HomeMy WebLinkAbout1602
.
RESOLUTION 1602
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, eALlFORNIA, APPROVING eONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
99-017 TO EXPAND A GARAGE BUSINESS FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR
AT 400 N. FIRST AVE.
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1999, applications were filed by Randy Rizzi to
expand a garage business for automotive repair, Development Services Department Case
No. C.U.P. 99-017, at 400 N. First Avenue, and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Block 83 of Arcadia Santa Anita Tract ill the City of Arcadia, County of
Los Angeles, State ofealifornia, as recorded in Parcel Map Book 15, Page 89 &
90, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on January 11, 2000 and reopened on
. February 8, 2000, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING eOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SEeTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the report dated February 8, 2000 is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such eonditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity because the initial environmental study did not disclose any substantial adverse
effects to the area affected by the proposed proj ect. The property is zoned for an
industrial use, and the proposed garage expansion is allowed in such zone with an
approved Conditional Use Permit.
.
.
.
.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use. All yards, spates, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and
other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such eonditionaJ Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with
the General Plan.
6. That the new exterior design elements for the subject building are in
compliance with the design criteria set forth in the eity's Architectural Design Review
Regulations.
7. That the granting of such parking modification will secure an appropriate
improvement of the lot by providing the necessary area to enclose all business related
mechanical equipment (i.e. mechanical hoist, air compressor, etc.) within a building,
which will also promote uniformity of development.
8. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the
environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a
Conditional Use Permit and related parking modification, to expand a garage business for
automotive repair upon the following conditions:
I. That building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer. All ADA requirements shall be
complied with in reference to on-site disabled access; parking, restrooms, door hardware,
and entrances.
2
1602
.
2. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy,
and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire
Department which shall include, but are not limited to the following items:
a. A Knox-box with keys shall be installed in conformance with Uniform Fire
eode, per UFC 904.
b. An NFP A-72 Fire Alarm System shall be installed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code and all other applicable provisions of the Arcadia
Municipal Code (311 4.1).
c. Provide occupant load signs at all locations within the occupancy. Provide
seating plan and have in posted in the manager's office for inspection.
d. Eldt illumination shall comply with Sec. 1211 UFC.
e. That all exit doors shall be equipped with panic hardware as defined in the
building code. All interior doors shall open in the direction of travel.
3 That a modification be granted for 2 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 6 for the
. garage use. This parking Modification does not constitute an approval of a general
reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site,. but rather only for the specific use
approved by this CUP.
4. That eup 99-017 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have
executed a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance of
the conditions of approval.
5. That a covenant be recorded to hold the two properties together for the purpose
of constructing the additional garage over a property line, in a form and substance
approved by the eity Attorney.
6. That there shal1 be no outdoor storage of merchandise, crates, bottles, equipment,
cars, and car parts permitted.
7. No work shall be done outside of the enclosed service bays.
8. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
.
3
1602
.
.
.
8. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate, suspension or revocation.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of February 8, 2000, and the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian
None
Bruckner
SEeTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of February 2000, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bruckner, Huang, Murphy
None
Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Sleeter
(2<AW'(~ ~,
, hairman, Planrung Co . s;?on
eity of Arcadia
AT~
-'-, ~
& 7-~A~ --~
Secretary, Planning ommission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM::
~r./~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
4
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMlliNTSER~CESDEPARTMlliNT
February 8, 2000
TO:
Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler. Community Development Administrator
By: Candyce Burnett, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Supplemental staff report to Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-
017. An expansion of a garage business for automotive repair at
400 N. First Avenue
SUMMARY:
.
This is a supplemental staff report to the Conditional Use Permit application that was
submitted by Randy Rizzi to expand a garage business for automotive repair at 400
N. First Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-017 subject to the conditions asset forth in the
staff report.
BACKGROUND:
In response to a complaint, the Fire Department and Planning staff conducted a site
inspection of the subject property on May 4, 1999 to determine if any code violations
existed at this location. Mr. Rizzi, the business owner, was present during the
inspection. Based upon staff's investigation, it was noted that the site's parking area
was being used for outside storage, and occupied by an illegal lean-to, a canopy,
and two illegally installed hoists. Following the inspection, Mr. Rizzi was advised of
the procedure to bring his property into compliance and to apply for a conditional
use permit if he wanted to expand the use.
The existing 1,890 sq.ft. automotive repair shop does not have a conditional use
permit and is considered a legal non-conforming use. The Arcadia Municipal Code
prohibits expansion of legal non-conforming uses without obtaining an approved
conditional use permit. .
.
Mr. Rizzi submitted a Conditional Use Permit on November 8, 1999, and a public
hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 11. 2000 to consider
his request. At that time, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
February 8, 2000, to give the applicant the opportunity to revise his plans and bring
the property into compliance by removing the outstanding code violations from the
site prior to such hearing. Currently. Mr. Rizzi has removed the illegal hoists,
canopy, outside storage, and cleaned the property of refuge. The illegal lean-to is
. still remaining on the site.
The proposed site for the expansion was originally designed to provide needed
parking for the existing business. Specifically, this parking area was supposed to be
used for employee parking as well as parking for vehicles waiting to be repaired.
I
,
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to expand an eXisting
automotive repair shop. The revised proposal will add an additional 1,102 sq.ft. of
garage area, which also requires a parking modification to be granted because of
the site's limited parking area. The additional garage would be constructed over a
property line to accommodate three new work bays, indoor storage, and a trash
enclosure area, as shown on the submitted sitelfloor plan. In addition, two
oversized parking spaces will be provided for disabled access purposes.
The current business hours would continue from 7:30a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
PARKING MODIFICATION:
.
Concurrent with the consideration of the request to expand a garage business for
automotive repair, the applicant is also requesting a parking modification. Currently,
the site has 6 on-site parking stalls. Per the submitted site plan, the applicant will
provide two oversized parking spaces per the request of staff for disabled access
purposes.
The current parking regulations require that in an industrial zone, 2 on-site parking
stalls shall be provided for every 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The applicant's
proposal requires 6 on-site parking spaces of which one space must provide access
for the disabled per such regulations.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW:
Concurrent with the consideration of this modification, the Planning Commission
may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's design concept
plans.
The applicant's design concept plan proposes a building of approximately 1,102
sq.ft., which will have brick veneer applied over the structural concrete block to
match the exterior of the existing building.
.
CUP 99.017
February 8, 2000
Page 2
. ANALYSIS:
.
.
The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to allow the City an opportunity
to review uses which require special consid~ration in regards to traffic, impact on
adjoining properties, parking, etc. Currently, ;the applicant's existing operation has
created an on-street parking problem because there is inadequate on-site parking,
Staff believes that the revised on-site parking with the additional garage, which will
accommodate 3 cars for overnight parking purposes, will mitigate the on-site parking
deficiency.
In staffs opinion, the applicant's revised proposal would be an appropriate
improvement.
CEQA:
Pursuant to the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any 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 an adverse effect on wildlife resources.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 99-017. If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Conditional
Use Permit application, such approval should be subject to the following conditions:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer. All ADA requirements
shall be meet for disabled access; parking, restrooms, door hardware, and
entrances.
2.. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy,
and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the
Fire Department which shall include, but are not limited to the following items:
a. A Knox-box with keys shall be installed in conformance with Uniform Fire
Code, per UFC 904.
CUP 99-017
February 8, 2000
Page 3
.
.
.
b. An NFPA-72 Fire Alarm System shall be installed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code and all other applicable provisions of the Arcadia
Municipal Code (3114.1).
c. Provide occupant load signs at all locations within the occupancy. Provide
seating plan and have in posted in thl\l manager's office for inspection.
j
,
d. Exit illumination shall comply with Sec. 1211 UFC.
e. The calculated occupant load is over 50, all exit doors shall be equipped
with panic hardware as defined in the building code. All interior doors shall
open in the direction of travel.
3. A modification shall be granted for 2 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 6 required
for the garage business. This parking modification does not constitute an
approval of a gereral reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site,
but rather only for the specific use approved by this CUP.
4. That a covenant be recorded to hold the two properties together for the
purpose of constructing the additional garage over a property line.
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of merchandise, crates, bottles,
equipment, cars, and car parts permitted.
6. No work shall be done outside of the enclosed service bays.
5. That CUP 99-017 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have
executed a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and
acceptance of the conditions of approval.
7. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or reVocation.
FINDINGS:
Conditional Use Permit
Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the Planning Commission must
make the following findings:
1.
That the granting of such Conditional Use permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare or injUrious to the property or improvements in such
zone or vicinity.
CUP 99.017
February 8, 2000
Page 4
.
.
.
2.
That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use permit is authorized.
1hat the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking loading,
landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and
uses in the neighborhood.
That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
That the granting of such Conditional Use permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive general plan.
3.
4.
5.
If the Planning Commission determines that the project should be denied, the
Commission must make the appropriate findings as set forth above.
Modification
In order to approve or deny a modification, the Planning Commission must make
anyone of the following findings:
1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or
2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship (non-economic); or
3. Promote uniformity of development.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
If the Planning Commission intends to approve or deny this conditional use permit
application, the Commission should move for approval or denial and direct staff to
prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific
findings.
Should the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to
the scheduled pUblic hearing, please contact Candyce Burnett at your earliest
convenience.
Corkran Nicholson
Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
. January 11 th staff report (includes Negative Declaration, Environmental
documentation, and site photos)
. revised site plan and floor plan
CUP 99.017
February 8,2000
Page 5
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
January 11, 2000
I
.
FROM:
Arcadia City Planning Commission
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator A~
, By: Candyce Burnett, Assistant Planner If(/' .;
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-017
An expansion of a garage business for automotive repair at 400 N,
First Avenue
TO:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Randy Rizzi to expand a
garage business for automotive repair at 400 N. First Avenue. The Development
Services Department is recommending denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-017.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Randy A. Rizzi
LOCATION: 400 N. First Avenue
REQUEST: A conditional use permit to expand a garage business for
automotive repair with a related parking modification and
Architectural Design Review.
LOT AREA: Approximately 6,669 square feet (.15 acres)
FRONTAGE: 70 feet along First Ave,
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is currently developed with an 1,890 sq.ft.' auto repair shop
and office, and is zoned M-1.
.
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Planned Industrial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North:
Mixed commercial and Multiple Family Residential;
zoned C-2 & R-3
Planned Industrial; zoned M-1.
Planned Industrial; zoned M-1
Planned Industrial and Multiple Family Residential; zoned
C-2
. South:
East:
West:
PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to expand an existing
automotive repair shop. The proposal will enclose two illegally installed hoist adding
an additional 1,125 sq. ft. of repair area which requires a parking modification.
Business hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The existing automotive repair Shop does not have a conditional use permit and is
considered a legal non-conforming use. The Arcadia Municipal Code prohibits
expansion of legal non-conforming uses without obtaining an approved conditional
use permit.
BACKGROUND
In response to a complaint, the Fire Department and Planning staff conducted a site
inspection of the subject property on May 4, 1999 to determine if any code violations
existed at this location. Mr. Rizzi, the business owner, was present during the
inspection. Based upon staff's investigation, the following violations were noted:
outside storage, illegal lean-tos, an illegal canopy, and two illegally installed hoists.
Mr. Rizzi was apprised of these violations and advised that he must discontinue use
of the hoists until installation details were submitted and permits were obtained from
Building Services, Following the inspection a letter was sent to Mr. Rizzi,
addressing all code violations and further advised him that he had until May 28,1999
to bring the property into compliance.
Mr. Rizzi contacted Planning staff on May 26'11, and asked if it was possible to
extend the compliance date because of the hOliday. During the conversation it was
explained to Mr. Rizzi that he could apply for a Conditional Use Permit to request
that the outdoor hoists remain on the site. If he intended to apply for a CUP, he had
until May 31, 1999 to submit an application.
CUP 99-017
January 11, 2000
Page 2
.
On May 27th, Building and Planning staff made another site inspection and noted
that the hoists were still being used and the canopy had not been removed. Mr.
Rizzi was again advised that he must immediately discontinue using the hoists and
that the illegal canopy had to be removed by June ?fh.
On June 1,1999 Mr. Rizzi came into the office with questions about the CUP
application. His questions were answered and he was given another extension until
June 21st for the July 13th meeting, to apply for the CUP. Staff was concerned that
he was stili using the illegal vehicle hoists at that time, which is a public safety issue.
.
Because of the continued use of the illegal hoists and other violations, the City
Attorney's office sent a letter to Mr. Rizzi on July 6th informing him that he had until
July 21, 1999 to bring the property into compliance or a criminal complaint would be
filed. Again, Mr. Rizzi came into the Planning office for information about completing
the Conditional Use Permit application. At this time, he was given an extension to
August 9th, to file his application for the next Planning Commission Meeting on
September 14th.
On Monday, August 10th, a CUP application was submitted to Planning for the
September 14th meeting. The application was reviewed and found to be incomplete
i.e., the Architectural Design Review application and complete plans for Design
Review and CUP submittal were missing. Staff informed Mr. Rizzi that the missing
items were to be submitted prior to August 23m.
On September 14,1999, because of non-compliance with the August 23m deadline,
a letter was sent to Mr, Rizzi, with a refund of the filing fee. Pat Rizzi, from Gary Hill
Automotive contacted Planning staff on September 29th to discuss how to complete
the additional Architectural Design Review application. As a result of non-
compliance with the code, the City' Attorney's office filed a criminal complaint against
the applicant on October 14,1999.
On October 28, 1999 and again on November 4, 1999, staff received a call from Mr.
Rizzi's attorney inquiring about the code sections that the property at 400 N. First
was in violation of: A fax was sent on both occasions. '
Mr. Rizzi attended court on November 16,1999 regarding the criminal complaint
which is pending the outcome of this application. A follow up letter was sent to his
attorney after the count appearance to reiterate upon the cited violations.
.
On November 8th, Mr. Rizzi submitted a new Conditional Use Permit application,
which had an incomplete site plan and elevation. Staff was contacted by Mr. Rizzi's
attorney regarding information on completing the CUP application. The revised
plans were submitted to Planning on December 1,1999. In addition, the applicant
submitted the hoist installation details.
CUP 99-017
January II, 2000
Page 3
.
.
.
On Wednesday, December 1,1999, staff again inspected the site at 400 N. First
Ave. At this time it was noted that Mr. Rizzi had removed the illegal canopy.
However, the lean-tos adjacent to the building had not been removed, equipment
and parts were still being stored outside in the required parking stalls, and the hoists
were still being used (see attached photos).
PARKING MODIFICATION
Concurrent with the consideration of the request to expand a garage business for
automotive repair, the applicant is also requesting a parking modification. Currently,
the site has 6 on-site parking stalls. The illegally installed hoists are located on 3 of
the stalls. Per the submitted site plan, the applicant has provided 3 substandard
parking stalls. In addition, a trash enclosure will be required if this application is
approved, which may further reduce the amount of on-site parking.
The parking regulations as set forth in the Municipal Code require that in an
industrial zone, 2 on-site parking stalls shall be provided for every 1,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area. The applicant's proposal requires 6 on-site parking spaces per
such code requirements.
The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to allow the City an
opportunity to review uses which require special consideration in regards to traffic,
impact on adjoining properties, parking, etc. Currently, the applicant's existing
operation has created an on-street parking problem because there is inadequate on-
site parking. Adding the additional garage space and reducing the number of on-
site parking spaces will exacerbate the current on-site and off-site parking problems.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
Concurrent with the consideration of this' modification, the Planning Commission
may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's design concept
plans.
The applicant's design concept plan, proposes a building of approximately 1,125
sq.ft. with a brick veneer over concrete block, to match the exterior of the existing
building.
ANALYSIS
There has always been a parking problem along La Porte Street. The proposed site
for expansion was originally designed to provide needed parking for the existing
business. This parking area was supposed to be used for employee parking as well
as parking for vehicles waiting to be repaired. The installation of the hoists and
CUP 99-017
January 11, 2000
Page 4
.
.
.
expansion of the building eliminates necessary parking spaces for this business
resulting in a significant impact upon the on-street parking,
In staffs opinion, the site is not adequate in size to accommodate the expanded use;
and the proposed expansion,. if approved, would only increase the already existing
on-street parking problem in this area.
I
.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any 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 an adverse effect on wildlife resources.
Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit No. 99-017. If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Conditional
Use Permit application, they should file the Negative Declaration and adopt
Resolution 1602 approving Conditional Use Permit 99-017 to expand a garage
business for automotive repair at 400 N. First Avenue, subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer. All ADA requirements
shall be meet for disabled access; parking, restrooms, door hardware, and
entrances.
2. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy,
and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the
Fire Department which shall include, but are not limited to the following items:
a. A Knox-box with keys shall be installed in conformance with Uniform Fire
Code, per UFC 904.
b. An NFPA-72 Fire Alarm System shall be installed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code and all other applicable provisions of the Arcadia
Municipal Code (3114.1).
CUP 99.017
January 11,2000
Page 5
.
c. Provide occupant load signs at all locations within the occupancy. Provide
seating plan and have in posted in the manager's office for inspection.
d. Exit illumination shall comply with Sec. 1211 UFC.
e. The calculated occupant load is over 50, all exit doors shall be equipped
with panic hardware as defined in the building code. All interior doors shall
open in the direction of travel.
3. A modification be granted for 3 on-~ite parking spaces in lieu of 6 required for
the garage business, This parking Modification does not constitute an approval
of a general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site, but rather
only for the specific use approved by this CUP.
4. That there shall be no outdoor storage of merchandise, crates, bottles,
equipment, cars, and car parts permitted.
5. That a trash enclosure be provided on site with the review and approval of
Planning Staff for location and design.
6. That CUP 99-017 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have
executed a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and
. acceptance of the conditions of approval.
7. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application,
the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution
which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
ShOUld the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to
the scheduled public hearing, please contact Candyce Burnett at your earliest
convenience.
.
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, site plan, floor plan, Negative Declaration,
Environmental documentation, and site photos
CUP 99-017
January 11, 2000
Page 6
.
.
.
-
.;
,
,
;;;
~-
}', " 8Q'
..
..
~
R-3
J
-,0
;r
~;J
'M-l
'"'~
_0
~
~'"
>-
."
t
","> ~
'"
SD 5'0
"~04i .0 (//~,) (/22,)
rt.. 'I- (II' (120)
"' S!.. '"
----1- - 8" '*
r'" ....
~ o~
'! C-2 ..
- ~
0- J. ",0
..~ cO
Is so 50
\~~
~ 11 4-1
...
....
......
.....
..;. ~
.....
.
ClJ
~
~
rI.l
...
....
~
'0'
,Ill
,~
400 N. First.
CUP 99-017
9~.r
Colorado Blvd.
, ....
~ ..
-..
5"
c',/:24.l
eo
(126)
49
I' (/2C.)
-R-3 ..
...
~ "
:1:'"
~
50 4<:1
50
liS
50
so 50
50
50
,so so
50
135'
'"
<3
:Ii
~
"'if!
if!
,.
'"
"
M-l
(/15)
1'//4.1 ("',)
50 so
(/;,.1
50
t'/J6.1
so
(/99.1 t"/"'.!1..1
50 50
(/.2t/ (/2?,)
so 50
La Porte St.
-;.:
so
5l t"//"''; (II B)
M-l
"00 e.O
{/!Jd.I (/.!I4';
'::>0
(/.!J.5)
~
(/~
14'."
3G
(/2&.1
I
""
~
o
--- .... -.--
Land Use and Zoning Map
tNORTH
Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet
SITE S~
OWlNER: RANDY RIZZI'
ZONE:
LOT SIZE: JSOO SF
.
.
.
I b 0
I
~ h:I . ?!l
0
I
D ;:r; -,J I Cu
-
g :r:'- , I
[J :r:
EXSm~G BRICK WAlL
it~ATlON
SOUTH ELBVATlON(E)
~1Ir""'"
'-
---
EXSm~G BRICK WALL
-
I
I
I
~R~FATION
-------.
NORTH ELEVATlON(E)
~"'-~.
.,---
I
I
I
.1
ii'
1
/
I
I
~ ,_ I
V LEX~ mEt FANeE TO ~ ~i
_____D______ [_~~~~=---m-,=_J.
4'
.
.
~IW!VATlON(E)
......,.
.......
7'-0'
SITING OFF1CE
30'-0'
EXSmNG GARAGE
~ ~ ~-~
20''''''
u
14'-0'
I ,..
.~...,.
20'-.,./
1 L.-_._-,-_',__,__,__
.
--..-
..~.-1Y
8. CONCRETE BLOCIC WALl TYP.
""
'0'
COVER CAR POOL
tl--,
I I
. --
24'-"
,.....
~
~
lW--tt"
t
,
T
:1'-0"
f-
".....
-i
7....,.
-----1
SlDi W.wc
EX1srT1HQ I.ANOSCAPlHG
~
_,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _LA_PORTE S~I!!....- _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.
.
.
File No,: CUP 99-017
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
eALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEN'hAL QUALITY AeT
I
.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Application No. Cup 99-017
A Conditional Use Permino expand a garage business for automotive repair..
B. Location of Project:
400 N First Ave.. Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Randy Rizzi
3138 Hempstead Ave.
Arcadia, eA 91006
(626) 445-3440
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:
None
Date Prepared: December 16, 1999 By:
Date Posted: December16. 1999
I)
. 1.
FILE No. CUP 99-017
CITY OF ARCADIA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title:
Application No. CU099-017
2. Lead Agency Name ,& Address:
City of Arcadia !
Development Services Department -
Community Development Division I Planning Services
240 W. Huntington DriVe
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
3. Contact person & phone number: Candyce Burnett
4, Project Location: 400 N. First Ave
5, Project sponsor's name and address:
Randy Rizzi
3138 Hempstead Ave.
Arcadia, Ca, 91006
.6.
7.
General Plan Designation:
Industrial
Zoning Designation:
M-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.)
A Conditional Use Permit to expand a garage business for automotive repair.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
North:
Mixed commercial and Multiple Family Residential; zoned C-2
& R-3
Light Industrial; zoned M-1
Light Industrial; zoned M-1
Light Industrial and Multiple Family Residential; zoned M-1 &
R-3
South:
East:
West:
.
EIR CHECKLIST
I
01/07/00
.
.
10.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
City Engineering Division / City Maintenance Services Department / City Water Division!
Los Angeles County Engineer
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:
D Aesthetics
D Biological Resources
D Hazards & Hazardous
Materials .
D Mineral Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities/Service Systems
D Agriculture Resources
D Cultural Resources
D HydrologylWater Quality
D Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D Air Quality
D Geology/Soils
D Land Use/Planning
D Population/Housing
D TransportationlTraffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
IZI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARTION will be prepared,
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect' in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the .earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or m' tion measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
requi
~
12116/99
Date
. Candyce Burnett
Printed Name
The City of Arcadia
For
EIR CHECKLIST
2
01107100
.
.
.
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 project like the one involved (e,g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specifi9 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 as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required,
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated' applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Significant Impact.' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, Section
15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII 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 orpages where the
statement is substantiated,
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources uses or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ElR CHECKLIST
l
01107100
File No:: CUP 99-017
.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the proposal result,in
potentiaUmpacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
I
.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in
the vicinity?
[ I
[ ]
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses)?
[ ]
[ ]
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrang~ment of an established community
(including a low-income or minority
community)?
[ ]
[]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
[ I
[Xl
[ ]
[X]
[ I
[Xl
[ ]
[Xl
[ I
[X]
.
The proposed automotive repair shop is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the
area with a Conditional Use Permit. The constrnction of an additional garage structure will be subject to
all other environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over this area. There are no
agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections?
[ ]
[ ]
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e,g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
[ ]
[ ]
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
T ]
[ I
[ ]
[Xl
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[Xl
The proposed automotive repair shop is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations with a
Conditional Use Permit for the area and will not impact the population or housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? [ ] [ I [ I [Xl
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ) [ ) [ ] [Xl
.
CEQA Checklist
8199
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
[ 1
[ 1
d) Landslides or mudflows?
e) Erosion changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading,
or fill?
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
t) Subsidence of the land?
g) Expansive soils?
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
File No.: CUP 99-017
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ I
[ 1
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ I
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
Wbile this entire region is sobject to the effects of seismic activity, tbe subject location has not been
determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above. geologic problems.
4. WATER - Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
[ 1
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
[ 1
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity)?
[ 1
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
[ 1
e) Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
[ 1
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
any aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground
water?
[ 1
[ I
[ J
h) Impacts to ,ground water quality?
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ I
[ I
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ I
[ 1
[ I
[ 1
[ I
[ 1
CEQA Checklist
8/99
[X]
[X]
[XI
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
[XI
[X]
FileNo.: CUP 99-017
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
ground water otherwise available for
public water,supplies? j [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed site alterations wonld not result In any of the above impacts.
5. AIR QUALITY . Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Expose seusitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or
temperature or cause any ch'!llge in
climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d) Create. objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
.
The automotive repair shop aud its operation will be subject to local air quality regulations as administered
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which should prevent any impacts relntive to items (a)
andlor (h) above.
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g" sharp curves or dangerous
Intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g.,
farm equipment)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
c) Inadequate emergency accesses or access
to nearby uses?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off,site?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
,g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
.
The automotive repair shop is located In an industrial zoned area and is compatible with the surrounding
uses. Currently there is an on-site parking problem due to those uses. Adding additional garage space will
CEQA Checklist
8/99
FileNo.: CUP99-017
.
Would the proposaI.result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
further impact the on-site parking problem. The proposed project may be subject to mitigation measures
to control additional traffic or parking related impacts.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the prop1osal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed automotive repair shop is consistent witb the general plan and zoning designations witb a
Conditional Use Permit. None of the above eircumstanees,exist.
. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
b) Use non"renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
c) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be 'of
future value to the region and the residents
<If the State?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
The proposed project will be required to comply with adopted energy conservation requirements. None of
the above impacts have been associated with the proposed type of use.
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release
<If hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
.
CEQA Checklist
8/99
File No.: CUP 99-017
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal resullin Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Iocorporated Impact Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [X]
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of j
.
potential health hazards? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [X]
The City Building Services and the City Fire Department wiD review the plans for the proposed automotive
repair shop to Ilrevent any of the above Impacts. No existing sources of potential health hazards have been
identified at the subject property.
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(X]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
The site of the proposed use is in an existing industrial zone and neither of the above impacts is associated
with this location or tbe proposed use. Should any problems arise however, compliance with noise
regulations will prevent any unreasonable noise levels.
. 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 followiag areas:
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Police protection? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [X]
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [X]
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed use is, consistent with the planned uses for the area and will not result in any of the above
impacts.
12. UTILITmS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
0) Power or natura1 gas? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [X]
b) Communications systems? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [X]
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [X]
.
CEQA Checklist
8/99
File No.: CUP 99-017
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e) Stonn water drainage? ; [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
t) Solid waste disposal? [ ] I] [ ] [X]
g) Local or regional water supplies? I] I ] I] [X]
Its is not anticipated that any of the above utilities, or service systems will be signlficnntly impacted.
Nevertheless, the proposed improvements will be reviewed for, and the developer will be required to
provide, if necessary, any new systems or supplies necessary to mitigate any such impacts.
13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic bighway? [ ] I ] [ ] [X]
b) Have a demonstrable negative aeSthetics
effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
.
The proposed use will be in an existing" industrial zoned area, and any exterior improvements will be
required to comply with local architectural standards and illumination limits and wiIl,notresult in any of
the above Impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] I] [ ] [X]
c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change, which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e) Restrict existing, religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? I] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed use will be in an existing commercial building. None of the above resources have been
identified at the subject area, and none of the impacts have been associated with the proposed use.
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demaJId for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
CEQA Checklist
8/99
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
FileNo.: CUP99-017
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i
The proposed use will be in an existing industrial zoned area, and tbe proposed project will not result in
any of tbe above impacts.
16. MANDATORY FIl'lDINGS 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
project.)
[ ]
d) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(X]
(X]
(X]
(X]
Tbe proposed use will be in an,existing industrial zoned area, and the proposed project will not result in
any of the above impacts.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced
pursuant to tbe tiering, programElR, or
other CEQA processes to analyze any noted
effect(s) resulting from tbe proposal.
CEQA Checklist
8/99
"l2:26p
COHH. DEiI. DIV.
6264479173
p. 10
.
Fil..Nn, CU0 ct9 - 0 n
CITY OF Al'{CADIA
240lNEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA. CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
1999
. Filed: November 5,
II
"
'-
. :neral Information
1. Applicant's Name: Randv A. Rizzi
Address: _~.J)~. .i;lemps.t~?<?- _~~enu":!..,_Arcadia CA91 0.0.6
2. Property Address (Location): 40.0. North First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 910.0.6
Assessor's Number:
98 0.10. 5773 0.0.3 0.29 2
S. Name, address and telephone nunwer 01 person to be contacted concemlng this pruj~ct:
~~"~y ~ R177i (62614~5-3440 ,
40.0. North First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 910.0.6
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for thk
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:,
. ~.,....."~1,, ~.,.."hi t-.."t-llr" 1 np.si.gn Review, CondLtional Use Permit
5. Zone Classification:
M-1
6. General Plan Desi~ation:
ProiectDescripnon
Industrial
-
7.
Proposed u.:;c of nHc (project dcs~pnon): Enclose three e'xist'inq parking stalls
. within a concrete block fire approved building within which co
, service automobiles leaving three parking stalls unaffe?t~d.
8. Site! size:
136' X51 I
--
9. Square footage per building: 1125 s. f., to be extended to 1750. s. f .
10. Numbet of floots OfC011StructiOn:' one
11. Amount or off-street parking provided: none
12. _roposed scheduling of project.
13. Anticipated incremental development:
~~, 261'
COMH. DE\!. DI\!.
6264475173
po.11
.
esidential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
..ts, and type of household sizes expected:
N/A
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, ~ity or. regionally oriented, square "-
footage oi.sales area, and loading facilities, hours,of operation:
'C!,::ll']';nn;=t"y,....,..;ont-aon R'r."""'C! I"'\-T "'ro.,..:;:d-in1""l ::l,,...j:t.* 7.~n ~ m _ t;"1.0 p..m.
Mondays through Fridays. No loading facilities present_ No sales
area.
16. II industriClI, indic:ltc type, c5tiJ:n,,~od employment per shift, nnd loading fllcili~ies:
Tnnll~rr;-~,l r.:~T1P.,...;:;l 1'1,," n~~::d-9'n.=lr.inn. 7.(")np- M-1. aonroved
for automobile use
One shift with 3 employees
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:
. prnjo,,"+- in'Ut"'\''t7P~ r""nnn-i.finT1:::l1 nee rO.,...~;T QfFC'ii111Se- C'",...,...o-nf-
use was in operation before a conditional use permit was
Are thn6lli:Mtr.~'items applicable to the project or its effects? DiS~uss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial aIterati!' of ground
contours.
Cl
ijJ
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public 0 4)
lands or roads.
21. Change inpattem, scale or character of general t1IeC1uf project. 0 (j
i-
22. Significant amounts of solid waste o.litte.. 0 00
2"\' Change in dust. ash, smoke. fumes or odors in vicinity. 0 1m
.
E.1.R.
S/95
.:2.
-'!,26P
COMM. DEIJ. DIIJ.
626'\'\79173
p.11.
.
esidential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
..1:5, and type of household sizes expected: '
N/A
If commercial, indicate the type, .I.e. neighborhood, '!tY or regionally oriented, square
Ioo tage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
'Qp'J".....n~l'~T rvric::.n+-orl R'nnrc: n.f ,",,!'o""'::"+-';l"'\n :IT"o.. j.~n ;:II m _ c:...~n p.m..
Mondays through Fridays. No loading facilities present. No sales
area,
16. If industriCll, indicCltCtypC, csti=tcd cmploymc:ntpcr shift, and loading facilities:
Tnnn~r~;~' ~~np~~l ~l~n ne~jqnAt'nn. 7.nne M-1. ~n9roved
for automobile use
One shift with 3 employees
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 dearly why the application is required: ,
. P'rnj,:.r'" ;rlu,....l,rCaCl: ,...nnnit-i.....n~l 11'70. ro,.,.m;+- 'be("iiln$~ C"1rr:~r.-....
use was in operation before a conditional use permit was
Are thH6lliMfrtk,items applicable to the project or its effects? Dis~ss 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
contours.
o lj
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
Cl 4il
.-
22. Sigruncllnt amounts of solid waste;: or litter.
o ~
o ~
21. Change in pattern, scale or charact~ of g,meral arei:l of project.
2~, Change in dust ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
o
~
...l.R.
3/95
.2.
"'2:26p
COHH. DEV. DIV.
626'1'179173
?10
Filp-No, eU\> Ole, - 0 It
. Filed: November 5,
CITY OF AL"{CADIA
240 WEST HUNTiNGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA. CA 91007
'ENVIRONMENT At INFORMATION FORM
1999
I
.!
:.
meral Information
1. Applicant's Name: Randy A. Rizzi
Address: _~.J)~. ,':1emps.t~~~ ..~~.!l~~!..._Arcadia CA 91006
2. Property Address (Location): 400 North First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006
Assessor's Number:
98 010 5773 003 029 2
3. Name, address. and tdephone number 01 pel'son to becontiicted concernh1g this pruj~tt.
R"n"y II 'Rh',,j f 626 \ 445-344.0 ,
400 North First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for thit>
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:,
. liT"''''';'' lIT,..hit-",,..t-llr,,l n.."';gn Review. Conditional Use Permit
5. Zone ClassiIkation:
M-1
6. General Plan Desij;l1ition:
Pro;ect Description
Industrial
.
7,
PropoGed tWe of sile (p.rojcct descz?p,tion): Enclose three existinq 'Parl<ing stalls
. within a concr~te block f~re app~oved building within wh~ch co
serviciO!automobiles' leaving thr~arking stalls unaffe~ted.
--
8. Site size:
136' X5 1 I
p
9. Square footage per building: 11 25 s. f., to be extended to 1 7 SO s. f .
10. Number or floors of construction: one
11. .-mount of off-street parking provided:
12. Proposed scheduling of project:
13. Anticipated incremental development:
none
.
'12:26p
COMM. DEV. DIV.
626'\479173
p.12
YES NO
. _'hange in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing a a
drainage paHerns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration lev~1f in the vicinity. 0 ~
".
, 15 site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 0 [J
.0.
27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, 0 Q
flammable or explosives.
28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
o ua
29. Substantial increase in iossil fuel consumption (electricitYi oil~ natural gas,
etc.).
o Ci
30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o w
'Environmental Setti.n~ '
3. Df!sc:ribf! (on a separate sheet) the projed site al; it exists before the project, includine
information on topography, soil stability, plants and arJmals, 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 aCl:epted.
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,
CertJfication
I hereby certily 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 ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~-~~ ~--
" Signature -- ~./
//- go .-9-'7
Date
.
.3-
E.l.R.
3/95