision that suspends all developments of the category, such as
"multi-family residential. n
• Generally applies to projects within the limit of the jurisdiction and/or to a large
class of land use designation in the jurisdiction.
• Impact and ramification is usually broader than a limited geographic area
• Justifications required.
Housing Element and General Plan Update
• Will address issues and set policies from the city and regional perspective taking
into account all current and future growth potential.
Page 3 of 4
" C E Q A f o r G e n e r a l P l a n u p d a t e w i l l r e q u i r e a p r o g r a m l e v e l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t
R e p o r t t h a t w i l l a d d r e s s c o m p r e h e n s i v e c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s .
" H o u s i n g E l e m e n t r e q u i r e s t h e c i t y t o p r o v i d e p o l i c i e s a s m a n d a t e d b y t h e S t a t e ' s
R e g i o n a l H o u s i n g N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t - e n a b l i n g 9 7 8 a d d i t i o n a l h o u s i n g u n i t s i n
t h e t i m e p e r i o d o f 2 0 0 6 - 2 0 1 4 w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
o 4 1 7 u n i t s a f f o r d a b l e t o a b o v e - m o d e r a t e i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s .
o 1 6 5 u n i t s a f f o r d a b l e t o m o d e r a t e i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s .
o 1 5 6 u n i t s a f f o r d a b l e t o l o w i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s .
o 2 4 9 u n i t s a f f o r d a b l e t o v e r y - l o w i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d s .
C o n c l u s i o n : A m o r a t o r i u m c a n n o t b e a p p l i e d o n a s i t e s p e c i f i c b a s i s a n d c o u l d
h a v e u n i n t e n d e d o r n e g a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t c o n s e q u e n c e s c i t y w i d e t h a t s h o u l d b e
c a r e f u l l y w e i g h e d .
7 . P e r m i t S t r e a m l i n i n g A c t a n d C E Q A :
" U n d e r t h e P e r m i t S t r e a m l i n i n g A c t , t h e C i t y h a s 3 0 d a y s t o f i n d a p r o j e c t c o m p l e t e
a n d a c c e p t i t o r e l s e a d v i s e t h e a p p l i c a n t t h a t i t i s i n c o m p l e t e a n d t h a t i t n e e d s t o
b e r e s u b m i t t e d . I f t h e a p p l i c a n t i s n o t a d v i s e d w i t h i n 3 0 d a y s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s
d e e m e d t o b e c o m p l e t e a n d m u s t b e c a r r i e d f o r w a r d . U p o n a c c e p t a n c e o r
d e e m e d c o m p l e t i o n , t h e C E Q A p r o c e s s s t a r t s .
" U n d e r C E Q A , t h e C i t y h a s 1 8 0 d a y s t o a p p r o v e o r d e n y a N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n
o n c e t h e N o t i c e o f P r e p a r a t i o n i s f i l e d . ( 0 2 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 f o r t h e p r o j e c t , m e a n i n g a
d e c i s i o n m u s t c o m e b y 8 / 2 5 1 1 2 )
" U n d e r t h e P e r m i t S t r e a m l i n i n g A c t , t h e C i t y h a s 6 0 d a y s t o a p p r o v e o r d e n y a
p r o j e c t a f t e r a d o p t i n g a N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n o r t h e p r o j e c t w i l l b e d e e m e d t o b e
a p p r o v e d
C o n c l u s i o n : T h e r e i s n o t a n i m m i n e n t c o n c e r n t o n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e P e r m i t
S t r e a m l i n i n g A c t p r o v i s i o n s , h o w e v e r e x t e n d e d d e l a y s i n t h e p r o j e c t d e c i s i o n m u s t
t a k e t h e s e t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n
P a g e 4 o f 4
Resolution No. 12-4812
Page2
READ, APPROVED AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED:
Property Owner/Developer-Dexter Corporation
Engineer-EGL Associates, Inc.
City Clerk
Date
Date
Attachment C
RESOLUTION N0.12-2343 PC DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 11-1796 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 71721 TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH
TEN (10) UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5549 SULTANA
AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS ZONED R-3 AND IS DESIGNATED AS
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY THE GENERAL PLAN (DEXTER
CORPORATION/EGL ASSOCIATES INC.)
The Planning Commission of the City of Temple City does hereby resolve:
SECTION 1. Based upon a public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Tract Map as described above, the Planning Commission finds:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and
circumstances in that the site has a frontage of 120 feet and a depth of 330.12 feet
with a total land area of approximately 31,765± square feet. The proposal involves
the construction of ten (1 0) units which is in confonnance with the allowable
density of the R-3 zone; and
2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width and
pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the
proposed use in that the site is accessed from Sultana Avenue which is a regular
residential collector street with a 50-foot right-of-way and 40 foot wide roadway;
and
3. That the proposed project will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment
or valuation of adjacent property or upon the public welfare in that the site is zoned
for multiple-family residential development and the project will comply with the
development standard established by the Zoning Code as well as the density
designation prescribed by the General Plan.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
1. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the City's General Plan and Zoning Code as well as the requirements of the State
Subdivision Map Act, Sections 66473.5, 66474 and 66474.6; and
2. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development and the
proposed density of development; and
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 2 of 12
3. That the division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the
map of Tentative Map 71721 shall not unreasonably interfere with the free and
complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights of way and/or
easements within the Tract Map; and
4. That the sewer discharge from the proposed subdivision would not result in a
violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.
SECTION 2. This project sho.uld not result in significant effects upon the
environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Planning
Commission recommends that a Negative Declaration should be adopted by the City
Council in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The initial statement as
prepared indicates that there is no potential for adverse impact to the environment as it
relates to all wild animals, birds, plants, fish , amphibians and related ecological
communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued
viability.
SECTION 3. Accordingly, Tentative Tract Map 71721 and Conditional Use Permit
11-1796 are hereby recommended for approval by the City Council, subject to the
following conditions:
PLANNING
1. The development shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted subdivision
map dated January 19, 2012 and development plans dated January 24, 2012 by
the City of Temple City Community Development Department, except as modified
herein after.
2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
building permits. At least two trees shall be provided for each dwelling unit; said
trees shall be no less than twenty-four inch (24") box-size specimen trees. If
applicable, the landscape plan shall incorporate vine pockets at the terminus of the
driveway planted with fast-growing vines, such as creeping fig.
3. All development standards applicable to multiple-family residential construction as
defined in Section 9352 of the Temple City Zoning Code shall be adhered to at all
times.
4. The front yard along and side years facing Sultana Avenue, as well as any
landscaped areas along the private driveway shall be planted and maintained until
the dwellings are individually sold and continuously maintained thereafter.
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11 -1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page3of 12
5. At least forty percent (40%} of the lot area shall be permeable; these areas may
be maintained with landscaping, appropriate ground cover, permeable pavers,
grasscrete or other acceptable pervious materials, but may not be covered with
structures, concrete or asphalt. Furthermore, interlocking pavers and grasscrete
shall be utilized where indicated on the project plans.
6. A chain link security fencing six (6) feet in height shall be installed around the site
prior to the demolition of.. existing structures. Any unoccupied structure shall be
boarded and fenced so as to prevent vandalism.
7. A screening wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the site provided that
said wall does not interfere with the natural flow of drainage; said wall shall consist
of solid decorative block fencing which does not disrupt or alter the drainage
pattern. Any new block wall shall be slump stone, split face or stucco-over CMU
block. Chain link or wood fencing shall not be allowed. The maximum fence or
wall height shall be six (6) feet along the side or rear property lines.
8. A building permit shall be obtained for the construction of any new wall or fence.
Any existing wall or fence may be maintained, if deemed acceptable by the City's
Building Inspector. Prior to the installation of any new wall or fence, a grading and
drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works. No new wall or fence shall block contributory
drainage from adjacent properties or interfere with the natural drainage
pattern.
9. The applicant/property owner shall maintain the subject property after this date and
until start of construction and until the project is completed free of weeds, debris,
trash or any other offensive, unhealthful and dangerous material. If after five days
notice by certified mail, the developer does not comply with the before-mentioned
criterion, the City Council may void the Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map,
Building Permits, etc. and/or enter the subject property with City forces and
remove all subject violations, bill the applicant and/or put a lien on the subject
property.
10. Noise shall not exceed the limits of the City's noise ordinance. During any
demolition and/or construction , noise will be controlled by limiting work on the site
to 7 :00am through 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday and by requiring all trucks
and motorized equipment to have properly operating mufflers. No construction
work shall occur on Sunday.
11. The Park Development fees of $500 and the Sewer Reconstruction fee ($25,000)
shall be paid to the City of Temple City prior to the issuance of building permits for
any new construction .
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Pennit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 4 of 12
12. Based upon an assumed traffic generation factor of 10 trips per day per dwelling
unit, the proposed development will require 6.8 credits per additional dwelling unit
being added. This project will result in nine (9) additional dwelling units. Based
upon an estimated value of $55 per credit, a Congestion Management Program
fee shall be paid in the amount of $3,366 prior to the issuance of building permits.
13. As provided for in Government Code Section 66020, applicant has ninety days
from the date this project is approved to protest the imposition of any fees,
dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed on the project for the purposes of
defraying the costs of public improvements, services or amenities. This condition
shall serve as the notice the City is required to provide applicant under Section
66020(d)(1 ).
14. All windows shall be double pane to mitigate noise impacts and assist in energy
conservation.
15. Heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located so as not to be visible
from public streets or adjacent properties in order to avoid disturbing adjacent
tenants or property owners with noise or exhaust.
16. That a method for continual maintenance of common areas shall be provided in
the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Hs) and that this document shall
incorporate maintenance provisions for parkways, perimeter block walls,
driveways, drainage devices in the common area, the exterior of all structures, and
all yard areas determined by the City to be common yard areas. Specifically, the
CC&R's shall state the following: a) "it shall be the responsibility of the
Homeowne~s Association to maintain the exterior of all buildings in a uniform color
and conditions" b) "no vehicular access gates shall be installed across the
driveway" c) "no structures shall be built in private yard areas or exclusive use
areas, with the exception of patio covers, which shall be subject to review and
approval of the City of Temple City so as to ensure that at least 40 percent of the
lot area remains permeable and that all applicable setbacks are adhered to" d) "the
City of Temple City, L.A. County Sheriff's Department and L.A. County Fire
Department shall have the authorization to fully enforce the ''No Parking"
prohibition in the designated fire lane(s), including issuing citations and towing of
vehicles parked in said fire lane(s)", and (e) ''these CC&R's shall not be changed
or modified without the written consent of the City of Temple CifY'. The CC&R's
and provisions contained therein shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map.
ENGINEERING
17. Prior to approval of the Final Map or the issuance of building permits, plans must
be approved to:
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
a. Eliminate sheet overflow and ponding.
b. Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.
c. Provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
Page 5 of 12
18. If applicable, show and call out all existing on-site public and private easements
with names of the holders, document numbers and recorded dates. Label all
easements as ''to remain", ''to be relocated" or ''to be abandoned". If easement is
to be abandoned, indicate the proposed timing of the abandonment. If there are no
existing on-site public and provide easements, add the annotation "No existing on-
site public and provide easements" on the tentative map.
19 . A grading plan and detailed soils engineering report must be submitted and
approved by the Geology and Soils Section prior to approval of the final map to
assure that all geologic factors have been property evaluated .
20. At the grading plan stage, submit two sets of grading plans to the County of Los
Angeles Department of Public Work's Geotechnical and Materials Engineering
Division , Soils Section.
21. Comply with the requirements of the drainage concept/hydrology study/Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, which was approved on August 25, 2011, to the
satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
22 . A drainage plan must be submitted for review and approval to the Plan Checking
Section of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works prior to installation
or posting of a bond for the perimeter block wall and prior to recordation of the final
map. The drainage plan must demonstrate that the site will be free of flood hazard
and provide for contributory drainage from adjacent properties. (The drainage plan
and the grading plan may be submitted in combination.)
23. The subdivider shall install and dedicate a main line sewer and serve each building
with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file
with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department.
24. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will
not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code.
25. Prior to tentative map approval the subdivider shall submit a sewer area study to
demonstrate the adequacy of the existing sewerage system servicing this land
division to the Department of Public Works of Los Angeles County. If the system is
found to be insufficient, upgrade of the proposed and existing sewerage system is
required .
Resolution 12·2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11 ~ 1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 6 of 12
26 . Obtain "will serve letter'' from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for the
discharge of sewer into the sewer trunk line.
27. Provide a "will serve letter" from the water purveyor indicating that the water
system will be operated by the purveyor and that under conditions , the system will
meet the requirements for the land division, and that the water service will be
provided to each building.
28. Prior to the final map approval , the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with
the City-franchised cable TV operator to permit the installation of cable in a
common utility trench.
29. Construct or bond for a water system with appurtenant facilities to serve all
buildings in the land division prior to recordation of the final map . The system shall
include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to accommodate the
total domestic and fire flows .
30. There shall be filed with the Los Angeles County Public Works Department a
statement from the water purveyor indicating that the water system will be
operated by the purveyor and that under normal operating conditions, the system
will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be
provided to each building.
31 .A deposit is required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in
accordance with Section 21.36.01 O(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
32. Place a note on the final map to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Public
Works Department indicating that this map is approved as a residential
condominium development for ten (1 0) units.
33. Prior to final approval of the subdivision map, submit a notarized affidavit to the
Los Angeles County Public Works Department, signed by all owners of record at
the time of filing of the map with the County Recorder, stating that the proposed
condominium buildings have not been constructed or that the building has not
been occupied or rented and that said building will not be occupied or rented until
after the filing of the map with the County Recorder.
34. A final map prepared by, or under the direction of, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor must be processed through the County of Los Angeles
Department of Public Works prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
35. Relocate or quitclaim any easements interfering with building locations to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 7 of 12
36. Private easements shall not be granted or recorded within areas proposed to be
granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is
filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinate to the
proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative
map approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to
the filing of the final map.
37.1f signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, submit a preliminary
title guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final
map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map,
a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee
owners and interest owners. The account for this preliminary title report/guarantee
should remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.
38. Prior to submitting the final map to the Los Angeles County Public Works
Department for examination pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code,
obtain clearances from all affected Departments and Divisions including a
clearance from the Subdivision Section of the Building and Safety/Land
Development Division of the Department of Public Works for the following mapping
items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, and correctness or certificates,
signatures, etc.
39. At the time of issuance of a building permit, the subdivider agrees to develop the
property in conformance with the submitted plans, the City code and other
appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading
Ordinance, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance,
Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and
Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, and Fire Code.
40. Submit landscape and irrigation plans for the entire development, in accordance
with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
41 . Building permits are to be obtained for all demolition work.
42. Abandoned sewer lines are to be capped within five (5) feet of the front property
line.
43. Each new building must have a separate connection to the public sewer.
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
FIRE PROTECTION
Page 8 of 12
44. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County
Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded.
45. Provide Fire Department and City approved building address numbers prior to
occupancy.
46. Fire Department access shall extend to within 150 feet distance of any portion of
structures to be built unless waived by the Fire Department.
47. Provide a minimum of 26 feet wide paved area to serve as a private driveway-fire
lane. Said driveway shall be noted on the final map and posted "NO PARKING--
FIRE LANE" and shall be maintained in accordance with requirements and
standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Fire Lane shall be
conspicuously posted with signage or red curb that meets the specifications of the
Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff's Departments and shall indicate that
violators will be towed at owner's expense per the California Vehicle Code and the
Temple City Municipal Code. Additionally, the CC&R's shall specifically grant a
waiver, which allows the City of Temple City, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department
or the L.A. County Fire Department to enter upon the private property to enforce
the "No Parking" prohibition in the designated fire lane.
48. Fire hydrant requirements are as follows: verify one (1) existing Public fire hydrant.
If the existing hydrant does not meet the fire flow requirements, upgrade shall be
required and the fire flow test results shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County
Fire Department for approval.
49. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be
installed, tested and accepted prior to construction.
50. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 1 ,250 gallons per
minute @ 20 psi for a duration of two hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand unless as otherwise approved by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department.
51 . A water system maintained by the water purveyor, with appurtenant facilities to
serve all buildings in the land division, must be provided. The system shall include
fire hydrants of the type and location (both on-site and off-site) as determined by
the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be sized to
accommodate the total domestic and fire flows.
52. A site plan delineating the distances to the closest fire hydrants and a completed
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11 -1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 9 of 12
water purveyor form shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire
Department. The fire hydrant requirements shall be determined by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.
53. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current
AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a
minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall unless
as approved otherwise by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
54. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted or bonded for prior
to recordation of the final map. Vehicular access must be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
55. Access shall comply with Section 1 0.203 -10.206 of the Fire Code, which requires
all weather access. All weather access requires paving.
PUBLIC WORKS
56. Curbs, gutters. and sidewalks: Construct driveways to meet current Americans
with Disabilities Act guidelines and to the satisfaction of the City of Temple City.
Driveways to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter and
sidewalk. Repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk pavement
within or abutting the subdivision.
57.Street Lights: Install one (1) 5800 lumen HPSV street light (flat glass) on a 25'
marbelite pole with underground service. Streetlight to be installed at northern
property line. Provide street light plan for the review and approval of the
Community Development Department.
58. Street Trees: Not Required .
59. Surface Drainage: Provide all facilities necessary to accommodate contributory
runoff and all surface drainage from the subject property and conduct it into
appropriate storm drain facilities. No runoff shall be allowed to drain across a
public sidewalk.
60. Sewers: Provide an on-site sewer main for the project and laterals as required by
Code. A sewer area study for the proposed subdivision (PC10-3AS TEMP, dated
October 11, 2011) was reviewed and approved. No additional mitigation measures
are required. The sewer area study shall be invalidated should the total number of
dwelling unit increase, the density increase, dwelling units occur on previously
identified building restricted lots, change in the proposed sewer alignment,
increase in tributary sewershed , change of the sewer collection points, or the
adoption of a land use plan or a revision to the current plan. A revision to the
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11 -1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
Page 10 of 12
approved sewer area study shall remain valid for two years after initial approval of
the tentative map. After this period of time, an update of the area study shall be
submitted by the applicant if determined to be warranted by the City Engineer.
61. Underground Utilities: All utilities shall be provided underground from a primary
service point in the public right-of-way or on a rear property line, to service panels
or facilities on buildings. Prior to issuance of building permits, provide to the City's
Community Development Department a detailed utility plan for review and
approval showing all utility pipes, wires and conduits and their respective points of
connection. Water Meters shall be located outside of the sidewalk.
62. Dedications: Dedicate a ten (1 0) foot wide easement for the on-site sewer main.
Dedicate a five (5) foot land area
63. Permits: Show on plot plan all right-of-way improvements from centerline of street
to property line. Permits shall be obtained from the Los Angeles County Public
Works Department prior to commencement of any work in the public right-of-way .
All work in the public right-of-way shall meet Los Angeles County Public Works
Department standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's
Community Department Manager or his designee.
64. Disposal of Construction Waste: No construction activity waste material of any
kind , including plaster, cement, paint, mud, or any other type of debris or liquid
shall be allowed to be disposed of in the street or gutter, storm drain or sewer
system. Failure to comply with this condition will result in charges being filed with
the District Attorney. (TCMC 3400-3411) All debris shall be removed daily and
dust control measures shall be implemented .
65. Solid Waste Management: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, provide
a written report to the City's Community Development Department showing
description and quantity by weight of all construction and demolition debris and
method and location of disposal. Solid waste includes asphalt, concrete, brick,
sand, earth, wood, plaster, drywall, paper, cardboard, wire, plastic, etc. Total
quantities and general categories are required for all waste material, including
weight tickets.
66 . Stormwater Pollution: The subdivider shall meet all requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) related to pollutants; runoff or
non-stormwater discharges (TCMC 81 00-8405).
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11 -1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Page 11 of 12
67. The building construction plans on each lot shall include a blue-line sheet(s)
showing each page of this resolution, including all conditions of approval contained
herein .
68. All existing structures on the subject site shall be removed prior to recordation of
the final map.
69. No building permits shall be issued until the final map has been recorded.
Demolition permits for site clearance and grading permits may be issued at any
time.
70.ln completing the drainage and/or grading plan, the Planning Commission shall
review, at a noticed public hearing, any proposed drainage plan if more than 12
inches of fill is proposed on the subject property.
71. "Grasscrete" or landscape pavers shall be utilized to the extent possible so as to
increase the permeable area on the Jot and increase the amount of landscaping.
Sunken landscaping strip shall be provided along the southern edge of the
proposed driveway to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department
and all other applicable agencies; said landscape strip shall be serviced with an
automatic irrigation system .
72. The conditions of approval contained in this Resolution may be enforced by the
Sheriff's Office as well as City staff. Any violation of any condition is a
misdemeanor and may be processed directly by criminal complaint.
73. The legal description on the final Tract map shall be reviewed and approved by the
Land Development Division of the Los Angeles County Public Works Department.
7 4. There shall be installed a separate water meter for each dwelling unit, as well as a
separate meter for common irrigation, if applicable.
75 . This Resolution shall not become valid until all responsible parties have signed
and agreed to the aforementioned condition of this Resolution.
76. That this Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map shall expire 24 months
from the date of approval. If the final map is not to be recorded prior to the
expiration date, the subdivider may apply in writing to the Community
Development Director at least forty (40) days before the expiration date for an
extension of time on the approval of the map. The Map may be extended for
up to five (5) years from the date of approval, at the discretion of the granting
body.
Resolution 12-2343PC
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Tentative Tract Map No. 71721
SECTION 4 . The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution .
Chairman
Page 12 of 12
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 13th of March 13,
2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioner-Cordes, Horton, Leung, Seibert, 0' Leary
Commissioner-None
ABSENT: Commissioner-None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner-None
Secretary
READ AND APPROVED AND CONDITIONS ACCEPTED:
Dexter Corporation
Property Owner/Developer
EGL Associates, Inc.
Engineer
Date
Date
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 13,2012
Attachment D
Commissioners:O' Leary, Horton, Cordes, Leung , Seibert
Also Present: City Attorney Murphy, Director of Community Development Masura , Assoc iate
Planner Liu , and Community Development Secretary Venters
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK:
No one came forth at this time.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES :
RECOMMENDATION :
FEBRUARY 28, 2012
APPROVE AS SUBMITIED
Commissioner Seibert-Made a motion to approve the minutes dated February 28, 2012 seconded by
Vice-Chairman Horton and unanimously carried .
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT SITE:
CASE NUMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
NONE
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,553 SQUARE FOOT
DETACHED GARAGEJVVORKSHOP AT 5130 DOREEN
AVENUE. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS
REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPOSED
GARAGEJINORKSHOP WILL HAVE MORE THAN 500
SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA OTHER
THAN THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES INSIDE SAID
GARAGEJINORKSHOP . THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
ZONED R-1 AND IS DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL BY THE GENERAL PLAN.
5130 DOREEN AVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-1802
LEWIS EMERY
5130 DOREEN AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY , CA 91780
FURUTO RUBIO & ASSOCIATES, INC .
1220 DATE STREET
MONTEBELLO, CA 90640
Planning Comm ission Minutes
Dale of Hearing: March 13, 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
2
1} HEAR STAFF REPORT
2} HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
3) RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FIND THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
(15303)
Chairman O'Leary-Asked for a Staff Report.
Associate Planner Liu -Gave the Staff Report dated March 13, 2012 and gave a PowerPoint presentation .
Chairman O'Leary-Asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning Commissioners
for the Staff. The Planning Commissioners did have questions or comments at th is time.
Chairman O'Leary -Asked Associate Planner Liu if the width of the driveway is adequate.
Associate Planner Liu -Stated that the non-conforming situation would only have to be corrected if this
project were considered a new dwelling.
Chairman O 'Leary -Asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the Planning
Commissioners for the Staff. The Planning Commiss ioners d id not have questions or comments at this
time . Invited the applicant to speak.
Roy Furuta. Rubio & Associates. Inc .. 1220 Date St.. Montebello. Ca 90640-Stated that the applicant is
willing to comply to the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Seibert -Asked the applicant if the proposed garage would be used for vehicle
restoration.
Rov Furuto. Rubio & Associates. Inc .. 1220 Date St .. Montebello. Ca 90640 -Stated that the proposed
garage would be used for vehicle restoration .
Commissioner Cordes-Asked the property owner if he intends to display the vehicles in car shows.
Lewis Emery. 5130 Doreen Ave .. Temple City. Ca 91780-Stated that he intends to enter the restored
vehicles in car shows, as he collects and restores vehicles as a hobby.
Chairman O'Leary -Asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or against the proposed
request. One person came forth at this time.
Jan Adams. 5133 N. Pal Mal Ave. Temple Citv. CA 91780-Asked the applicant which way the garage doors
will face, if there would be a lift for the vehicles, if any trees would be removed, and if excessive noise would
be caused by the operation of the garage.
Roy Furuta. Rubio & Associates. Inc .. 1220 Date St .. Montebello. Ca 90640-Stated that the garage doors
would face away from her property, the property owner would not have a lift for the vehicles, and the existing
trees would not be removed .
Chairman O'Leary -Asked if a nyo ne from the public would like to speak in favor or against the proposed
request. No one came forth at t hi s time.
Comm issioner Seibert -Made a motion to close the public hearing seconded by Commissioner Leung
and unanimously carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date or Hearing: March 13, 2012
3
Vice-Chairman Horton-Stated that he could make the findings to approve this request.
Commissioner Leung -Stated that he could make the findings to approve this request.
Commissioner Cordes -Stated that he could make the findings to approve this request.
Commissioner Seibert ~ Stated that he could make the findings to approve this request.
Chairman O'leary~ Stated that he could also make the findings to approve this request.
Vice~Chairman Horton-Made a motion to adopt the draft Resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit 12~
1802, and find that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA, seconded by Commissioner Cordes
and carried by Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Commissioner Cordes Aye
Commissioner Leung Aye
Commissioner Seibert Aye
Vice~Chairrnan Horton Aye
Chairman O'Leary Aye
Chairman O'Learv -Stated that the application was approved 5-0 and stated that there is a 15-day
appeaVreview period.
B. PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT SITE:
CASE NUMBERS:
DEVELOPER/APPLICANT:
DESIGNER:
ENGINEER:
RECOMMENDATION:
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
CONSISTING OF TEN (10) DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
THE MUL Tl FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R~3) ZONE AND IS
DESIGNATED AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON
THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
5549 SULTANA AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11~1796
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 71721
DEXTER CORPORATION
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT C
ARCADIA, CA 91006
SANYAO INTERNATIONAL INC .
255 E. SANTA CLARA STREET, #200
ARCADIA, CA 91006
EGLASSOCIATES,INC.
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT A
ARCADIA, CA 91006
1) HEAR STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission Minutes
Date or Hearing: March 13, 2012
2) HEAR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST
4
3) ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROJECT AND
ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Chairman O'Leary-Asked for a Staff Report
Associate Planner Liu-Gave the Staff Report dated March 13, 2012 and gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Chairman O'Leary-Asked if there were any questions or comments from the Planning Commissioners
for the Staff. The Planning Commissioners did have questions or comments at this time.
Commissioner Cordes -Asked Associate Planner Liu for clarifecation regarding radius maps.
Associate Planner Liu -Stated that the mailing labels for the radius map was based on the exterior
perimeters of the property.
Chairman O 'Leary -Asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the Planning
Commissioners for the Staff. The Planning Commissioners did not have questions or comments at this
time. Invited the applicant to speak .
Robert Tong. Sanvao International. Inc .. 255 E. Santa Clara St.. #200. Arcadia. Ca 91006-Stated that this
engineer has created several developments throughout the City and that a portion of the landscape will be
preserved.
Commissioner Cordes -Asked the engineer if he is willing to comply with the condiUons of approval.
Hank Jong. EGL Associates. Inc .. 11819 Goldring Road. #A. Arcadia . Ca 91006-Stated that he is willing to
comply with the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Leung -Expressed concern regarding conflicting landscaping plans.
Robert Tong. Sanvao International. Inc .. 255 E. Santa Clara St .. #200. Arcadia. Ca 91006-Stated that the
building site plan portrays an accurate proposal for landscaping.
Commissioner Leung -Asked the designer why the storm water cue is unchanged , even though the
impervious material has been increased.
Hank Jonq. EGL Associates, Inc .. 11819 Goldring Road. #A, Arcadia. Ca 91006-Stated that based upon
the software program from the County of Los Angeles, the permeable area remains the same.
Associate Planner Liu -Further clarified that the unchangeable rate refers to the volume of storm water
drainage per timed unit, as opposed to the volume of storm water that would drain to the public drain system.
Vice-Chairman Horton -Asked the engineer if he would be willing to increase the amount of pavers or
greenscape.
Hank Jonq, EGL Associates, Inc .. 11819 Goldring Road. #A. Arcadia. Ca 91006 -Stated that the Fire
Department usually is not in favor of additional pavers.
Chairman O'Leary -Asked if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor or against the proposed
request. One person came forth at this time.
Plannmg Commission Minutes
Dale of Hearing : March 13, 2012
5
Mary Kokayko, Temple City Resident -Expressed concern regarding increased power outages that may be
caused by growing energy demands.
Commissioner Seibert -Made a motion to close the public hearing seconded by Vice-Chairman Horton
and unanimously carried .
Commissioner Seibert-Stated that he could make the findings to recommend approval of this request to the
City Council.
Commissioner Cordes -Stated that numerous provisions have been stipulated to accommodate increased
energy demands. Stated that he could make the findings to recommend approval of this request to the City
Council.
Commissioner Leung -Stated that he did not have comments at this time .
Vice-Chairman Horton -Stated that he could make the findings to recommend approval of this request to the
City Council.
Chairman O'Leary-Stated that he could make the findings to recommend approval of this request to the City
Council.
Commissioner Seibert -Made a motion recommending the City Council to adopt the draft Resolution,
approve Conditional Use Permit 11-1796 and Tentative Tract Map 71721, and adopt the Negative
Declaration , seconded by Commissioner Horton and carried by Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE
Commissioner Cordes Aye
Commissioner Leung Aye
Commissioner Seibert Aye
Vice-Chairman Horton Aye
Chairman O'Leary Aye
Chairman O'Leary-Stated that the application recommended for approval to the City Council on 5-0 vote.
8. COMMUNICATIONS: NONE
9. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS: NONE
10. COMMISSION ITEMS SEPARATE FROM REGULAR AGENDA
A. Commissioner Cordes -Stated that he and Commissioner Leung would brief Planning
Commission on the various topics at the upcoming Planners Institute and Mini Expo
conference. Expressed interest in the General Master Plan revision .
B. Commissioner Leung -None
C. Commissioner Seibert -None
D. Vice-Chairman Horton -Stated that will not attend the next Planning Commission
Meeting of March 27 , as he will be fulfilling duties with the Coast Guard.
E. Chairman O'Leary -Thanked Staff for their wor1< at the Planning Commission meetings.
Planning Commission Minutes
Date of Hearing: March 13, 2012
11. ADJOURNMENT:
6
Commissioner Seibert-Made a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting dated March 13, 2012
seconded by Vice-Chairman Horton and unanimously carried.
Chairman O 'Leary-Adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m . to the next Planning Commission Meeting of March
27,2012 at 7:30p.m.
Next Scheduled Meeting of:
City Council:
Parks & Recreation Commission:
Public Safety Commission
Secretary
March 20 , 2012
March 21, 2012
March 14, 2012
Chairman
Attachment E
TRIP GENERATION CONDOMINIUMJTOWNHOME
Land Size Trip Generation Rate Average Traffic Volume
Use & Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
(ITE Unit Total Total I %IN I %OUT Total \ %IN I %OUT Total IN I OUT ! Total IN I OUT I Total
Code)
Weekday
Condo \ 10 5.86 0.44 0.07 0.37 0.52 0.35 0.17 59 5 1 4 6 4 2
(230) D.U.
Pass-by Trip % 0%
Net
I
5 1 4 6 4 2
Trips
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Location: Las Tunas Dr.and Sultana Ave. Ctty: Templa City
Project No. Sultana Cond• Analyzed By: PBL File Name: -------------------
Problem Condition: Projected 2012 Traffic Volumes (Counts from on File Reports). Without Project
Existing Geometric Configuration
Available Peak Hour Volumes Movement VIC Critical
Movement Lanes Existing Growth Project Study Vol. Per lane VIC
No. Cap. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM
NIB Left 0.0 0 20 20 20 20 0.000 0.000
NIB Thru 1.0 1600 30 5 30 5 0.056 0.041 0.056
NIB Right 0.0 0 40 40 40 40 0.000 0.000
S/8 Left 0.0 0 15 5 15 5 0.000 0.000 0.000
SIB Thru 1.0 1600 15 15 15 15 0.031 0.038
S/8 Right 0.0 0 20 40 20 40 0.000 0.000
E/8 Left 1.0 1600 35 15 35 15 0.022 0.009
E/8 Thru 2.0 3200 1490 790 1490 790 0.466 0.247 0.466
E/8 Right 1.0 1600 50 5 50 5 0.031 0.003
W/8 Left 1.0 1600 70 40 70 40 0.044 0.025 0.044
W/8 Thru 2.0 3200 1435 1035 1435 1035 0.452 0.330
W/8 Right 0.0 0 10 20 10 20 0.000 0.000
Sum Of Critical VIC: 0.566
Lost Time: 0.100
ANALYSIS RESULTS : Total VIC: 0.666
Level Of Service: 8
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Existing Counts Year:
Study Volume Year:
Annual Growth Factor:
Lane Capacity
Single Through Lane =
Single Tum Lane =
Dual Tum Lane =
2012
2012
0. 00 Percent
1600 Vehicles Per Hour
1600 Vehicles Per Hour
2880 Vehicles Per Hour
LOS Definition
Total VIC Level Of Service
Under 0.605 A
0.605 -0.704 8
0.705 -0.804 c
0.805 -0.904 D
0.905 -1.004 E
Over 1.005 F
PM
0.041
0.000
0.009
0.330
0.380
0.100
0.480
A
Lost time for signal Yellow and All red intervals: ______ 0_;._;1 0..:.....-o_f_V_;/C.;..._R_a_tio __________________ _
NOTES:
CROWN CITY ENGINEERS, CALIFORNIA 4/25/2012 -+
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
Location: Las Tunas Dr.and Sultana Ave. City: Templa City
Project No. Sultana Conde Analyzed By: PBL File Name: -------------------
Problem Condition: Projected 2012 Traffic Volumes (Counts from on File Reports). With Project
Existing Geometric Configuration
Available Peak Hour Volumes Movement VJC Critical
Movement Lanes Existing Growth Project Study Vol. Per Lane VIC
No. Cap. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
NIB Left 0.0 0 20 20 3 1 23 21 0.000 0.000
NIB Thru 1.0 1600 30 5 0 0 30 5 0.059 0.041 0.059 0.041
NIB Right 0.0 0 40 40 1 0 41 40 0.000 0.000
SIB Left 0.0 0 15 5 0 0 15 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SIB Thru 1.0 1600 15 15 0 0 15 15 0.031 0.038
SIB Right 0.0 {) 20 40 0 0 20 40 0.000 0.000
EIB Left 1.0 1600 35 15 0 0 35 15 0.022 0.009 0.009
EIB Thru 2.0 3200 1490 790 0 0 1490 790 0.466 0.247 0.466
EIB Right 1.0 1600 50 5 0 0 50 5 0.031 0.003
W/BLeft 1.0 1600 70 40 1 1 71 -41 0.044 0.026 0.044
WJBThru 2.0 3200 1435 1035 0 0 1435 1035 ().452 0.330 0.330
WIB Right 0.0 0 10 20 0 0 10 20 0.000 0.000
Sum Of Critical VIC: 0.569 ().380
lost Time: 0.100 0.100
ANALYSIS RESULTS : Total VIC: 0.669 0.480
Level Of Service: 8 A
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
Existing Counts Year:
Study Volume Year:
Annual Growth Factor:
Lane Capacity
Single Through Lane =
Single Tum Lane =
Dual Tum Lane=
2012
2012
0. 00 Percent
1600 Vehicles Per Hour
1600 Vehicles Per Hour
2880 Vehicles Per Hour
LOS Definition
Total V/C Level Of Service
Under 0.605 A
0.605-0.704 8
0.705-0.804 c
0.805 -0.904 D
0.905-1.004 E
Over 1.005 F
Lost time for signal Yellow and All red intervals: ______ ..=..0·:....:.1..=..0_o::..:f....:V:..:../C:::......:...R.:::a:.::ti..=..o __________________________ _
NOTES:
CROWN CITY ENGINEERS, CALIFORNIA 412512012 - +
INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS
6. Sultana Av &
Las Tunas Dr
7. Enclnita Av &
Las Tunas Dr
LEGEND:
• -De Facto Lane
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
+-~
~t
~
SultanaAv
Las Tunas Dr
+7 --.,-~-Las Tunas Dr
::!.)y
~.
EncinitB Av
CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT
CONDITIONS
)~ ~
::St
~
Sultana Av
Las Tunas Dr
Same As Existing
• RAJU Associa t es, Inc.
Attachment F
( \ :® Tentple Cit~·
j _. G·enera I Plan
l !
Circulation Element
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 state Requirements
The Circulation Element serves as a guide for public improvements
as they relate to the long-range planning process in the City of
Temple City. The incorporation of this Element into the General
Plan is recognition of the importance of considering traffic
requirements in any future development in Temple City.
The State Law requires that every general plan include a
circulation element, which must contain, at a minimum, the
11 general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public
utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use
element of the general plan" (Section 65302(b)). The General
Plan Guidelines identify certain features that may be important
to the community. Those items mentioned in the General Plan
Guidelines that are of particular concern to the City of Temple
city include:
• Streets and highways;
• Parking facilities~
• Transit and rapid transit;
• Railroads;
• Paratransit (e.g., carpooling, van pooling, and taxi service);
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
· Utilities transmission facilities.
The Circulation Element serves to fulfill State requirements
for a circulation element (Section 65302). In addition, the
Circulation Element is concerned with the continued maintenance
and expansion of the sewer system and utilities to meet the
future need of the City.
CE-1
10/22/86
1.2 Issues and opportunities
The circulation system for the City of Temple city has developed
over the years as the City has become more urbanized. Due to
the maturity o f the majority of the City, maj o r modifications to
the overall system are not required. The existing system is
compatible with land use patterns in most areas of the City.
The existing street classification system is illustrated in
Figure C-1. These street classifications conform to those used
by Los Angeles County as do the streets in the surrounding area.
on-street parking dur i n g the day is generally permitted on all
streets with some restr ict ions near intersections. On-street
parking overnight is restricted through a permit requirement.
There are also some parking prohibitions on Rosemead Boulevard.
Major intersections have been signalized and traffic controls
appear to be appropriate for most existing conditions. A
traffic signal control study was conducted by Willdan Associates
in June, 1986, to investigate concerns some residents and
members of the business community had about the timing of some
of the signals. The study recommended establishment of a
program to upgrade existing traffic signals in the City. The
improvements i nvolve safety as well as operational improvements
to the traffic signal systems. The recommended i mp rovements and
the priority of each is shown in Table c-1. The City has
completed most of the priority 1 improvements, and is working on
completing the remaining improvements.
These improvements on Las Tunas Boulevard will provide better
pedestrian access and slow down traffic. Better pedestrian
access and slower traffic will serve to contribute to the
commercial revitalization of Las Tunas Boulevard.
Existing daily traffic volumes on selected primary, secondary,
collector and local streets are illustrated on Figure c-2.
These data were prov ided by a survey conducted by Newport
Traffic Studies i n May, 1986. Typical daily capacities for
various street cross sections and Levels of Service are listed
in Table c-2.
As indicated in Table C-2, several street segments are currently
operating at a Level of Service (LOS) of E or F, which means
that they are at or near their design capacity. These streets
currently operating at an LOS of E or F are Rosemead Boulevard,
Las Tunas Drive (between Rosemead and Temple City Boulevards)
and Lower Azusa Road (from Baldwin Avenue to Pal Mal Avenue).
In addition to the above streets, Las Tunas Drive (from Temple
City Boulevard to Baldwin Avenue) , Lower Azusa Road (between
Temple City Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue), Baldwin Avenue (from
Olive Street to Las Tunas Drive) , and Temple City Boulevard
(from Las Tunas Drive to Camino Real) are projected to operate
at LOS E or F in the future.
CE-2
6/1/87
Priority
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
TABLE C-1
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection
Temple City;
Las Tunas
Temple city;
Longden
Temple City;
Live Oak
Temple City/
Broadway
Temple City;
Olive
Temple City;
La Rosa
Temple City;
Lower Azusa
Las Tunas;
Sultana
Recommendation
Install KMC-8000 w;NIC coordination
module for system master, presence
and advance detection, pedestrian
push buttons, conduit and rewire.
Install KFT-1800 controller,
pedestrian push buttons to cross
Temple city Blvd., and vehicle
detection on Longden.
Install KFT-1800 controller,
pedestrian push buttons to cross
Temple City Blvd., and vehicle
detection on Live Oak.
Install KFT-1800 controller,
pedestrian push buttons to cross
Temple City Blvd., and vehicle
detection on 9roadway.
Install KFT-1800 controller,
pedestrian push buttons to cross
Temple City Blvd., and vehicle
detection on Olive.
Install KFT-1800 controller,
pedestrian push buttons to cross
Temple City Blvd., and vehicle
detection on La Rosa.
Install KMC-8000 wjNIC coordination
module, presence and advance
detection, conduit, and rewire.
Install KFT-1800 controller and
pedestrian push buttons on signal
poles at northwest and southwest
corners.
10/22/86
Pr io rity
2
2
2
l
1
1
1
1
2
2
TABLE C-1
(Continued)
TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersectio n
Las Tunas;
Lema
Las Tunas;
Encinita
Las Tunas;
Alessandro
Recomme n dat i on
Install KFT-1800 controller
Install KFT-1800 controller
Install KFT-1800 controller
TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Temple City
Bl. and Las
Tunas Dr.
Systems
Las Tunas Dr.
at Encinita
Avenue
Baldwin Ave.
at Lower Azusa
Road
Temple City
Bl. at
Woodruff Ave.
Temple City
Bl. at Olive
Avenue
Temple City
81. at Lower
Azusa Road
Temple City
Bl . at
Broadway
Replace night time flashing opera-
tion with normal operation at all
intersections.
Install 3-12" vehicle head near side
NW corner for eastbound traffic.
Install left turn phasing on Baldwin
Avenue.
Return to traffic actuated operation
and install larger ppb's. Stencil
sidewalks.
Replace southbound mast-arm vehicle
indication with 3-12" lenses.
Install 3-12" vehicle head near side
sw corner for northbound traffic .
Replace 8 11 mast-arm indications with
12" lenses for northbound, south-
bound and eastbound.
CE-6
l0/22/86
()
tr1
I
0>
1Af11EC2
OPERAtiNG lEVEL ·Of ·SERVJCE FOR PRIHARY AND SECONDARY
ROADS AHD SELECTED CO LLECTOR AND LOCAL STR~ETS
24 "our
IN TEMPLE Cl lY
Destgn
Capacity Use Level otl
rea r ZOOS level s
F ~;~;~~. ---· (~; ~r~-----
______________________ Q~~~9~----~2!~!£. ______ !~Q!l _______ !!!i~----· ~~r~!£!_ -----~~!~m~--~~£ ~~!!2 --
PRIMARY ROADS ------------1
Rosemead Blvd .
Lower Azusa Rd to La~ Tunas Dr 4·lane 35,000 24,000 1.46 40,000 1.6T
______ !~~-~~n!~_Qr .!~.Q~!r!~-!~ ~---------~:l!n~---~~~~~QQ _______ ~5.QQQ _______ l~!~-------~Q.QQQ LE
Las Tunas Dri vc
Muscatel Av to Roseme1d Bl 6 ·lane 9, 599 36,000 0.27 A 26,900 0. '~
Rosemead Bl to Temple City Bl 4-lane 24,032 24,000 1.00 E 21 ,500 0.98
··-----l~~e!~_£!~r -~!_!~_!!l~~ln_~~--------!:l!n~-----~!.!1~-------~~~QQQ _______ Q~~~-------~ ·-------~!.~QQ -. Q~~~
santa Anita Avenue
------~[!fl~-~~-!2 -~!~~-Q!~-~~-------------i:l~D~-----!~.iQ~--------~i.QQQ _______ Q~ll __________ f __________ ~Q.~QQ ________ Q,~~
Lower Azusa Road
SPRR to Temple City Sl 4 ·1ane 14,087 24,000 0.59 A 15 ,800
Temple City Sl to Baldwin Av 4-lone 20,004 24,000 0.83 D 22,400
------~!!~~!~.!~.!2 .e!l.~!l -~!~ ___________ i:!!n~-----~~.~z~-------~i.QQQ _______ l.!~-----------f----------~~.QQQ ______ _
Baldwin Avenue
0.66
0.93
L!~
Lower Azusa Rd to Ol&ve St 4 ·lane 18,534 24,000 0.77 c 20,700 0.86
_Q!i~~-~~ ~~-~!!~-I~~~~-Qr ____ _ . -· --~:!!!!}£ ___ --~~.~g __ -~~.~QQ _______ 2:~~---------· -~-----------n.!QQ _______ Q-~~
Temple City Boulevard
SPRN to lower Azusa R~ 4·1ane 14,439 24 ,000 0.60 ~ 16 ,100 0.67
Lower Azusa Rd to Las Tunas Dr 4·lane 14,746 24,000 0.61 B 16,500 0.68
h!!~-~n!!-~r !2 .f!!m!n~-~~!!l __________ i:!!n~----.!£.~Q~-------~~~QQQ _______ Q~~~-----------~-----------~~,lQQ ________ Q.~~
~gQ~!!!!!.! ~Q!~~
El Kontc Avenue
tower Azusa Rd to Ol&ve St 4·tane 5,411 24 ,000 0 .23 A
______ Q!i!~-~!-!2 ~ive Oak AY 4·\ane 6 854 24 000 0 .29 A Broadway2 --------------------------------· --.. -•------------•-------------------------------
6, TOO
_z. lQQ
0 .25
_Q,g
Between Acac&a St and Rosemead Sl 4 lane 17 ,883 2~.000 0.75 C 20.000 U.8l
Betwee n Ro s e mead Bl and Temple 4·1ane 5,482 24,000 0.23 A 6,100 0 .25
--__ f l !r ~!_ __________ ------·------____ ?:!!~L-----~.i~~-------H• QQQ_ _____ Q=.i~-------____ ! ___________ ~.!QQ . -.-. Q, ~ 1
-..... -
fu t ure:
! Q~
(;
E
~
Q
a
E
f
0
~
8
B
~ -
A
!
0
A
~
1 2 tr~lftc count~ for Ro!>emead Blvd . tro111 CaiJrans 1984 Tr u f11 c Volumes. All other traffiC counts are from Newpl)rt lrilfflc Stuc.J1e:., 1'186 .
3Nt•wport Jr,lfllc Studlc~ !984 Count
4 ror c•plllnd ll on of level of Scrv1 c ~. ~cc PdY~ LE ·CJ
Ye ,,. 2005 . A,,.umcd 10 Hu:rca S I.' at the s.on1c ratl! ot huus1119 construt llun Jrt temple City "'ne<: 1CJ 10 .
IAOH. C .!
OPtRAIIN~ llVEl ·Of SERVICE fOR PRIHA~Y ANU SLCONOAWY
ROAUS ANO SELECTED COLLECTOR AND LO LAL STkEETS
IN H.HPLE CITY
~!;Q•H!!)~£9!
Design
24 Kour tap~c i t y Us e
Q~!!H~-----~2lY ~~----·· ~~Q!!. -----~!!!2 ...
£Q~~~~IQ~ ~!~~~!~
Longden Avenue
Lemon Ave. to Rosemead Blvd. 4 · lane
Rosem~ad Ave. and Temple City Bl. 4 ·lane
.!£~el~ ~!!r .~!~-~~-~~!~£n .~!~! ~~£:-~:!!P.~---
Li ve Oat Avenue
Encinita Ave. to Temple City Bl.
Temple C1ty Bl. to Baldw i n Ave.
4 ·lane
4 ·1ane
6,464
7 ,323
~.H~-----
4,607
5,M1
24,000 0 .27
24 ,000 0.3\
~!~9QQ _______ Q .~?._.
24,000
24.000
0.19
0.24
--___ !!!9~!~ ~~~: .!~-~!-~2~!~-~~~~------~:!!~~----?.~2~-------f~.QQQ ______ Q :~~--
~Q£~L~!~~n~
Olive Street
Rosemead 81. to Temple City Bl. 2 ·1ane 2 ,160 12 ,000 0 .18
n Temple City B!. to Bladwin Ave. 2·1ane 4,309 12 ,000 0.36
level all fut~re4
~H~!H .. ---~2!!:!~~
" 7,200
A 8,200
~ -?.?QQ
A S,200
A 6 ,300
~--!L~QQ
A 2, 400
A 4,800
!!~! ?PO ~ ~!Y£!~
Future
_ ~~£ Rd!!2
ll.JU
0 . 34
<!-~~
o.u
0.26
. -Q-E
0.20
0.40
~ --.---~~!!!~!P.. ~~~: ! 2 _ ~L!:!2~!~-~~£: -··-··---~: !!!~~ ---·---~• !~L ______ g, QQQ _______ Q :~L--. ___ _ -~----------~·~QQ _______ Q:~9 -.. -··
\0
fulul ,.
! C!~
" A
A
A
A
~
A
A
~
1
2
r r aff1c counts tor Rusemead Blvd. from CatTrans 1984 TraffiC Volumes . All other traffiC counts ere from Newpor t Tr af fic Studle ~. 1986 .
3
Ne wport Traffic Stud1es 1984 Count
4 For eAplanation of Level of Service , ~eo Page CE ·9
rear 2005 . As sumed to increas e at the s ame rate of housing construction 1n Temple City s1nce 1970 .
~=edicticn of future traffic volumes in Temple City deuends to a
:arge extent on developrnen~ in the region, not Temple City
alone. This is especially true on the primary roads, which are
Gften used for driving through Temple City to other
~estinations. It is unlikely that the general plan policies,
based on conservation of existing neighborhood densities, will
~ave as much of an impact on future traffic as will developmen~
in surrounding areas.
CalTrans has predicted that the traffic volume on Rosemead
Boulevard through Temple City would reach 40,000 vehicles per
day by the year 2005. This represents an average annual growth
of 0.63 percent from 1984 an the segment from Lower Azusa Road
to Las Tunas Drive, ~hich had 35,000 vehicles per day measured
in 1984. From Las Tunas Drive to Duarte Road, the average
annual increase is predicted to be 0.44 percent, from 36,500
vehicles per day in 1984.
~his growth rate for traffic corresponds closely to the observed
housing unit growth rate, which has increased annually by 0.59
~ercent between 1970 and 1986. It also falls within future
regional population growth predicted by SCAG, which estimated
future growth at 0.0 to 1.0 percent from the present through the
year 2010. Since the number of housing units can be correlated
with traffic generation, and taking into account SCAG's regional
prediction, the observed rate of housing growth in Temple city
was used to predict future traffic volumes an primary and
secondary roads and selected collector and local streets as
shown in Table C-2. Levels of service are expected to
decline slightly on most roads, with most noticeab le effects
occurring during peak hours.
The ability of a roadway or intersection to handle the current
t~affic load can be described in terms of level-of-service. The
level-of-service is the ratio of the road 1 s design capacity to
the existing volumes. The resulting ratio then permits the
road to be placed into one of six level-of-service categories.
The six levels-of-service are generally described as follows.
Level of Service A : This is a condition of free flow,
accompanied by low traffic volumes and high speeds.
Traffic densities will be low, with uninterrupted flow
speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and
physical roadway conditions. There is little or no
restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other
vehicles and drivers can maintain their desired speeds with
little or no delay.
Level of service B: This occurs in the zone of stable
flow, with operating speed beginn ing to be restricted
somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have
reasonable freedom to select their speed and lane of
operation. Reductions in speed are not unreasonable with a
CE-10
5/13/87
low probability that traffic flow will be restricted. The
lower limit (lowest speed, highest volume) of this
level-of-servlce has been used in the design of rural
highways.
Level of Service C: This is still in the zone of stable
flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely
controlled by the higher traffic volumes. Most of the
drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own
speed, change lanes, or pass. A relatively satisfactory
operating speed is still obtainable with service volumes
suitable for urban design practice.
Level of Service D: This level-of-service approaches
unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds being
maintained though significantly affected by changes in
operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary
restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in
operating speeds. In an urban setting such as Temple
City, operating conditions described i n this category are
acceptable.
Level of Service E: This level-of-service cannot be
described by speed alone but represents operations at lower
operating speeds, generally about 30 mil es per hour, with
traffic volumes at or near the design capacity of the
roadway. Traffic flow is unstable and there may be
stoppages for short periods. This level of service is
associated with the operation of a facility at design flow.
Level of Service F: This level-of-service describes a
forced-flow operation at low speeds where volumes are above
the design capacity of the roadway. In the extreme cases,
both speed and volume can drop to zero. These conditions
usually result fr.om queues of vehicles backing up from a
restriction downstream. The section of the roadway under
study will serve as a storage area during parts or all of
the peak hour period. Speeds are substant ial l y reduced and
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time
bec~use of the downstream congestion.
The level of service can be calculated if the des ign capacity for
average daily traffic (ADT) and the existing traff ic volumes
(ADT) are known. For urban design purposes, a level of service
(LOS) of C is desirable though in most urbanized areas such as
Temple City, the LOS of 0 is genera lly considered to be
acceptable. The actual capac ity of a roadway is dependent on
numerous factors, foremost among them is the number of travel
lanes.
CE-ll
10/17/86
3us service is provided by the Southern California
Cistrict (SCRTD) with routes throughout the city.
the SCRTD operates in Temple City include Rosemead
C i ty Boulevards, Saldwin, Santa Anita and Live Oak
Lower Azusa Road.
Rapid Transit
Bus routes
and Temple
Avenues, and
These existing conditions provide a basis for the devel opment of
goals and policies for the Circulation Element. This element
~ill provide guidelines and policy to assist in maintaining a
satisfactory circulation system. The relationship between l and
use and circulation is an 1mportant factor in planning. Any
c hange in land use has an effect on circulation, and any change
in circulation has an effec~ on land use.
CE-12
10/17/86
2.1 standards
~~ere are several types of street classification systems. All of
these systems divide streets into categories based upon ~he
street's primary function. The roadway standards in this General
?lan are based on the classification system used by the Los
Angeles County Road Department which categorizes roadways
according to their pavement and right-of-way widths.
Primary Roads - A facility on which geometric design
and traffic control measures are used to expedite
through traffic movement. Access to abutting
properties and on-street parking is restricted. A
primary road is the principal urban thoroughfare.
Roadways in this category generally have right-of-way
widths of approximately 1 00 feet and ma y have daily
traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles on any
given segment. Rosemead Boulevard is a designated
State Highway (Hwy. 19) and is currently handling the
greatest traffic l oad of any roadway in the City.
Other primary roadways in the City are Las Tunas
Drive, Santa Anita Avenue, Lower Azusa Road, Baldwin
Avenue and Temple city Boulevard.
Secondary Roads -Roadways in this category serve a
similar function as major roads except that the
design capacities are not as great. In addition,
these roadways do not generally carry the large
volumes or through traffic commonly operating on the
primary roadways. Secondary roads have an average
maximum right-of-way width of 80 feet and daily
traffic volumes averaging between 10,000 to 20,000
vehicles per day.
Roadways in this category include El Monte Avenue,
Broadway, and Duarte Road.
Collector Roads -Collector roads are designed to
carry traffic from the local streets to the primary
roads. The right-of-way of this type of road
averages 60 feet. Traffic volumes range from 10,000
to 15,000 vehicles per day. Roads having this
classification include Encinita, Live Oak, Longden,
Cloverly, Golden West and Garibaldi Avenues.
Local Street -This type of street is designed to
connect individual parcels with the rest of the
circulation system. City streets not classified in
the above categories are considered to be local
streets.
cross sections of the above described roads are shown in Figure
C-3.
CE-13
10/17/86
2.2 Proposed circulation system
Review of the exist~ng daily volumes, design capacity and future
:raffic volumes, as snown in Table C-2, provides an ~nd ica~ion
of the adequacy of the street system. As for existing
conditions, Rosemead Boulevard remains with a capaci~y
defic~ency and is operating at LOS F. Lower Azusa Road east of
Baldwin Avenue also handles traffic beyond its design capacity.
Since the City of ~emple City is relatively fully developed, the
growth in traffic would be a result of redevelopment of existing
areas, in-fill or intensification of areas and regional growth.
These potentials for increased traffic are discussed in this
section of the report.
However, there are several areas of the City where significant
land use changes are being proposed which could impact the
circulation system.
Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment Project -The City has
designated an area along Rosemead Boulevard bounded by Elm
Avenue and Eaton Wash as a redevelopment area. The Plan for
this area is not as yet defined as to s pec ific uses, but the
project will involve additional commerc ial and office uses.
These uses will generate some additional traffic.
Additional development and/or redevelopment may occur in
other locations throughout the City. The circulation plan
will allow for this kind of development; however, any major
changes in land use must be carefully evaluated to ensure
that they can be supported by the circulation system.
The decrease in residential density in some areas of the
city will result in a smaller increase in traffic from
residential use than there would be if the densities were
not reduced. Estimated future traffic volumes are shown
in Figure C-4.
The west side of Rosemead Boulevard between Garibaldi and
Longden has been redesignated from low to high density
res ident ial. This will, of course, result in increased
vehicle trips to and from this area. However, these increased
trips will to some extent be offset by the decreases in
allowable residential densities in other areas.
Regional development is similar to that of the City and is not
anticipated to result in significant increases on the arterial
system. Increased regional demands up on the freeway system
could result in congestion and divers i on of trips to surface
streets. The City will monitor the regional transportation
planning processing to voice concerns and present alternatives
to any planning that could impact the city street system.
CE-16
10/17/86
~he City should continue to Nark Nith SCRTD to provide bus
service and encourage the use of public transoortatian. Reoional
~~ansportation service should be monitored to-evalua~e the impact
8f any changes upon Temple City.
CE-17
10/17/86
3.0 GOALS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
GOAL 1: PROVIDE A PLAN FOR A COORDINATED STREET CIRCULATION
SYSTEM FOR THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
AND GOODS.
Policy la -The City will develop a street circulation
system that is capable of adequately serving
expected increases in future traffic.
Policy lb -The City will adopt and implement standards for
roadways for future street improvements in the
City.
Policy lc -The city will improve the circulation system
for pedestrians so that it is safer and more
convenient.
Policy ld -The City will consider the needs of the
handicapped in all development plans.
Policy le -Adequate parking will be provided for all
public and private uses in the City in such a
way as to minimize congestion on primary
roadways.
Policy lf -Consider modifications to Las Tunas Boulevard
in the commercial revitalization area as
detailed in the May, 1986 Revitalization Plan
prepared by the Revitalization Plan Committee
and Downtown Focus.
Policy lg -Review and assess ways to increase the LOS on
all streets with an LOS of E or F including a
change in signalization patterns, street
widening or diversion of traffic to other
streets.
Policy lh -The City will coordinate its efforts to improve
primary roadways with the efforts of other
County and State agencies.
Implementation
Measure la -Continue with the Public Works Department
street improvement schedule.
Implementation
Measure lb -The City will adopt the street classification
standards described in this General Plan as an
ordinance.
Implementation
Measure lc -The city Planning and Public Works Departments
will assess the suggested improvements to Las
CE-18
10/17/86
:::~plementation
Tunas Drive that are contained in the May,
1986 Revitalization Plan.
Measure ld -The City Planning and Public Works Department
will evaluate the parking standards contained
in the current zoning ordinance to determine
their adequacy.
Implementation
Measure le -The Sheriff's Department will continue to
enforce the prohibition of overnight street
parking without a permit .
Implementation
Measure lf -The City Public Works Department, in
coordination with Caltrans, will conduct an
assessment of the signalization patterns, the
possibility of street widening and traffic
diversion to other streets from Rosemead
Boulevard in order to improve the LOS of that
street.
Implementation
Measure lg -The City will make every effort to provide
the following minimum levels of service (LOS)
by type of street:
Primary Roads -LOS "D"
Secondary Roads -LOS "C"
Collector Roads -LOS "C"
Local Roads -LOS "B"
GOAL 2: TO SEPARATE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
Policy 2a -The circulation system will be designed to
minimize through traffic in low density
residential areas.
Implementation
Measure 2a -The City will discourage through traffic on
local streets through limiting commercial land
use designations in these areas .
CE-19
4/1 7 /87
Temple City Traffic Counts-201<fttachment G
Average Daily Traffic Counts YEAR
No. STREET LOCATION 2001 2005 2010
1 Arden Drive Lower Azusa to La Rosa 2751 3285 1639
2 Arden Drive La Rosa to Olive 0 3266
3 Baldwin Avenue Lower Azusa to Olive 15568 23785 28050
4 Baldwin Avenue Olive to Live Oak 15255 25690 28218
5 Broadway WCL to Rosemead 13977 15964 14300
6 Broadway Rosemead to Encinita 6460 11562 10242
7 Broadway Encinita to Temple City 4540 6543 5597
8 Broadway Temple City to Baldwin . 1558 3122 2975
9 Camino Real Oak to Temple City 0 0 1805
10 Daines Drive Baldwin to El Monte 1748 1850 1648
11 Daines Drive El Monte to Santa Anita 1086 1215 1403
12 El Monte Avenue Lower Azusa to Freer 3557 6681 6447
13 El Monte Avenue Freer to Live Oak 4025 7074 7471
14 Encinita Avenue SCL to Broadway 3215 5788 5825
15 Encinita Avenue Broadway to Las Tunas 3001 6063 6005
16 Encinita Avenue Las Tunas to Longden 1579 1623 2248
17 Freer Street Arden to El Monte 878 1086 982
18 Freer Street El Monte to Santa Anita 2095 3142 2535
19 Garibaldi Avenue Burton to Rosemead 897 1206 975
20 Garibaldi Avenue Rosemead to Encinita 1054 1776 1495
21 Garibaldi Avenue Encinita to Temple City 1164 3558 2642
22 Garibaldi Avenue Temple City to Golden West 1182 1887 2072
23 Golden West Avenue Lower Azusa to Olive 335 969 911
24 Golden West Avenue Olive to Las Tunas 1428 1986 1318
25 Golden West Avenue Las Tunas to Lemon 2554 4206 3506
26 Grand Avenue El Monte to Santa Anita 0 0 3408
27 Halifax Road Lower Azusa to Olive 649 1215 895
28 Las Tunas Drive Muscatel to Rosemead 20508 39140 31380
29 Las Tunas Drive Rosemead to Encinita 18833 30150 26902
30 Las Tunas Drive Encinita to Temple City 19644 27172 26838
31 Las Tunas Drive Temple City to Baldwin 14866 24765 24864
32 Lemon Avenue Oak to Temple City 1626 2836 2781
33 Lemon Avenue Temple City to Golden West 1323 2175 2028
34 Live Oak Avenue Encinita to Temple City 2240 3349 2460
35 Live Oak Avenue Temple City to Baldwin 2774 4722 4648
36 Live Oak Avenue Baldwin to El Monte 3966 7595 7887
37 Longden Avenue Burton to Rosemead 4292 7101 6426
38 Longden Avenue Rosemead to Temple City 5260 7164 8452
39 Longden Avenue Temple City to Golden West 4424 6907 686 1
40 Lower Azusa Road Encinita to Temple City 10236 17287 18266
41 Lower Azusa Road Temple City to Baldwin 14690 24986 20843
42 Lower Azusa Road Baldwin to Pal Mal 15562 26553 26787
43 Muscatel Avenue Las Tunas to Longden 2155 3712 3677
44 Oak Avenue Las Tunas to Garibaldi 2734 3981 3447
45 Oak Avenue Garibaldi to Lemon 2123 4270 3590
46 Olive Street Encinita to Temple City 2313 2839 2565
47 Olive Street Temple City to Baldwin 2443 3844 3988
48 Olive Street Baldwin to El Monte 1778 2249 3745
49 Rosemead Boulevard SCL to Broadway 0 0 37648
50 Rosemead Boulevard Broadway to Las Tunas 0 0 37066
51 Rosemead Boulevard Las Tunas to Longden 0 0 33053
52 Rosemead Boulevard Longden to NCL 0 0 3301 1
53 Santa Anita Avenue Grand to Live Oak 14152 22311 19507
54 Sereno Drive Rosemead to Encinita 0 0 1115
55 Sultana Avenue Olive to Las TU.!)C\S 1345 1942 1752
56 Sultana Avenue Las Tunas to Longden 0 0 610
57 Sultana Avenue Longden to Emperor 0 0 729
58 Temple City Boulevard SCL to Lower Azusa 8118 15393 14978
59 Temple City Boulevard Lower Azusa to Olive 8955 16757 17031
60 Temple City Boulevard Olive to Las Tunas 11554 18994 18861
61 Temple City Boulevard Las Tunas to Longden 11205 18968 20127
62 Temple City Boulevard Longden to Lemon 11508 19085 19174
4/26/2012, 2:00 AM
list ofthe Properties and Redevelopment Potential Rating
A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p
NetDU Floor DU Ratfoof
Potential Area Potentia Attenecll.and A& a eta ad A&aeaaed
Extltlng Building Lot:Siza l:fDL '"ErlaJIRij Ratio I (30 Value to Total L-,nd To1111 Development
1 No. Parcell Address Existing Uae ~ Zonlng Sq. Ft. Year Built {Sq. Ft.) DU Zoning) (FAR) dill acre) ~'"" Value Value Potential
37 36 5387028012 5621 SULTANA AVE Residential R·3 6764 1953 25688 9 10 0.2633 18 0.3973 255256 642505 Very Low
38 37 5387025022 5626 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 19268 1957 26385 21 10 0.7303 18 0.2240 174157 777653 Very Low
39 38 5387025023 5630 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1716 1959 6800 2 2 0.2524 5 0.2925 80790 276180 Very Low
40 39 5387028011 5631 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 7686 1962 21289 10 -.. 8 0.3610 _1$ 0.3296 276672 839357 Very Low
41 40 5387025018 5632 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 3779 1934 9829 3 4 0.3845 7 0.2624 30975 118024 Very Low
42 41 5387025017 5638 SULTANA AVE Residential R·3 3866 1956 17854 6 7 0.2165 12 0.6923 280419 405048 Very Low
i
43 42 5387028033 5639 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1608 1998 19728 1 ··-· ---0.081509 ---14 0.6 315000 525000 Very Low
44 43 5387028035 5641 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1654 1998 19728 1 0.08384 14 0.574572209 224367 390494 Very Low
45 44 5387028037 5643 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1654 1998 19728 1 0.08384 14 0.473682483 158776 335195 Very low
46 45 5387028036 5645 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1654 1998 19728 1 0.08384 14 0.584380952 306800 525000 Very low
47 46 5387025036 5646 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1987 2007 17062 1 0.116458 12 0.459417878 307572 669482 Very low
48 47 5387028034 5647 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1654 1998 19728 1 0.08384 14 0.399995682 129703 324261 Very Low
49 48 5387025037 5648 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1987 2007 17062 1 0.116458 12 ·-0.534621578 332000 621000 Very low
50 49 5387028032 5649SULTANAAVE Residential R-3 1608 1998 19728 1 0.081509 14 0.399997505 128234 320587 Very Low
51 50 5387025038 5650 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1987 2007 17062 1 0.116458 12 0.52173913 324000 621000 Very low
52 51 5387028044 5651 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2351 2001 21843 1 0.107632 15 0.644966099 404188 626681 Very low
53 52 5387028043 5651 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2295 2001 21843 1 0.105068 15_ 0.502978435 198764 395174 Very low
54 53 5387028042 5651 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2295 2001 21843 1 0.105068 15 0.67125212 417155 621458 Very Low
55 54 5387025039 5652 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1987 2007 17062 1 0.116458 12 0.60547504 376000 621000 Very Low
Page3 of5
list of the Properties and Redevelopment Potential Rating
A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p
NetDU Floor DU Ratl~of .I
· Potential Area Potentia Aaeessed Land Aaae8$ed ANQ&ed
. Eltlstfng BUilding Lot Size HDL (Existing Ratio 1(30 Value to Total Land Total Development
1 No. Parcell AddJQS E~atJng Us• Zoning Sq. Ft. Year Built (Sq. Ft) DU Zonfng) (FAA) dulacre) Aa$e8$ed Value Vatue Potential
56 55 5387028039 5653 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2351 2001 21843 1 0.107632 15 0.530275741 291176 549103 Very Low
57 56 5387028040 5653 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2295 2001 21843 1 0.105068 15 0.673003709 412239 612536 Very low
58 57 5387028041 5653 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 2295 2001 21843 1 0.105068 15 0.508827648 203470 399880 Very Low
I
59 58 5387025025 5656 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 6748 1964 12270 9 5 0.5500 8 0.8761 480384 548333 Very Low
60 59 ~18702~014 ~658 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 2592 1951! 12328 3 5 0.2103 8 0.4580 38640 84359 Medium
61 60 53870280SO 5661 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1778 2001 24580 1 0.072335 17 0.458399137 168348 367252 Very Low
62 61 5387028051 5661 SULTANA AVE Ull Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.524131437 180340 344074 Very Low
63 62 5387028052 5661 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.693011794 393700 568100 Very Low
64 63 5387028053 5661 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.478689737 168348 351685 Very low
65 64 5387028046 5663 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1778 2001 24580 1 0.072335 17 0.535321988 196597 367250 Very low
66 65 5387028047 5663 SULTANA AVE U~ Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.486666031 168348 345921 Very low
67 66 5387028048 5663 SULTANA AVE Ut. Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.524290433 180455 344189 Very low
68 67 5387028049 5663 SULTANA AVE Ull Residential R-3 1706 2001 24580 1 0.069406 17 0.513118348 180455 351683 Very low
69 68 5387025031 5670 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 0.072663 18 0.6 379800 633000 Very Low
70 69 5387025032 5672 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 -··-· ----0.072663 -· 18 0.440944882 280000 635000 Very low
71 70 5387025033 5676 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 0.072663 18 0.513385827 326000 635000 Very low
72 71 5387025034 5678 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1908 2006 26561 1 0.071835 18 0. 730488399 450200 616300 Very Low
73 72 5387028001 5679 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 11210 1942 24113 13 10 0.4649 17 0.2999 425796 1419735 Very Low
74 73 5387025030 5680 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1908 2006 --2~ ~ 1 0.071835 18 0.49273021 305000 619000 Very Low -----------------. -
Page 4 of 5
list of the Properties and Redevelopment Potential Rating
A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p
. -
NetDU Floor DU Ratio of
Potential Area Potentia Aaaessed Land AeaeMed Aaaeaaed
Existing Building Lot Size HDL (Existing Ratio 1(30 Value to TotaJ Land Total Development .
1 No. Parcel# Address Existing U•e Zoning Sq.FL Year Built (Sq. ft.) DU Zoning) (FAR) dulacre) Assessed Value Value Potential
75 74 5387025029 5682 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 0.072663 18 0.5 301542 603084 Very low
76 75 5387025028 5686 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 0.072663 18 0.581102362 369000 635000 Very Low
77 76 5387025027 5688 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1930 2006 26561 1 0.072663 18 0.533858268 339000 635000 Very low
78 77 5387029010 5703 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 1996 1946 8224 1 0.2427 6 0.4323 140277 324474 Very Low
79 78 5387029011 5705 5ULTANAAVE Residential R-3 1085 1954 5102 1 2 0.2127 4 0 .8000 335101 418875 Very low
80 79 5387024030 5706 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 8454 1961 11967 10 ·---4 0.7064 8 0.2787 222465 798340 Very low
81 80 5387029009 5709 SULTANA AVE Residenti al R-3 2000 1956 8759 4 3 0.2283 6 0.7847 237815 303083 Very low
82 81 5387024031 5710 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 8454 1961 11940 10 4 0 .7080 8 0.2780 65428 235349 Very low
83 82 5387024032 5716 SULTANA AVE Residential R-3 8454 1961 11974 10 4 0.7060 8 0 .2817 65428 232283 Very Low
84 83 5387027033 no address Residential R-3 0 10528 0 --0.0000 7 1.0000 40418 40418 Very Low
r li I
I I ·I
'
:-. ....-I I I I 85 255 ---·--·-
Page 5 of5
Fang Liu
Subject: FW: Statistics for 5500·5600 Sultana Avenue
From: Adams, Richard C. (TEM) [mailto:RCAdams@lasd .orgl
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:16PM
To: Bryan Ariizumi; Steve Masura
CC: Miranda, Ronald
Subject: Statistics for 5500-5600 Sultana Avenue
Hey All,
Attachment K
We looked at the calls for service going back 3 years and this is what we came up
with. We went from March 1, 2009-February 28, 2010 and so on. Hope this helps.
2009
Arrests 4
Traffic Citations 1
Family Disturbance 13
Audible Alarms 7
Suspicious Persons 4
Parking Citations 7
Loud Music 2
Reports 11
Stolen Vehicles 1
Traffic Collisions 5
911 Hang Up 2
Impounded Cars 2
Fights 2
Neighbor Disputes 2
Deputy Rick Adams
Special Assignment Deputy
Temple Station
(626)292-3313
2010 2011
5 1
0 0
9 10
5 3
6 1
1 0
4 9
10 5
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 5
1
City Council
April 17,2012
Page2
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796 and Tentative Tract Map 71721.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project is found consistent with the land use designation and development
standards of the City. The site is zoned R-3 which is designated for high-density,
multifamily res idential developments. The proposed density is 13.7 units/per acre, well
under the 18 units/per acre maximum density allowed by the General Plan. The proposed
FAR is 69.9%, consistent with the 70% maximum allowed by the Zoning Code.
During the Site Plan Review process, staff had worked with the project architect to
produce the best result. The resulting exterior design represents a modern interpretation
of a Spanish style with featured elements such as varied-shape openings, decorative
columns and moldings, window shutters, and typical details on the front and garage
doors. Higher level of enhancement has been given to the front facades and facades
facing the common driveway, in accordance with the design guidelines. Staff feels that
the design quality is acceptable and satisfies the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project is consistent with its land use designation and the development
standards set forth by the Zoning Code. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council
adopt a Negative Declaration to approve Tentative Tract Map 71721 and Conditional Use
Permit 11-1796, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached
draft resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 City Budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft City Council Resolution No . 12-4812
B. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-2343 PC
C. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 13, 2012
B. PC Staff Report dated March 13, 2012 , and attachments thereto
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: MARCH 13,2012
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVEN M. MASURA~ ~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: HESTY LIU)f~
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Attachment M
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CONSISTING OF TEN (10)
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN THE HEAVY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
ZONE AND IS DESIGNATED AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
PROJECT SITE: 5549 SULTANA AVENUE
CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 71721
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-1796
OWNERS: DEXTER CORPORATION
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT C
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
ENGINEER: EGL ASSOCIATES, INC
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT A
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: R-3, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: High Density Residential (Up to 18 dulac)
Lot: Area
(Sq. Ft.)
31 ,764
Width
120'
Depth
264.7'
Shape and Characteristics
rectangular and level
Public Improvements: existing curb and gutter and sidewalk
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Actions: None
Public Hearing: March 13, 2012 Page -2 -
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Pending Actions: City Council approval, Final Map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check , issuance of Building Permits
and building construction .
Background:
The subject property is zoned R-3 (Heavy Multiple Residential) and is designated
as High Density Residential by the General Plan. The site has a total land area of
approximately 31 ,764 square feet and is currently improved with a single-family
dwelling of 1 ,394 square feet and a 966 square foot detached garage . The
proposal is to remove the house and the garage to construct ten (1 0) detached
condominium dwelling un its. The subject property is surrounded by R-3 zoned
properties to north, south , and east, and is directly abutting C-3 (Heavy
Commercial) Zone to the west. The project data is provided as the following :
No. of Units :
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials:
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking :
Proposed
10
4 bedrooms
22,216 sq . ft . including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. required by Code
Max. 13
N/A
22,235 sq . ft . max.
Stucco, precast and foam moldings around window
and door openings, wood shutters, and concrete roof
tile
13.7 dulac 18 dulac max.
5, 700sq. ft. 2,500 sq . ft. min .
(570 avg .sf/un it) (500 sf/unit)
.699 .70
40% 50%
26"± 30'-0"
30 30min.
20 20min.
10 10 min . (based on 1 per
unit with three or more
bedrooms)
Public Hearing: March 13, 2012
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Page-3-
The submitted development plan features ten detached, two-story dwellings situated
symmetrically along an east/west central driveway. The turning radius in front of the
garages is provided at 26 feet and the guest parking is provided in between the
separations of the buildings . Three different floor plans provide a living area from 1, 759
square feet to 1,811 square feet. All units consist of four-bedrooms and four-and-half
bathrooms. The total building area is 22,216 square feet with the proposed FAR at
69.9%.
Analysis:
Pursuant to the zoning regulation, the subject site could be developed with a maximum of
thirteen units and a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 70%. The proposed project
features ten units with a Floor Area Ratio of 69.9%, both of which meet or exceed the
zoning standards. Parking is considered adequate with a two-car garage and one guest
parking space provided for each dwelling unit. The architectural design of the building has
been reviewed and is found to satisfy the criteria of the Design Guidelines of the Zoning
Code.
The building and engineering aspects of the project (including drainage and sewer
capacity plans) have been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments and
the pertinent utility companies . Comments have been incorporated as conditions of
approval in the Draft Resolution as attached. The County's relevant departments
recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map.
Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
71721, Conditional Use Permit 11-1796, and the related Negative Declaration, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1'
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Staff Draft Resolution
Draft Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Application & Pictures
Reduced Tentative Map and Site Plan
Vicinity Map
Zoning Map
Aerial Photograph
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: County Clerk
County of Los Angeles
12400 E. Imperial Highway, Room 2001
Norwalk, California 90630
From: City of T em pie City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Notice is hereby given that the Community Development Department has completed an Initial
Study of the following project:
• Application(s): Tentative Tract Map 71721 and Conditional Use Permit 11-1796: A Tentative
Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit to allow a subdivision consisting of ten (1 0) residential
condominium dwelling units at 5549 Sultana Avenue, Temple City, CA, 91780. The subject site
is located in the A-3 zone.
The Initial Study was completed in accordance with the State Guidelines for implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the
project may have a significant effect on the· environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, the
Community Development Department has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The project site is _ I is not _x_ on a list compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5.
Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at the City's Community
Development Department office, located at 9701 Las Tunas Drive, Temple City, California 91780 and
are available for public review. Comments will be received until and during the public hearing. which
begins at 7:30p.m. on Tuesday. March 13. 2012. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must
submit such comments, in writing, to the City by this time and date. Comments of all responsible
agencies are also requested.
At its meeting on Tuesday. March 13. 2012. at 7 :30 p.m., the Planning Commission of the City of
Temple City will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. Subsequent to Planning
Commission review and recommendation, the City Council, acting as the final decision making body for
the lead agency, may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the City may proceed to
consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report . It is anticipated that the
City Council will consider this item on April10. 2012.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Steve Masura, Community Development Director
Date Received for Filing
By Los Angeles County:_
(County Cle!X Stamp Here)
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Applicant:
Type of Permit:
File No:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
DISCRETIONARY
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 71721
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 ·1796
Description of the proposed project:
A CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW A
DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CONSISTING OF TEN (10)
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE MULTI
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R·3) ZONE, AND DESIGNATED AS IDGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN MAP.
The Associate Planner of the City of TEMPLE CITY has examined the plans for the above·
captioned amendment as submitted by the applicant, and on the basis of the Initial Study
and u Assessment of Environmental Impact Questionnaire" on file as a public document, it
has been determined that this amendment will have no significant impact upon the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
DATED: February 21 , 2012 ~I
Any person may file a protest to the Negative Declaration with the City Clerk prior to the
issuance of the permit or approval of the project. The protest must be in writing and must
state the environmental factors on which the protest is based. The protest shall be
reviewed by the City Manager or his agent. If he finds that the protest is based on one or
more significant environmental factors not previously considered, and which may have a
substantial adverse effect on the environment, the permit shall be suspended and an EIR
shall be processed. The decision of the reviewer shall be final. Copies of the Initial Study
may be obtained for $1 .00 for the first page and $.25 for each additional page.
POSTED AT CITY HALL on the 21st day of February, 2012.
City of Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT TITLE
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, California 91780
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Hesty Liu, Associate Planner
(626) 285-2171
PROJECT LOCATION
5549 Sultana Avenue (APN: 5387-27-032 and 5387-27-033)
PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Applicant/Owner:
Dexter Corporation
11819 Goldring Road, Unit C
Arcadia, CA 91006
Designer:
Sanyao International Inc.
255 E . Santa Clara Street, #200
Arcadia, CA 91006
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
High Density Residential
ZONING
R-3
Engineer:
EGL Associates, Inc.
11819 Goldring Road, Unit A
Arcadia, CA 91006
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map to allow the development of
a residential condominium project consisting of ten (1 0) detached dwelling units. The subject property is located in
the Multi-family Residential (R-3) Zone and is designated as High Density Residential on the City's General Plan
Land Use Map.
OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REOUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)
Building and Planning Department approval
City of Temple City
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or D 0 0 ~
zoning
b. Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 ~ plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c. Affect agricultural resources or operations 0 0 0
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses?
d. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement 0 0 0
of an established community (including a
low income or minority community?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal :
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 D ~ local population projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 D ~ directly or indirectly (e.g . through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure?
c. Displace existing housing, especially D 0 0
affordable housing?
3 . GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a . Seismicity: fault rupture? 0 0 0 1&
b. Se ismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? 0 0 D ~
c. Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? 0 0 D ~
d. Landslides or mudslides? 0 D 0 '&l:
e. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable D D 0 ~ soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill?
f. Subsidence of the land? 0 0 D %
g. Expansive soils? 0 0 D ~
h. Unique geologic or physical features? 0 D 0 ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
4 . WATER. Would the proposal result :
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage D D D
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
b. Exposure of people or property to water D 0 D ~
related hazards such as flooding?
c. Discharge into surface waters or other D D 0 d
alterations of surlace water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in D 0 D ~
any water body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or D D D ~
direction of water movements?
f. Changes in the quantity of ground either D 0 D ~
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of D D D txt groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? D 0 D ~
1. Storm water system discharges from area D 0 D ~
for materials storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage
delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor
work area?
J. A significantly environmentally harmful D 0 0
increase in the flow rate or volume of storm
water runoff?
k. A significantly environmentally harmful D 0 D ~.
increase in erosion of the project site or
surrounding areas?
I. Storm water discharges that would D 0 D ~
significantly impair the beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors,
wetlands, etc.)?
m. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage 0 0 D
systems and water bodies?
ENVIRONMENTAL ThfPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or D D D
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D ·~
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or D 0 D 1&
temperature, or cause any change in
climate?
d. Create objectionable odors? 0 D D
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a . Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? D 0 m D
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. D D 0 E
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to D D D lZt
nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-D 0 0 ~ site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or D D D ~ bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting D D D ·~
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to :
a Endangered, threatened or rare species or D 0 D ~ their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage D D D ~ trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities D D 0 ~' (e.g. oak forest, costal habitat, etc.) ?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and D 0 D m vernal pool) ?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentia11y Sign ificant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D 0 D ~
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservational D 0 D ti
plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful D D 0 1S(
and inefficient manner?
9 . HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 D
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 D
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or D D D ~
potential health hazard?
d . Exposure of people to existing sources of D 0 0 ~ potential health hazards?
e . Increased fire hazard areas in areas with D 0 D ~
flammable brush, grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in :
a. Increases in existing noise levels? D D ~-D
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D 0 D ~
11 . PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in any
of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? D 0 D ~
b. Police protection? D 0 0 5?
c. Schools? D 0 ~ D
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including D D D Nf
roads?
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impacl Mitigated Impact Impact
e . Other governmental services? D 0 0 ~
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities?
a. Power or natural gas? D 0 D '0
b. Communications systems? D 0 0 [5g
c. Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 D ~
distribution facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? D D ~ D
e. Storm water drainage? D 0 0 ~
f. Solid waste disposal? D 0 D 1:81
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? D 0 D '&l
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? D 0 D ~
c. Create light or glare? D 0 D 1if
14. CULTURAL RESOUCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? 0 0 0 lXl
b. Disturb archaeological resources? D D D 1i(J
c. Affect historical resources? D 0 D ~
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change D 0 D ~
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within D D 0
the potential impact area?
15 . RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a . Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D []( D
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 D ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
16 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade D D D
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of 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 rang of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve D D D
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that are D D D
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).
d. Does the project have environmental effects D D D
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant lmpacr or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,· as indicated by the checklist on the preceding
pages.
D Land Use and Planning D Hazards
D Population and Housing D Noise
D Geophysical D Mandatory Findings of Significance
D Water D Public Services
D Air Quality D Utilities and Service Systems
D Transportation/Circulation D Aesthetics
D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources
0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Recreation
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this evaluation:
0
D
D
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect, 1) has been
adequately and analyzed in an ear1ier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets , if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required, but
it must analyze only the effects thai remain to be addressed.
Signature ±:14 t,-1111
Hesty Uu, Associate Planner
(Printed Name)
'2-/Z-r/~;2
I I
Date
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP -71721, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-1796
5549 SULTANA AVENUE
4A. WATER: The proposed project will result in a reduced absorption rate
and an increase in water run-off. However, the developer will be required to
provide permeable land covers such as interlocking pavers in the driveway to
mitigate the impact. Also, as a Condition of Approval, a drainage plan will be
subject to the review and approval of the Los Angeles County Public Works
Department for approval. No increase in the storm run-off per unit time would be
allowed and adequate on-site retention devices are required for gradual and
ultimate drain to storm drain facilities. No drainage will be permitted to flow across
the public sidewalk.
6A. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The proposed project will increase
the existing number of dwellings from one to ten units and will potentially increase
the number of vehicle trips and traffic in and around the subject site. However, the
abutting public street has the capacity of handling the additional traffic that will be
generated by the project.
1 OA. NOISE: The proposed project will slightly result in an increase in the
existing noise levels due to the proposed increase in the number of families on the
site . The source of the noise would come from additional vehicular traffic,
residents, and visitors to the subject site. However, the impact is anticipated to be
less than significant. Construction activities that may temporarily increase the noise
level will be governed under the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction work shall
be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction
work shall occur on Sunday.
11C. PUBLIC SERVICES: The subject project is situated within Temple City
School District. According to school enrollment data, each existing household in
the District generates 0.7 students. Based upon this figure, the proposed ten-unit
project will generate 6.3 additional students . The developer will be paying the
current $2.97per square foot school fee for the construction of the project. The
developer fees will be used to negate the impact and accommodate the potentially
increased enrollment.
120. UTILITIES AND SERVICE FACILITIES: Recently , the City completed a
comprehensive sewer capacity analysis; generally, the City's sewer system is in
excellent condition, however long term areas of deficiency have been identified. In
order to mitigate immediate and long term sewer deficiencies , the City has
established a sewer deficiency fee to aid in offsetting the anticipated long term
deficiencies in the sewer system. This project is subject to a $ 25 ,000 sewer
reconstruction fee.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Page2
15A. RECREATION: The project will result in nine additional families and will
increase the demand on local parks and other recreational facilities. However, the
impact will be less than significant and the developer will be required to pay the
Park Development Fee. The fee exaction will be used to mitigate the impact by
potentially providing the facilities in the future.
6. Existing zoning district:
R-3
1 0-Unit Condominiums 7. Proposed usc of site (p1·oject for which this form is being filed): ___________ _
10-Unit Condominiums
Project Dcsc.-iption
Net 31,765 sf (to proposed street dedication) , Gross 32,365 sf (to existing B<
B. Lot Size:
31,765 sf
9. Square footage: ----------------------------
10. Numbc1· of floors of construction:
2
----------------------------
11. Amount of off-street parking provided:_0 ____________________ _
see attach 12. Attach plans: ___________________________ _
nla 13. Proposed scheduling: _________________________ ___
n/a 14. Associated project:. ____________________________ _
d . ~a 15. Anticipate mcremental development: ___________________ _
16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents,
and type of household size expected:
~ Unit# Siz.e in square feet I Range of prices
1 1 -lo . ( b "20 . ;
I T_ype of household size i J single family j
l ! ~ I f~J _-:--_-~-~)· --=~--+-t-=--=-=~-=-_=-:-~-=:-=~--==··-.~----ll
!_{more units, please auach addi!ional paper work
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regional oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities:
I Unit# Size in square feet Type of store Loading facilities
I n/a
I
I
I
F=+----------1 ~--t-____;__i= -----+--~=1 ---
I I
L ···-------~{more units, please artach additional paper work
Page 2 of5
Photo I: Existing Residence.
5549 Sultana Ave