No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 1999~ ~ ?~'OTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CltY Of Arcadia Office of the City Council x~ ~au~ As authorized by Arcadia City Charter Section 408 and California Govenunent Code Section 549~6 a Special Meetina of the Arcadia City Council is hereby called for the Administrative Conference Room at 240 W. Huntinaton Drive, Arcadia, Califomia at 430 p.in. on June 1, 1999. The purpose of this meetina is set forth by the follo~~in~ iteins of consideration: ~ 1. Study session regarding discussion and direction concernin~ the Police Coinmunications Center. xon~ c x~;~a~ M`'"R'~""`~` 2. Closed session pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section ~4957.6 to ~.A~y3C confer with Cit}~ labor negotiators Carol Przybycien, Dan Cassidy and cfla~.,~mu William Kell_y regardin~ Teamsters Local 911, APVdEA, AFFA, ~°°~°s"~ APOA, Management and non-represented employees. c~.,Arar~ 3. Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 549~6.9(a) to confer with le~al counsel re~ardin~ the case of L. Lafferty v. Arcadia, et. al. No further business other than the abo~~e item shall be considered at this meetin~. Dated: May 27, 1999 xao w~ Fi~mo n~;K r~~ oa,~ s~ 6ooai Acodia, CA. 910666021 (6]b) 574 • 5403 (626) 446 - 5729 Fu APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~~"~~ l~ ~~~~ Ivlichael H. Miller Ciry Attorney M ~ or of the City of Arcadia ;.. ...`' ^ ~ .P 'f :.'. ; , . . A N N 0 T A T E D • A G E N D A ~~~ Arcadia City Council and ~.~o ,.~ Redevelopment Agency RPOeaSt9• Meeting June 1, 1999 4:30 p.m. Administrative Conference Room Special Meeting ACTION ROLL CALL: Council Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler All Present 1. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO No one spoke ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/ FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) RE: 4:30 P.M. SESSION. 2. STUDY SESSION a. Report and recommendation regarding the relocation of the Police Communications C@flt0f. AUTHORIZED staff tc relocate Dispatch Center from Fire 3. CLOSED SESSION Sta. !/1 to Police Station for Police Dispatch only 5-0 a. Pursuant to Governrrient Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators Carol Przybycien, Dan Cassidy and William Kelly regarding Teamsters Local 911, APWEA, AFFA, APOA, Management and non-represented employees. b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with legal counsel regardinq the case of L. Lafferty vs. Arcadia. C. Pursuant to GovE. Code Sec. 54954.2(bX~he need to take action occurred after agenda was prepared regarding litigation of Gilley v.City of Arcadia and Sharleen Wilson 6:00 p.1T1. Closed Session - Recess City Council RECESSED Council at 4:46p.m.RECONVENEI in Council Chamber: 7:00 p.m. at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers INVOCATION Laura Lawrence, First Reader, First Church of Christ Scientist PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Police Chief Ronnie Garner ROLL CALL: Council Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler 4. PRESENTATION to the California Philharmonic. nr. viccor vener All Present 1 ~" .. ::. - . • • 5. PRESENTATION of Arcadia Beautiful Awards. commissioner porotny Denne 6. PRESENTATION to AYSO soccer teams. 7. PRESENTATION to outgoing Senior Citizens' Commissioner, Jayne Bellin. 8. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS. 9. QUESTIONS FROM CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by titie only and waive reading in full. 10. PUBLIC HEARING a. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of front and side yard setback modifcation for a new two-story residence at 1327 S. Eighth Avenue (MP 99-007). The appeal was filed by Edward Huang. ACTInN Not present None None Adopted 5-0 Pub.Hrg.Closed Appeal Denied 4-1 b. Report and recommendation to approve Z 99-001, a zone change from ApprovedCSoped C-1 (Limited Commercial) and PR-1 (Single-Family Residential with a a Parking Overlay) to C-2 (General Commercial) at 188 W. Las Tunas Dr. (vacant bowling aliey property). 11. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO .T. savalas ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY J. P. Pisula Chan (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON). G. Tai W. Tai 12. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/Announcements/Statements/Future Agenda Items See Minutes 13. CONSENT a. Report and recommendation to award a contract to All American Asphalt in Approved 5-o the amount of $217,571.05 for the rehabilitation of Live Oak Avenue from Santa Anita Avenue to east City limits. b. Report and recommendation to ratify an emergency purchase from xar~fiea s-o General Pump Company in the amount of $68,854.00 to replace the pump motor at Hugo Reid Well. 2 : .. . . ~ ~ Consent continued ACTION c. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6116, A Resolution Adopted 5-0 of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing compensation and related benefits for employees represented by the Arcadia Fire Fighters' Association (AFFA) for fiscal year 1998-99. 14. CITY MANAGER a. Report and recommendation regarding adjustments to service rates for Approved 5-0 the collection of residential refuse and recyclables. Report and recommendation regarding a proposed Water Rate Adjustment. nnnro~ea s-o c. Report and recommendation regarding a proposed Sewer Rate Introduced" 5-0 Adjustment and Introduction of Ordinance No. 2107, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Section 2696 of Chapter 6, Article II of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to Sewer Service Charge. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6111, A Resolution Adopted 5-0 of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing a policy that projects in plan check prior to the effective date of new code revisions may be constructed consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. e. Report and recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with R& D Transportation Services LLC. in an amount not to exceed $4,394,563.00 over the next five (5) years effective July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2004 to provide operations and maintenance of the Arcadia Transit system. 15. CITY ATTORNEY Report and recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No. 2105, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, deleting Sections 9273.1.1, 9273.1.7, and 9273.1.17 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to permitted uses in the S-1 Zone. Apnroved 3-2 Introduced 4-O.w/ Roncelli abstain- ing b. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6117, A Resolution Adopted s-o of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, accepting for the purpose of review, the FCC Form 394 submitted by TCI Cabievision of California, Inc. relating to a franchise transfer and prescribing certain procedures relating thereto. ADJOURN t~p June 7, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Community Center, 365 Campus Drive. or a Study Session in consideration of a Bond Issue-for ADJOURNED at 11:50 p.m. construction of a new police facility. • r �T r.fylUl��% �ARCAD .. STAFE REPORT June 1, 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP ' TMENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director Prepared by: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE 2105, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTIONS 9273.1.1, 9273.1.7, AND 9273.1.17 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE S-1 ZONE. SUMMARY The City Council at its May 4 1999 meeting approved Text Amendment 99-002 deleting the following from the list of permitted uses in the S-1 (Special Use) zone: gasoline service stations, any use permitted in the R-O and R-1 zones, and outdoor entertainment events. Attached is City Council Ordinance 2105: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTIONS 9273.1.1, 9273.1.7, AND 9273.1.17 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE S-1 ZONE. ACTION The City Council should move to introduce Ordinance 2105 as attached. Attachment: Ordinance 2105 APPROVED BY: William R. Kelly, City Manager LASE i 1 E `• L� ..4. /,-(--et_ �sza -or JJ f*\ j STAFF REPORT it„ June 1, 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Deputy City Manager/Development Services Directo 6,1110 By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator�G � SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6111, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY THAT PROJECTS IN PLAN CHECK PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW.CODE REVISIONS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PLAN CHECK SUMMARY The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 6111 formally establishing a policy that projects in plan check prior to the effective date of new code revisions may build consistent with the zoning, building, safety and fire code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. DISCUSSION This resolution is being presented to the City Council for adoption as a result of potential new building, safety, fire and zoning code changes affecting development in the City. In the past when the City has undergone revisions to the zoning, building, safety and fire code regulations, the policy of the Development Services Department has been to allow property owners and developers to submit plans for plan check under the existing regulations until such time as the new regulations became effective. There are several reasons the City has practiced this policy including: 1. Plans for remodels and new dwellings can costs from 10% to 15% of the construction cost. Most new. single-family dwellings cost $300,000+ to LASER IMAGED construct, resulting in a property owner spending perhaps as much as $45,000 or more on architectural and structural plans. 2. Unless a moratorium is placed on development, there is no way of advising persons what standards to utilize when designing a project (either a remodel or new dwelling). 3. Persons with plans in plan check may be unable to get through the plan check process and secure a building permit prior to the effective date of a new ordinance. Thus not only does a developer and/or property owner have money invested in plans, but has also spent money on plan check fees. In order to formally address this matter, the City Attorney researched the issue of "Vested Rights" (Exhibit A). Case law (Avco Community. Development, Inc. v South Coast Regional Corn.) set forth the judicial vested rights doctrine that "if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, a vested right is acquired tor.,complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. The City Attorney further notes in the May 12 memo that "it is clear that the Avco doctrine can be mitigated by the City to allow vesting at any reasonable time in the process in lieu of applying the test of Avco." The. City Attorney's conclusion states that"..:the City has a practice of allowing those in plan check prior to the effective date of new provisions to build consistent with code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. There is nothing illegal about this practice." The City Attorney did express concern, however, because this policy was not in writing and the City Manager concurred: The purpose of Resolution 6111 is to establish this policy in writing Concern has been expressed, that persons may try to submit incomplete plans designed under the existing regulations in order to avoid compliance with the new regulations. The Development Services Department has specific guidelines for plan check review (Exhibit B). Prior to accepting plans for plan check, the plans must contain all of the necessary information as set forth in this handout. Building Services will not accept plans for plan check which are incomplete. Persons must secure a building permit within 180 days from the date an application for plan check is submitted to the City. The Building code allows the Building Official upon good cause to grant a 180 day extension of this time period. In addition, once a building permit has been issued, persons may request a 180 day extension of the building permit. In order to avoid prolonged delays by the applicant for dwellings proposed under the previous regulations which may be either in the plan check process or building permit process, the Reso. 6111 June 1, 1999 Page 2 Development Services Department is recommending that no time extensions be granted on plan checks or on building permits. Resolution 6111 as proposed establishes certain criteria for this policy including specific information that no time extensions will be granted for either plan checks or building permits issued prior to the code changes. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this policy will have no fiscal impact on the City. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Adoption of this resolution is not a "project" as defined in Section 15378(a) of CEQA. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 6111 formally establishing a policy addressing effective date of code changes for text amendments initiated by the City. ACTION If the City Council concurs with staffs recommendation, the Council should move to adopt Resolution 6111, a Resolution establishing a policy that projects in plan check prior to the effective date of new code revisions may be constructed consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. Attachments: Resolution 6111 Exhibit A— City Attorney Memo Exhibit B — Plan check submittal information Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager Reso. 6111 June 1, 1999 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 6111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ESTABLISHING A POLICY THAT PROJECTS IN PLAN CHECK PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW CODE REVISIONS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PLAN CHECK WHEREAS this resolution was initiated by the Development Services Department to adopt a written policy that provides that projects in plan check prior to the effective date of new zoning, building, safety and fire code revisions may be constructed consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. WHEREAS, when the City initiates revisions to the zoning regulations, the process of reviewing the revisions by both the Planning Commission and the City Council may take several months before an ordinance in introduced for adoption; and WHEREAS, during the ordinary course of business various development proposals are submitted to the City offices for processing; and WHEREAS, the issue arises as to when do persons seeking to develop their property acquire a vested right to build consistent with zoning requirements in affect; and WHEREAS the Development Services Department's policy has been to allow projects in the plan check process, prior to the effective date of new code revisions, to build consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That based on considerations of fairness, the City Council hereby determines persons with plans in the plan check process prior to the effective date of new code revisions, may build consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. -1- 6111 • Section 2. In order to avoid prolonged delays by the applicant for dwellings proposed under old regulations which may be either in the plan check process or building permit process, no time extensions shall be granted on either plan checks or building permits. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ?,72I if Midhael H. Miller City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6111 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council on the day of , 1999, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia -2- 6111 °��ourso" MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: May 12, 1999 TO: DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM: CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: VES 1'ED RIGHTS • FACTS The City is in the process of considering proposed revisions to the R-1 and R-O zoning regulations. The general purpose of these proposals is to address the scale, mass, and bulk of residential dwellings. Specifically, they pertain to such issues as building height, setbacks, floor area ratio, and various design factors. The Planning Commission is still reviewing the proposals. They have scheduled their third meeting on the subject. Subsequent to making their recommendations, the revisions will be scheduled for public hearing by the City Council. If any new regulations are to take effect they must be enacted into law by the City Council. This entails introduction and adoption of an ordinance followed by a thirty day period before whatever regulations are approved by the Council become effective. In the meantime, through the ordinary course of business various development proposals are submitted to the Planning and Building division for processing. ISSUE When do those seeking development acquire a vested right to build consistent with current requirements? DISCUSSION The case of Avco Community Development Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. sets forth the judicial vested rights doctrine as applied to land use: If a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, a vested right is acquired to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit. Once vested rights are obtained the government may not , by virtue of a change in the zoning EXHIBIT A laws, prohibit construction authorized by the permit. The court held that neither the existence of a particular zoning nor work undertaken pursuant to governmental approvals preparatory to construction of buildings can form the basis of a vested right to build a structure which does not comply with the laws applicable at the time a building permit is issued. In 1979, in order to ameliorate the harsh result of Avco, the Legislature enacted a statute establishing a property development agreement. As another solution to Avco, the Legislature in 1984 established a procedure for obtaining a vested tentative map. The gist of these legislative actions is to confer vested rights in a manner calculated to assure that those taking certain actions at a certain time are not subjected to newly enacted ordinances. Local ordinances may also confer vested rights earlier than available under the judicial decisions. For example, a San Francisco ordinance immunized outstanding building permits from subsequent changes in zoning ordinances. In other word , the provision gave developers vested rights upon receiving a valid building permit even though they had not spent substantial sums in reliance on the permit prior to obtaining such rights. Russian Hill Improvement Assn.v. Board of Permit Appeals; Davidson v. County of San Diego. In view of the above, it is clear that the Avco doctrine can be mitigated by the City to allow vesting at any reasonable time in the process in lieu of applying the test of Avco. First of all, by doing so the City is extending fairness to property owners. Second, in terms of the police power, it is generally difficult to impact property rights based on laws (proposed legislation) not yet in effect. Under the police power of the City, the primary method to avoid development(structures) that may be inconsistent with a statute under study and consideration is to impose a moratorium pursuant to the City Charter and applicable government code sections. It should be noted that there are factual scenarios that could cause application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the City . In this situation, a property owner could claim a vested right irrespective of the law as set forth above. Usually, this doctrine is applied by a court arising out of litigation brought by the property owner. In general, the doctrine is applied in situations where the property owner justifiably relies on the actions and representations of the government, makes expenditure in reasonable reliance thereon, and is then denied a right. For example, developer Jones is advised that if he files for plan check and gets his plans within three weeks, nothing will preclude him from getting a building permit per code requirements in effect when he gets this advise. Jones complies and then is denied his permit unless he builds consistent with new requirements. It is possible that, in this situation, a court will hold that based on considerations of equity, the government is estopped (precluded) from granting his permit as promised by the agency. CONCLUSION Absent facts that may give rise to application of equitable estoppel as explained above, the City can follow the Avco case and change requirements late in the development process in spite of a property owner's expenditure of substantial sums. I have been advised that in lieu of this approach the City has a practice of • allowing those in plan check prior to the effective date of new provisions , to build consistent with code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. There is nothing illegal about this practice. It can be deemed a policy decision by the City based on considerations of fairness. Some cities take the position that a building permit alone is sufficient whether or nor there are substantial expenditures as set forth in the San Francisco case cited above. I am somewhat concerned that the referred to Arcadia policy is not in writing or promulgated by statute. Also, I would like to tie down how the policy is communicated. These considerations can be a part of our discussion concerning POLICY that should arise out of this legal opinion. Please advise regarding a meeting with the City Manager on this issue. Please advise if you have any questions. c. Community Development Administrator City Manager *case citations are available at the City Attorney office "EY Op 4:611)' IA l�C�R.roRATS9'l�o� City of Arcadia Development Services Department Plan Requirements and Plan Review Time Frames for Single Family Dwellings To ensure compliance with City and State building, zoning, and fire codes and minimize construction errors, the City requires the submission of comprehensive plans. Plans should be done to an approved scale and include sufficient information to show compliance with the various codes. Depending on the type of project and scope of work, most building plans should include the following components: 1. Plot plan. 2. Structural and energy calculations, if applicable. 3. Roof drainage plan. 4. Detailed floor plan. 5. Foundation plan and details. 6. Floor framing plan and details. 7. Slab plan and details. 8. Ceiling joist framing plan and details. 9. Roof framing plan and details. 10. Beam and header framing plans and details. 11. Structural section(s). 12. Building elevation(s). 13. Homeowners association's approval, if applicable. 14. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans (new single family dwellings only). The Building Official may waive certain plan requirements, depending on :he nature of the work. Plans for the construction of room additions and new single family dwellings are reviewed for code compliance by two to four City departments/divisions. The plan review process averages 3-4 weeks for most projects, depending on the complexity of the project and the current workload of City staff. Minor projects that require only Planning and Building reviews may be done at the public counter depending on the availability of staff. Should you have any questions, please call the City's Building and Safety Division at (626) 574-5416. EXHIBIT B f Up D p RESOLUTION NO. 6111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ESTABLISHING A POLICY ON TIME FRAMES FOR EFFECTIVE DATE OF ZONING CODE CHANGES FOR TEXT --AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY THE CITY WHEREAS this resolution was initiated by the Development Services Department to adopt a written policy that provides that projects in plan check prior to the effective date of new code revisions may be constructed consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. WHEREAS, when the City initiates revisions to the zoning regulations, the process of reviewing the revisions by both the Planning Commission and the City Council may take several months before an ordinance in introduced for adoption; and WHEREAS, during the ordinary course of business various development proposals are submitted to the Planning and Building offices for processing; and WHEREAS, the issue arises as to when do persons seeking to develop their property acquire a vested right to build consistent with zoning requirements in affect; and WHEREAS in the past the Development Services Department's policy has been to allow projects in the plan check process, prior to the effective date of new code revisions, to build consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That based on considerations of fairness, the City Council hereby determines persons with plans in the plan check process prior to the effective date of new code revisions, may build consistent with the code requirements in effect at the time of plan check. In addition, in order to avoid prolonged delays by the applicant for dwellings proposed under old regulations which may be either in the plan check process or building permit process, no time extensions may be granted on either plan checks or building permits. -1- 6111 ti Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael H. Miller City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6111 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council on the day of , 1999, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia -2- 6111 • dX80 ® 70 `�9-D • P,•,r � 1 - e "CkPOItAT>/° STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 1, 1999 TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development AdministratorG SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 99- 001 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-1 (LIMITED COMMERCIAL) AND PR-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PARKING OVERLAY) TO C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 188 WEST LAS TUNAS DRIVE SUMMARY This zone change was initiated by Daryl Christian on behalf of American Stores Properties, Inc. for a zone change from C-1 (Limited Commercial) and PR-1 (Single- Family Residential with a parking overlay) to C-2 (General Commercial) for the property at 188 West Las Tunas Drive. The Planning Commission at its April 27 meeting voted 4 to 0 with one member absent to recommend approval of this zone change to the City Council. BACKGROUND On April 13, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 99-006 for a 15,250 sq. ft. Say-On Drug Store with a drive-thru pharmacy at this location. The drug store and attached retail store are located on the portion of the lot zoned C-1 and, parking is located in the PR-1 zoned area. DISCUSSION American Stores Properties, Inc. is proposing to rezone the subject property to C-2 (General Commercial). Currently the westerly 60 feet of the subject property is zoned PR-1; the remainder of the property is zoned C-1 (Limited Commercial) (see attached Exhibit A). The PR-1 is a parking overlay on a residential zone. The parking overlay allows "open air temporary parking of transient automobiles". In addition, the site could be developed per the underlying zone, i.e. R-1 single-family if it met all zoning requirements. zc2c99-01 Z-99-001 June 1, 199 Page 1 AWro "4 iliSp GFD The 2.7 acre site is has frontage on Las Tunas Drive, Live Oak Avenue and El Monte Avenue. It is currently developed with a vacant bowling alley. Property to the east is developed with commercial uses (Marketowne) and zoned C-2. Properties to the south are developed with mixed commercial and light industrial and an electrical sub-station and zoned C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) and C-2. Property to the north across Las Tunas Drive and the west, across El Monte Avenue are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences. The C-1 zone is slightly more restrictive than the C-2 (General Commercial) zone in the types of uses permitted. There are no differences in the C-1 and C-2 zoning codes relative to setbacks, building heights, signing and parking. The C-2 zone allows more flexibility in the types of uses permitted primarily through the conditional use permit process (see Exhibit. B). The conditional use permit process allows the Planning Commission the opportunity to review a request such as the proposed Say-On Drug Store with a drive-thru pharmacy and either approve, conditionally approve or deny a request. The proposal to rezone the site to C-2 is consistent with action taken in 1988, when the adjoining property to the east (the Marketown site) was rezoned from C-1 to C-2. In addition the C-2 zoning is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Commercial. It is the Development Services Department's opinion that the requested zone change is appropriate for this site and that there are adequate provisions in the. C-2 zoning regulations to insure minimal impact on adjoining residential properties. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of this zone change at its April 27 meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Division has prepared an initial study for the proposed zone change. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon staffs analysis, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this zone change. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of zone change 99-001 from C-1 and PR-1 to C-2 (General Commercial). ZciZC99-01 Z-99-001 June 1, 199 Page 2 • CITY COUNCIL ACTION If the City Council intends to take action to approve this zone change, the Council should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption at a later meeting. Attachments: Exhibit A- Map of Subject Area Exhibit B — Permitted Uses C-1 and C-2 zones Letter from Xiao Jun Environmental Documents Approved by: %, ■4, William R. Kelly, City Manager zcrzc99-01 Z-99-001 June 1, 199 Page 3 00 0 0 0 0 OR-10 0 0 0R-10 0 0 c,„" (1771 f171 0.1) tr r3) (142) (337) j (1'I) f1]7) I17 G415 1+•7S -a's -°33 X0611 ea+• y ! 1 - na ea SANDRA AVE. I � S .:..•: AL, r: :rR-' Q 000 '0: = �-10 0 13 n 1 W�_° 4J C-040 V 00 0 O O O O O O O .O O CareO O O /rrY /S/r' fMl /SNr ! 1] W i fr lust i:�/ i•r.• no no �o sv._G . �f BS) f )) (r691 (/L1) z30, Td 1^ no°- va i °o 00 00 LAS TUNAS DR. 34SO 00.01 'D :.�' 81: I♦ J6 •°.17 I•7.71 sal 5 0 0 Liquor Store Q Restaurant meet Shop 77051 Vacant Shop �" 1♦ / Grocery Mart A p Ca t Care p 0 PR-1 2 Vacant Shops v Om e0 iti Q C-M 4.0 C- :m arketowne $ Auto Y a ' 0 Auto Body c• O R '� I W 1� C-2 Body Shop 5 O~° z r 4 pet Salon Shop (Au/ 17, ..� 1 ,,,,„tile Shop ,,r,) rrr/.. , r sa 0� 2 141 • rv» 0 t o j ,,,,, ' ,„,„ 21)•5= AVE. - ;-,1 !� .:,, / ° 0 .�s � O 0 LNE 0AK c. Boundary ON c Textile jl �0 . U•505 o N Mfg. _ 113 '''r/ 0) N N to 'at: j op Q. e) Q ri� Ci M a t c ° o g o �' W Convalesces O 0 O c °c-M Q� Facility 1 Electric -5 O t power J 7 O O ^ Substation r 0 O 0 0 O � C-2 0 0 0 a O1 0 0 a cc o O O O a 0 4 win - —...■11111111 lgllIlli ■Noroll1111..... • LAND USE & ZONING MAP 188 W. Las Tunas Drive T NORTH :• ZONE CHANGE 99-001 Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet _ . _ EXHIBIT A Permitted Uses C-1 and C-2 Zones '��t&x y oe x#Xtt01:84**5 nnnrw 'r �^sY, smart 9�r/+ �gx P/+7m ="5�j s`a,,,{a.v°.�"� €� sf'�' ��10.1g4025. st�'Z ,a "v". a 1oand C 24.F.:va'*s `�"'` i Ct �;rX ,YAs,."' . .c. h�i 3 n 'i. t W xt,!V 4a °'' t t °PRIMARYiPERMITTEDDUSES . C`1- fF C-2' S,ycr��� ��'�r-`�la-..s�"f y. ;z���b"��.t 3���y��„��s�3 4 d m 0_tr'��"at 1�� • r ,,fi lei ftj"�."„s.a° °- xr rS ';._. ""`:,+ a c-t k,:`r,. , -„ s;}r.-x ��".+at ..,3,-';`s.a_u_.:_u�.,,;'-, . :.,s n....:.,c S E; ;, S f Ambulance:Services - ✓ Antique.Stores (mdse..< 100 yrs old) - ✓i oo+ 1 Astrology; Psychic .- ✓ ✓ •Automobile,:Storage;:Garage ✓(cup) Auto'Service:or Gas:Stations:; ✓(cup) If(cup) :Bail:Bonds:Office ✓ ✓ "Bars;and Cocktail.Lounges ; ✓(cup) :.Beauty;College; ✓(cup) Bowling:;Alley :! ✓(cup) ✓(cup) Check Cashing Service ::: ✓ ✓ Churches ::- ✓(cup) ✓(cup) Coin-operated/automatic carwashes ✓(cup) if(cup) Coin operated, self-serve dry cleaning ✓ Convenience;Stores- ; :: ✓ ✓ Dance Studios/Halls :-: ✓ ;;:Electronic/video game;arcades ✓(cup) ✓(cup) Fast food restaurants.(eatingestab_) .. . ✓(cup) Flea Market or second hand?'swap meet ✓(cup) ::Gun Shop _ ✓ ✓ !:Karaoke`Barsor Halls;; .:: ✓(cup) Laundromats : -. I ✓ Liquor sales, except as part;.of 40,000 sf ✓ ✓ development Martial Arts;�Studios of academies : ✓(cup) :Massage Parlors ;'i NP NP _ .:.Modeling Agencies(not.schools) ✓ ✓ .Mortuaries ... ✓(cup) ✓(cup)_ -:Nail=Salons ✓ ✓ :Palmistry, Fortune Telling :.: ✓ ✓ Pawn=Shops ,; ✓ ✓ P:.:inball Arcades ;` ✓(cup) ✓(cup) Poolor_Billiard:Halls ✓(cup) SecondHand/Used=.Merchandise ✓ Suntan:Facilities ✓ s l ✓ Thrift.Store ✓ Tire and.-Battery'Sales (no:repair,work) ✓ Upholstery;Shop ✓ Iii:itilitS4:;17.fpilOt.#007ftibk,:ROtital,:Yard:; ✓(cup) I means Permitted :✓(cup);CUP is required EXHIBIT B • -• • . _ . • MAY 1 4 1999 z / — 1 1 Y - 1 CITY OF ARCADIA CITY CLFRK A •7%. ' (Li7 -77;?" ct • • X ( ) S- 7 3 5 0 1 E 0 /4s, i< AZCAD' f"\ Cf cho67 •• PL,.: (C 71; - •. z i.-1 e C - i . • y-oLt I /.€7. (..- .• -• i• 12 ( • ' File No.: Z-99-001 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE � ARCADIA, CA 91007 ORpOAAT£0' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Zone change to change the zoning from C-1 (Limited Commercial) and PR-1 (Residential with a parking overlay) to C-2 (General Commercial) B. Location of Project: 188 West Las Tunas Drive C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: LEADS on behalf of American Stores Properties, Inc. D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures,if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: N/A Date Prepared: April 1, 1999 By - �� /� _iA�_ i onna Butler, ommu' opment Administrator • / w File No. Z-99-001 6 , r. CITY OF ARCADIA ./.679,A 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Zone Change Z-99-001 2. Project Address: 188 West Las Tunas Drive 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Daryl J. Christian, on behalf of American Stores Properties, Inc. 6565 Knott Avenue Buena Park, CA 92660 (714) 739-6779 4. Lead Agency Name &Address: City of Arcadia--Development Services Department Community Development Division --Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-1 and PR-1 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) -1- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • File No. Z-99-001 Proposed zone change to change the zoning of the property from C-1 Limited Commercial and PR-1 Single-family residential with a parking overlay to C-2 General Commercial.. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 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 Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use &Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population&Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] 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 on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No. Z-99-001 Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] 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 all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia-- Development Services Department Date: April 1, 1999 Signature EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g.,the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section 17"Earlier Analyses"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS—Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ l2 There are no scenic vistas in proximity to this site. The proposed building is single-story less than 20'-0" in height. There will be no impact on scenic vistas. b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ❑ ❑ ❑ rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The site is currently developed with a vacated bowling alley and parking lot. There will be no damage to any scenic resources c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? The bowling alley has been vacated for several years and the property is only minimally maintained. The zone change will not affect the visual character or quality of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ �� adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The zone change will not result in any new light or glare. Any project on this site must comply with the City's current zoning regulations which regulate the height of lights. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ LK Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) There are no farmlands in Arcadia b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? There is no agricultural land within the city. CEQA Checklist 4 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ [� their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? There are no farmlands or agricultural uses within the City. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air ❑ ❑ ❑ Di Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? The proposed zone change will not conflict with air quality standards. Future development of the site must comply with all air quality attainment plans and congestion management plans. b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ❑ ❑ ❑ a- an existing or projected air quality violation? The site is vacant and the zoning does not have an impact on air quality. c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ❑ ❑ ❑ project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The site is vacant and the zoning does not have an impact on air quality. d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ❑ ❑ ❑ (primarily carbon monoxide)? There are no"hot spots"within proximity to this site. e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ [�i concentrations? There are no sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ [� people? The zone change has no affect on odors, etc. Any use must comply with_regulations set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q"- any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or CEQA Checklist 5 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation in Title 50, Code of, Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no wetlands in this area. The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ �� migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ [�� resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ [J� Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: CEQA Checklist 6 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation • a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑- historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? There will be no impact on cultural or historic resources. The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ❑ ❑ ❑ [.�! The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑_ formal cemeteries? The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ 0� effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ a' most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? There are no identified earthquake faults in this area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ �� There are no known earthquake faults identified in this area. Ground shaking would result from a major quake along the Raymond Hill or other fault. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ [�/ This area is not identified as an area subject to liquefaction. CEQA Checklist 7 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ©/ There are no water bodies in this area and the site is not near any hillsides which could cause mudflows, v) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ The site is on a flat parcel of land approximately 2-3 miles south of the foothills. vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q/ urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? This is an urbanized area and there are no wildlands in the vicinity. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q� topsoil? The site is currently developed with a vacant bowling alley and parking lot. There would not be any soil erosion problems as a result of the zone change.. c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ [�� There are no geologic features in this area. The site is developed with a vacant bowling alley and paved parking area. d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that .❑ ❑ ❑ [�!i would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? As noted, the site is already developed and there are no unstable soils within the area. e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� to life or property? As noted, the site is already developed and there are no soil problems in the area. f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? The site is already hooked up to the existing sewer system. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q� through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CEQA Checklist 8 4/1/99 File No.: 2-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ [� through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The zone change will not result in the transport or disposal of any hazardous waste. d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0/ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ [.� such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? This is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ L�/ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? This site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ [�� emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? This zone change will not have any affect on the City's emergency response plan. h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ [�/ involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? There are no wildlands within the vicinity. The site is in an urbanized area. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: CEQA Checklist 9 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ❑ ❑ ❑ [� standards or waste discharge requirements? The zone change will not affect water quality standards. Future uses will have to comply with all water quality and waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The zone change will not affect the groundwater. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? There are no streams or rivers in the vicinity. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q� including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The site is already developed and the proposed zone change will have no impact on existing drainage patterns or result in any significant alterations to the existing drainage pattern. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ [D/ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? Future uses will be required comply with all grading and drainage requirements set forth in the City codes. CEQA Checklist 10 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a ❑ ❑ ❑ federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The site is not located within a 100 year floodplain and the zone change does not involve housing. g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ [� or redirect flood flows? The site is not located within a 100 year floodplain 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ The zone change is consistent with the General Plan and the adjacent C-2 commercial zoned property to the east. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed zoning is consistent with the general plan for the • property. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑�}� communities conservation plan? No. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The site is already developed and this area is not within a MRZ-2 mineral resource zone. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ [� resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No, the site is in an urbanized area and not within a MRZ-2 zone. 11. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q/ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? CEQA Checklist 11 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation The zone change will not create any noise issues. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? The zone change will not result in any existing changes to the site. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The zone change will not increase noise levels. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The zone change will not increase noise levels. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no airports within two miles of the subject property. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ 2---- project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips within the vicinity. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ C�� (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? There will be no population growth as a result of the zone change. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ �� the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There is no existing housing on the site. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The site is a vacant bowling alley and will not affect housing. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑/ associated with the provision of new or physically altered CEQA Checklist 12 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ (� Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ 12- regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The zone change will not create any need for recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? There are no recreational facilities proposed as part of this zone change. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0� existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? The zone change will not increase traffic to or from the site. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ [�� standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The zone change will not affect congestion management c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ [�/ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? CEQA Checklist 13 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation There will be no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The zone change will not affect traffic. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ The zone change will not affect emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ �' Any proposed project on the site will be required to comply with the City's parking standards. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? There are no conflicts with any city policies related to alternative transportation modes. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ [g-- Regional Water Quality Control Board? No. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑�� treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ [Y facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ [f"" existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Future development of the site will have to provide adequate water service. e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may ❑ ❑ ❑ �� serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Yes. CEQA Checklist 14 4/1/99 File No.: Z-99-001- Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ []� to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? Yes. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ [[]� environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ ❑ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CEQA Checklist 15 4/1/99 opr • File No. [ — _ c C� 1 CITY OF ARCADIA , ARC D i1\ �oe 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE �RPOR,t£9 ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: March 8, 1999 General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Daryl J. Christian Address: 1820 E. First St. , Ste. 550 Santa Ana, CA 92705 2. Property Address (Location): 188 W. Las Tunas Ave. Assessor's Number: 5788-022-010, 004, 003 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Same as above. 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,including those required by city,regional,state and federal agencies: A Conditional Use Permit for the drive through pharmacy, alcohol sales, and hours of operation: • 5. Zone Classification: C-1 Limited Commercial, P-R1 over westerly 75 • feet. 6. General Plan Designation: Project Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Construction of a new 1 5, 251 s . f. Say-on Drug Store with a drive through pharmacy, a 3, 000 s.f. retail building, and a 2, 030 s. f. Taco Bell restaurant with a drive through. 8. Site size: 2. 7 acres 9. Square footageperbuildina: say-on: 15, 251 s. f. , Retail: 3, 000.'s. f. Taco Bell: 2, 030 s.?. 10. Number of floors of construction: 1 1. Amount of off-street parking provided: 146 full size stalls . 12. Proposed scheduling of project: 2000 13. Anticipated incremental development: • 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: Neighborhood Commercial - Total s . f. of bldq. : 20 , 281 s. f. proposed hours of operation are 24 hours 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: A CUP is bein• a..lied for h- - . • . . •. _ U. - .1.1 sales, and the hours of operation. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground ® fib:. contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public U lands or roads. 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. ❑ 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ® II E.I.R. 3/95 -2- • • YES NO Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. U 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire,water, sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, U I etc.). 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including. information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. • Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ablity, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to t best o ►y knowledge and belief. 3-8-gs9 — - Date Sign ture • E.I.R. 3/95 -3- 31. The subject site contains a vacant 35,462 s.f bowling alley. The property is paved and has minimal landscaping. The topography is relatively flat with all drainage flowing towards Live Oak Ave. A Geotechnical Report has been prepared and states that the site is suitable for the proposed project. There are no known plants, animals, cultural, historical, or scenic aspects that would prohibit the development of the site. All existing improvements will be demolished prior to the new construction. 32. The properties to the north and west are single family residential homes. To the south and east are areas of Commercial uses. The proposed project meets the criteria of the Arcadia Zoning Ordinance in regards to building height, frontage, set-backs, and landscaping. •