The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item II.B - Amending General Plan Land Use9 ` s #af f epor .TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 6, 2000 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION 2000 -17 - AMENDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "COMMERCIAL" ORDINANCE NO. 803 — AMENDING ZONING MAP FROM R -2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C -3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL" On March 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing relative to the subject items. A copy of the staff report providing a detailed analysis of the subject general plan amendment and zone change is attached for your review. After hearing all testimony, the Commission voted 4 -0 to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 99 -01 and Zone Change 99 -211. The proposal includes a zone change from R -2; "Light Multiple Residential' to C -3; "Medium Commercial', and an amendment to the General Plan to change the existing land use from "Medium Density Residential" to "Commercial' located at 3041 Gladys Avenue. This is a request from Jack -In -The -Box, Inc. to facilitate the development of a new fast food restaurant with a drive through and 24 -hour operation. Staff has also included copies of the minutes and resolution pertaining to this proposed development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: ADOPT Resolution 2000 -17 APPROVING General Plan Amendment 99 -01, AMENDING the Rosemead General Plan land use designation from "Medium Density Residential' to "Commercial; and Rosemead City Council April 11, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Y 2. INTRODUCE Ordinance No. 803 APPROVING Zone Change 99 -211, AMENDING the Rosemead Zoning designation from R -2; "Light Multiple Residential' to C -3; "Medium Commercial'. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Resolution 2000 -17 EXHIBIT B - Ordinance No. 803 EXHIBIT C - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 20, 2000 EXHIBIT D - Planning Commission Minutes, dated March 20, 2000 EXHIBIT E - Planning Commission Resolution No. 00 -10, dated April 3, 2000 RESOLUTION 00 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -01 AMENDING THE LAND USE AREA DESIGNATION FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" 'TO "COMMERCIAL ", LOCATED AT 3041 GLADYS AVENUE (APN: 5288 -009- - 053,- 054, -055). WHEREAS, on December 29, 1999, Jack -In- The -Box, 100 West Barranca Avenue, Suite 200, West Covina, CA, 91791, filed an application requesting a general plan amendment to change a land use area designation from "Medium Density Residential" to "Commercial' on property located at 3041 Gladys Avenue; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is part of a development to include a restaurant with drive through access; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promote commercial development; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment 99 -01 would designate the subject property "Commercial" allowing commercial type of uses; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 2000, an initial study for the proposed general plan amendment was completed; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2000 & March 29, 2000, notices were posted in 10 public locations and sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearings to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative General Plan Amendment 99- 01; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2000 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on General Plan Amendment 99 -01. The City Council reviewed all correspondence that had been received for and against the project. The City Council reviewed and considered the previously prepared Initial Study and Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 99 -01; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. EXHIBIT "A" Resolution 00 -17 General Plan Amendment 99 -01 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofRosemead as follows: SECTION 1 . An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were previously prepared pursuant to CEQA assessing the potential environmental impacts that might result from the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment 99 -01. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that there would not be significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The Planning Commission certified the proposed Negative Declaration for the project, and recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment request; and SECTION 2 . The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES General Plan Amendment 99 -01, amending the land use area designation of the general plan from "Medium Density Residential' to "Commercial" for the subject property, is in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed general plan amendment, in that the change to the General Plan Land Use Area will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the neighborhood where the development is proposed. SECTION 3 . That based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the testimony and evidence received at the public hearing the City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 99 -01. SECTION 4 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause same to be processed as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 11" day of April 2000. MARGARET CLARK, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERAMA, City Clerk Resohition 00 -17 General Plan Amendment 99 -01 Page 3 of 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF ROSEMEAD I, Nancy Valderama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 00 -17 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -01 AMENDING THE LAND USE AREA DESIGNATION FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO "COMMERCIAL ", LOCATED AT 3041 GLADYS AVENUE (APN: 5288 -009 -- 053,- 054, -055). was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11 " day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NANCY VALDERAMA, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 803 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 99 -211, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R -2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO "C -3; MEDIUM COMMERCIAL ", FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH ACCESS LOCATED AT 3041 GLADYS AVENUE (APNs: 5288- 009 - 053,- 054, -055). WHEREAS, on December 29, 1999, Jack -In- The -Box, 100 West Barranca Avenue, Suite 200, West Covina, CA, 91791, filed.an application requesting an amendment Rosemead zoning map from R -2; "Light Multiple Residential" to "C -3; Medium Commercial" on property located at 3041 Gladys Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted general plan, zoning ordinance, and map, including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, Zone Change 99 -211 would designate the subject property C3; "Medium Commercial" allowing commercial types of development such as restaurants with drive through access; and WHEREAS, State Planning and Zoning Law, Title 7, Chapter 3, Article 8, plus Sections 17.116 & 17.124, of the Rosemead Municipal Code, authorize, and set standards for, the preparation of specific plans (zone change) governing the development of private property; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone change to the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 65454 of the California Government Code requires that specific plans (zone change) be consistent with the adopted general plan; and WHEREAS, City Council policy encourages the preparation of these zone changes because of the superior level of planning and protection they offer to the quality and character of area where they are located; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2000, an initial study for the draft ordinance was completed finding that all potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, on February 23 and March 29, 2000, notices were posted in 10 public locations and mailed to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearings pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive testimony and voted to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 99 -211; and EXHIBIT "B" Ordinance No. 803 Zone Change 99 -211 Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, on April 3, 2000 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 00 -10, recommending City Council approval of Zone Change 99 -211; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2000 the City Council held a hearing to receive public testimony relative to Zone Change 99 -211; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1 . Pursuant to the City of Rosemead's CEQA Procedures and State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance will not have potential environmental impacts. This conclusion is based upon the record, initial study and comments received during the public review period. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared according to CEQA. The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered any comments received during the public review prior to the approval of this project. Furthermore, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in reaching the above conclusion. The City Council, therefore, approves the Negative Declaration. Pursuant to Title XIV, California Code of Regulation, Section 753.5(v)(1), the City Council has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the City Council hereby finds any presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted. Therefore pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title XIV, California Code of Regulations, Section 735.5(a)(3), the City Council finds that the project has a de minimis impact and therefore the payment of Fish and Game Department filing fees is not required in conjunction with this project. Section 2 . The City Council HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES that placing the property in the C -3; "Medium Commercial" zone is in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the change to the zoning district will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the area where the development is proposed. Ordinance No. 803 Zane Change 99 -211 Page 3 of 5 Section 3 . The City Council FURTHER FINDS that Zone Change 99 -211 meets the City's goals and objectives as follows: A. Land Use Zone Change 99 -211 consists of amending Rosemead zoning map from R -2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C -3; "Medium Commercial ". This amendment will allow for this commercial development to be compatible with the surrounding area that is designated "Medium Commercial ". B. Circulation This development is adjacent to San Gabriel Blvd. and Garvey Ave., both major arterial roadways. Access from San Gabriel Blvd. is provided by a 56 foot wide ingress /egress at the west property line. A historic circulation pattern allows access from Garvey Avenue. One northern driveway approach will be located off Gladys Avenue, a local street. C. Housing Although a portion of this site is currently zoned R -2; "Light Multiple Residential ", the proposed zone change and general plan amendment will not deplete available land for housing. Existing housing on lot is surrounded by commercial uses and is dilapidated. Only a single home will be removed. D. Resource Management Development is required to provide landscaping areas in the overall site plan. E. Noise This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding area. An initial study was completed and its findings have determined that this development could not have a significant effect on the environment. F. Public Safety The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. G. CE A; The City staff has prepared an initial study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study has determined that the proposed zoning amendments could have adverse impacts on certain aspects of the environment. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, staff has prepared and recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration. Ordinance No. 803 Zone Change 99 -211 Page 4 of 5 Section 4 . The City Council HEREBY APPROVES Zone Change 99 -211., amending Rosemead zoning map from R -2; "Light Multiple Residential" to C -3; "Medium Commercial ", for the development of a restaurant with drive through access located at 3041 Gladys Avenue (APNs: 5288 -009- 053,- 054, -055). Section 5 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rosemead HEREBY DECLARES that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 803, and each and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may be declared to be invalid. Section 6 . The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 1 Ith day of April, 2000. MARGARET CLARK, Mayor ATTEST: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk Ordinance No. 803 Zone Change 99 -211 Page 5 of 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Nancy Valderrama, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 803 being: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 99 -211, AMENDING ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP FROM R -2; "LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL" TO C -3; "MEDIUM COMMERCIAL ", FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH ACCESS LOCATED AT 3041 GLADYS AVENUE (APNs: 5288- 009 -053,- 054, -055). was duly introduced and placed upon first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11 th day of April, 2000, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NANCY VALDERRAMA, City Clerk ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 2000 CASE NO: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25890 ZONE VARIANCE 99 -293 DESIGN REVIEW 99 -79 ZONE CHANGE 99 -211 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -01 APPLICANT REQUEST: Review of conceptual plans for the development of fast food restaurant with less than the required parking in addition a six -lot consolidation, a zone change from R -2; Light Multi - Family Residential to C -3; Medium Commercial, and an amendment to the General Plan to change the existing land use from Medium Density Residential to Commercial. LOCATION: 3038 N. San Gabriel Blvd. (APNs: 5288-009-044, -045, -053, -054, -055) APPLICANT: Jack -In- The -Box 100 West Barranca Avenue, Suite 200 West Covina, California 91791 PROPERTY OWNER: Beachs Grocery Company, Inc. P.O. Box 231 Burbank, California 91503 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: 46 Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on February 23, 2000. EXHIBITS: A. Conditions of Approval B. Tentative Map C. Site/Floor /Elevation/Landscape Plans D. Assessor's Map 5288 -009 E. Zoning Map F. General Plan Map G. Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist H. Applications, dated 12 -29 -99 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project consists of the construction of a, 2,868 square foot fast food restaurant with a drive through pickup window. Also included with this application is the consolidation of the six lots, a design review for new construction, a variance for less than the required number of parking spaces; a zone change from R -2; Light Multi - Family Residential to C -3; Medium Commercial, and a general plan amendment from the existing land use Medium Density Residential to Commercial. In accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local environmental guidelines, an initial study and environmental checklist form was completed. The findings to this initial evaluation have indicated that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended as part of this request. EXIIIBITI 11 C 11 H. CODE REQUIREMENTS Tentative Parcel Map - Section 66474 et seq of the Subdivision Map Act describes the grounds for approving a subdivision map. In addition, Chapter 16.04 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provide subdivision regulations, which adopts Los Angeles County subdivision regulations by reference. There are seven (7) findings that must be made for a tentative map. If the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings, then it shall deny the map. 1. The map will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property. 2. The proposed division will not be contrary to any official plan. 3. Each proposed parcel conforms in area and dimension to the City codes. 4. All streets, alleys and driveways proposed to serve the property have been dedicated and that such streets, alleys and driveways are of sufficient design to provide adequate access and circulation for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 5. Easements and covenants required for the tentative map have been executed and recorded. One required finding is for a subdivision to be consistent with the applicable general plan, zoning map and any specific plan (planned development). Zone Variance Section 17.84.070(B) of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) require a minimum of ten parking spaces for the first 500 square feet and one space for every additional 50 square feet of gross floor area for drive through restaurant uses to be provided on site. An applicant must obtain a variance in order to create a development that does hot meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: I. Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, 2. Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity, 3. Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan, and 4. That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. Design Review - No building permit shall be issued for any building structure or other development of property or appurtenance thereto, on any property for which a precise plan of design is required, until the precise plan of design covering the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and adopted as herein provided. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; 2. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have and adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; 3. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; 4. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; 5. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and 'appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site feature indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. (Section 17.72.050) Zone Change - Chapters 17.116 and 17.120 of the Rosemead Municipal Code set forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. Zone changes are permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. A zone change must be found consistent with the Rosemead General Plan. General Plan - Section 65300 et seq of the California Government Code sets standards for each city to prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive general plan. This plan coordinates the long -term physical development goals and objectives of the city. Government Code Sections 65860, 66473.5 and 66474 require that day -to -day development decisions, such as zoning and land subdivision should be consistent with the general plan. III. PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION A. Background 3038 N. San Gabriel Boulevard is located on the east side of San Gabriel Boulevard, north of Garvey Avenue. The subject site currently consists of six separate lots of record. The existing six lots total 32,408 square feet (.74 acres) with a-frontage along San Gabriel Boulevard of 120 feet and a depth of 270 feet. The site is currently developed with an existing 832 sq. ft. residence with a 324 sq. ft. garage, a 1,872 square foot of commercial building and an existing parking lot area. B. Land Use As shown in Exhibits E & F, Parcels 53, 54, and 55 of the subject site are currently designated in the general plan for Medium Density Residential and in the zoning map it is designated R -2; Light Multi Family Residential. The remaining parcels of the subject site are designated in the general plan for Commercial development, and on the zoning map it is designated for C -3; Medium Commercial. In order to allow the development of this project to be consistent with the general plan and zoning code, an amendment to the general plan and a zone change must be completed. General Plan Amendment 99 -01 consists of amending the general plan land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial. Zone Change 99 -211 consists of changing the zoning district of Parcels 53, 54, and 55 from R -2 to C -3. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -3; Medium Commercial Land Use: Retail South: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -3; Medium Commercial Land Use: Commercial center East: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -31); Medium Commercial in an Design Overlay Land Use: Beachs Market West: General Plan: Commercial Zoning: C -3; Medium Commercial Land Use: Burger King restaurant IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to consolidate six lots into a single lot and construct a modern fast food drive through restaurant. In addition, a new parking lot will be constructed with new lighting and landscape amenities. Site Plan — The rectangular lot is approximately 120 feet wide and 270 feet deep for a total lot area of approximately 32,408 square feet. A 2,868 square foot restaurant building is proposed to be placed approximately at the west side of the site, set back approximately 38 feet from the right of way along San Gabriel Boulevard. All existing structures will be demolished to allow for the construction. The front entrance to the restaurant is oriented towards the west with the drive through pickup window situated along the north side of the structure. The majority of the parking stalls are located along the south side of the site. There are a total of 53 parking stalls designed into the project. Floor Plan — The proposed floor plan is designed with a 1,124 square foot dining area to accommodate a maximum occupancy of 100± persons. The dining area occupies the western half of the structure and is accessed through a set of double doors at the south side of the building and a single door entrance at the front facing San Gabriel Boulevard. The eastern portion of the building, approximately 1,744 square foot of the structure, is designed to accommodate a kitchen and food preparation area, a workstation, cashier and pick -up windows, mechanical rooms and restrooms. Architectural Elements — The architectural style of the proposed building is similar to newly constructed Jack -In -The -Box restaurants built today. Elements include large vertical stucco tower elements with pyramid- shaped roof structures covered with a Spanish style tile roof and a complementing cornice roofline detail. The proposed stucco wall and fascia will follow a color scheme that ranges from dark bronze, light and medium beiges, to terra cotta. Parking /Circulation — Fast food and drive through restaurants require a minimum of 10 parking spaces for the first 500 square feet and one space for each additional 50 square feet of.gross floor area. This requirement is very stringent compared to other jurisdictions in Southern California. The original design of the project provided for 53 on site parking stalls. The zoning ordinance requires 57. This is a seven percent reduction in the strict enforcement of the required parking. The adjacent commercial centers will not be affected by this parking proposal since each center retain their own parking areas. The proposed circulation pattern allows vehicles to enter the subject site through a 56foot wide ingress /egress on San Gabriel Boulevard. There are two existing driveways on Gladys Avenue accessible to the subject site and the adjacent commercial center. The northern drive approach will be replaced with curb and gutter leaving only one driveway. The historic circulation pattern allows vehicles to utilize the Garvey Avenue driveway for site access. Landscaping/Fencing — As shown in the landscape plan (Exhibit C), the applicant proposes to install planters up to 6' in width, with a variety of plants including shrubs (xylosma, lily of the nile), perennials (agapanthus, pittosporum), and palm trees. The planters will be located at the San Gabriel Blvd. frontage, along the drive -thru aisle, and in the parking areas. In addition, a six -foot high concrete block wall will be installed north of the property line. Si nape — Internally illuminated building signage will be installed on the west, south, and east walls of the restaurant structure, as shown in the elevations (Exhibit Q. The font letter will reflect the trademark of Jack -In -The -Box with white text on a red background. There will also be three freestanding signs along the drive -thru access for directional and menu purposes. Two directional signs will be located near the San Gabriel Blvd. driveway approach. In addition, the applicant plans to install internally illuminated sign faces on two existing pylon signs. One pylon sign is located on the west property line facing San Gabriel Blvd. with the other pylon sign located near Sav -on at Garvey Avenue. Sign proposals are subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. Agency Review -The map was distributed to various agencies for their review on January 19, 2000. The agencies made their comments and the City Engineer has checked the parcel for its accuracy. The City Engineer's conditions of approval have been added to the attached as Exhibit A. In conclusion, staff feels that this project will benefit the business district of this central intersection and will enhance a currently dilapidated site. In addition, the design of the site gives proper consideration to the goals and objectives of the general plan and zoning district for this area. Therefore staff recommends that the Commission approve this project with the attached conditions. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. Approve Tentative Parcel Map 25890 /Zone Variance 99- 293 /Design Review 99 -79 /Zone Change 99- 211 /General Plan 99 -01, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A ". 2. Adopt a Negative Declaration for GPA 99 -01 and ZC 99 -211; and 3. Recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 99 -01 changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial; and 4. Make the findings required under Sections 17.116 & 17.120 of the Rosemead Municipal Code in order to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change (ZC) 99 -211 changing the zoning designation from R -2 to C -3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25890 ZONE VARIANCE 99 -293 DESIGN REVIEW 99 -79 DESIGN REVIEW 99 -79 ZONE CHANGE 99 -211 GENERAL AMENDMENT 99 -01 3038 N. San Gabriel Boulevard CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 20, 2000 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. 2. Approval shall not take effect for any purpose until the applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead an affidavit stating that he /she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions. 3. The applicant shall comply with all Federal, State and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 4. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Said plan shall incorporate decorative parking lot light standard details. 5. Prior to construction the contractor shall schedule a pre - construction meeting with the City of Rosemead Planning Department. 6. That a six -foot high decorative concrete block wall shall be constructed along the north property line of the subject site. 7. That a new signage program be completed for review and approval of the Planning Department. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all fees payable under State Law shall be paid. 9. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday - Saturday._ No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any legal holidays without prior approval by the City. Pursuant to Section 8.36.030(5) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. 10. Planning staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 11. All trash, rubbish and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, and inspected and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. 12. The perimeter property lines of the newly created lots, or where designated by the Director of Planning shall be fenced with a six -foot (6') high masonry' wall, with finished surface on both sides. 13. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 14. Driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced and improved with Portland cement or asphaltic concrete, and thereafter maintained in good serviceable condition. 15. The property shall be graded to drain to the street, but in no case shall such drainage be allowed to sheet flow across public sidewalk. A grading and/or drainage plan shall be prepared, submitted to and approved by the Building Official, and such grading and drainage shall take place in accordance with such approved plan. 16. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 1/4 ", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. The location, color and size of such sign shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 17. Applicant shall obtain a public works permit for all work in or adjacent to the public right -of -way. 18. Applicant shall install and complete all necessary public improvements, including but not limited to street, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, handicap ramps, and storm drains, along the entire street frontage of the development site as required by the Director of Planning. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Planning Department shall review and approve all electric underground utility transformer locations for compatibility with the site design. All portions of the transformers that are above ground shall be adequately screened with landscaping and/or screen walls. Landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 20. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves and other equipment), shall be screened by screening walls and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 21. All utilities shall be placed underground including facilities and wires for the supply and distribution of electrical energy, telephone, cable television etc. The underground conversion of these utilities shall consider all future connections to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 22. Prior to issuance of Building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. It shall include an irrigation plan with automatic timers and moisture sensors. Fifteen (15) percent of the landscape area shall be planted with 24 inch box trees. 23. A permanent maintenance program of all landscaping shall be provided insuring regular irrigation, fertilization and weed abatement. 24. Automated irrigation shall be installed, and approved by the Planning Department. 25. The applicant shall install approved street trees in a location chosen by and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. In addition, at least one 15- gallon tree shall be provided on each newly created lot subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. 26. All open area not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped with turf and maintained on a regular basis. 27. No trees shall be removed other than those shown on the approved plans. 28. Landscape materials and irrigation systems are to be inspected by a City representative prior to final release of utilities. 29. NO OCCUPANCY will be granted until ALL IMPROVEMENTS required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s). 30. No finals will be given until all as -built site improvement plans have been submitted to the Building Department. 31. All requirements of the Building and Safety Department and Planning Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 32. Violation of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 33. This map shall be finaled and recorded within two (2) years of tentative approval. Failure to do so may result in the map's expiration and the need for another tentative map.application. Any request for extension must be submitted, in writing, together with ten (10) copies of the map and corresponding plans, to the Planning Department before the expiration date. 34. Decorative light standards shall be provided and installed by the developer. The design and location shall be provided to the Director of Planning. 35. All conditions of Case No.s: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25890, ZONE VARIANCE 99- 293, DESIGN REVIEW 99 -79, ZONE CHANGE 99 -211, AND GENERAL PLAN 99 -01 must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 36. The conditions listed on this Exhibit shall be copied directly onto development plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments for review. 37. The property shall be kept cleared of weeds, debris and abandoned vehicles, and maintained pursuant to the County Fire and Health codes until it is developed. All trash shall be contained in dumpsters and removed on an as- needed basis. No trash shall be visible from outside the dumpster. Surplus construction materials shall be stored so as to be screened from public view when not actually in use. 38. A 6-high fence, composed of chain link or other approved material, shall totally enclose the perimeter of the property when vacant, under construction, or under demolition, and said fence shall remain until Occupancy is granted. 39. Any existing structures to be demolished shall be boarded until such demolition takes place. CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL t ;FNFR AT. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 2. A final parcel map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 3. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 4. Monumentation of parcel map boundaries, street centerline and lot boundaries is required for a map based on a field survey. 5. Final parcel map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office prior to issuance of building pennits. 6. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 7. Approval for filing of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 8. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and /or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. DRAINAGE AND GRADING 9. Surface water generated from Lot I shall not drain over the sidewalk or driveway into the Sutter on San Gabriel Boulevard or Gladys Avenue. A parkway drain is required. ROAD 10. Developer shall prepare a covenant, subject to City Engineer's approval, for parking and ingress and egress to serve Parcel No. 1 and all lots associated with APN 5288- 009 -052. 11. Existing driveways on Gladys Avenue shall be closed with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Direct driveway access onto Gladys Avenue shall not be permitted. UTILITIES 12. Power, telephone and cable television service shall be underground. 13. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 14. Existing easements (Nos. 21 & 22) for pole lines shall be vacated upon parcel map. WATER 15. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chiefs fire flow requirements. i r69) 9 (D 9 607 9 /I 0 (03 11, Q 11 ..0 'S Z 0 G A R V E Y AV J --- nMARS �- 37Jd]O � p n r < Ll � :?� G _ v1 ps --� L J1 Atmluhm °m'JL('I 2 Q. > C3� <t 0 = Q f 21 3SHEY 11I Q Q _ I �' 1 l O C3 D' 1 - l(T� O ul DROTHY T J .�K pia _ i;�.��:: C, 32 d , 'rl Q UJ _L:. �.. /�1 R3 Q. p, l ^� >> ORE u n U ai i �w 51: i r R2: - - � . 1 n 5mllj�l � '� AV - � ._ \� �: (�` - llIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIInII11111111111. III111111111111LII II III111tIII111 L'11I I1 ail IIIIIII'IIIIII 11(111 1 II�� I h 1111 ' III I I 1 I � � II 1 llliy' II :LLi' •III r1:1iMJ4 (c C3 `� r i__ ° M icp LU >i' > 1 I �j I .: 1 P �Illlllllllllllll1111 II IIIIIIIIII1111111111 I I II In II III IIII L ff s QI u EFM rvEw ' � p q ( °1 � _ ( t � F EP - —J 2600 s� em , � �:� �}(�;✓ 1 � -� I�.,. � � —c " -� � �_ 1 ��. ' 'A �� ♦�c'�`�'I \ /�� -S CI _ �� -'- .,. :.i'i I W. F C FE .. .._ _ "�� "� -� EXH li' a "E " 11 City of Rosemead General Plan COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATE S LU- A S Low Donstty Resldonflzl t,4edfum D*nslty R,sk4n1lal Rut)fi- Facilities -6 Hl D Ity RssldontLal Dv-�� Mixod U": Rs$1d*nt1&1/CD�rcJ&1 Ortf"& pht bnduttrlal Mixed Use: Llghl Induatrial/CommerCIM Conxi »rclal II li > L 21 i it i t I x L7 Garvey Ave. < M D Ca I Lf FIGURE LU-6 Land Use Policy Planning Area 6 M V — s,� San BLrnadirrD Fwy. PLANNING AREA California Environmental Quality Aci INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Design Review 99 -79 General Plan Amendment 99 -01 Zone Change 99-211 Zone Variance 99 -293 Tentative Parcel Map 25890 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Bradford Johnson, Director of Planning (626) 569 -2140 4. Project Location: 3038 N. San Gabriel Blvd. County of Los Angeles, State of California Assessor Parcel Number(s): 5288- 009 -044; -045; -046; -052; -053 -054; -055 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jack -in- the -Box, Inc. 100 N. Barranca Ave, Suite 200 West Covina, CA 91791 -1600 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: C -3; Medium Commercial 8. Description of the Project: This project will include an amendment to the General Plan to change a land use area from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, a zone change from R -2; Light Multiple Residential to C -3; Medium Commercial, a six -lot consolidation, a zone variance to allow development with less than the required number of parking, and a design review of the conceptual plan including a 2,868 square foot restaurant with drive -thru access. _ . 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The City of Rosemead is an urban suburb located in the San Gabriel Valley, 10 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the cities of Temple City and San Gabriel, on the west by South San Gabriel, on the south by Montebello, plus by El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The city is 5.5 square miles or 2,344 acres in size. Rosemead is home to a resident population of approximately 55,128 people. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). EX IBR Y A "G" G" 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. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, Aesthetics and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Hazards & Hazardous I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Public Services 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 Materials prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Agriculture Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Hydrology/Water I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially Recreation significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect (t) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has Quality 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 Air Quality effects that remain to be addressed. Land Use /Planning I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Transportation /Traffic because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to Biological Resources applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, Mineral Resources including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., Utilities /Service Systems nothing further is required. Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of S yQ Geology /Soils Population /Housing ( 0 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect (t) 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project., nothing further is required. ignature �esSiCo� C. W i I k-i �d� Printed Name 02- /(V- O Date 5(ad Sots (rson � C For 9 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 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- 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 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis 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 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 9) 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. 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentiall Potentially Less Than No ✓ Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Mitigation highway an existing or projected air quality violation? ✓ Act contract? Incorporated c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? by the California Department 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 ✓ Comment: Though there will be new construction to this project, it is expected that there will be less than significant impact on the scenic vista to the surrounding area. b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? Comment: The project will affect the air quality with an increase in traffic but it is expected to be less than rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ✓ highway an existing or projected air quality violation? ✓ Act contract? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ✓ the site and its surroundings? project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result Comment: The new construction for this project will not degrade the existing visual character but will modify the visibility for neighboring areas. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would in loss of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? ✓ exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? d) Create or contribute to a non - stationary source "hot spot" mme � t. affect g/a oi i hj `nc me d v insig/llaaroea.of lighting that will be positioned so as not to ao c ommercial ewe 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department 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 ✓ Quality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? ✓ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? Comment: The project will affect the air quality with an increase in traffic but it is expected to be less than significant. (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ✓ an existing or projected air quality violation? ✓ Act contract? c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result ✓. ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which ✓ in loss of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 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 ✓ Quality Abatement Plan or Congestion Management Plan? Comment: The project will affect the air quality with an increase in traffic but it is expected to be less than significant. b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ✓ an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Create or contribute to a non - stationary source "hot spot" (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant J concentrations? Issues- and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ✓ Issues Unless Impact ✓ 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Mitigation (Sections 17.11 or 17.12) ? Incorporated f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ✓ people? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as ✓ listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections ✓ 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12) ? 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. Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ✓ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? / 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? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident ✓ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ✓ ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved ✓ local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 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)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? / d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ✓ formal cemeteries? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Comment: This project will include the use and disposal of minor hazardous materials related to culinary use. Mitigation evidence of a known fault? Incorporated ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the ✓ materials? ✓ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial Comment: This project will include the use and disposal of minor hazardous materials related to culinary use. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment evidence of a known fault? through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ✓ iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows? ✓ v) Landslides? ✓ vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or ✓ ✓ dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with ✓ wildlands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ✓ topsoil? c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ✓ d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ✓ result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks ✓ to life or property? f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or ✓ alternative waste water disposal systems? 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials? Comment: This project will include the use and disposal of minor hazardous materials related to culinary use. 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? 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? d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a Significant Significant Significant Impact significant hazard to the public or the environment? Issues Unless Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would Mitigation such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local Incorporated ✓ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ✓ Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a standards or waste discharge requirements? significant hazard to the public or the environment? b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety groundwater table level li.e., the production rate of pre- existing hazard for people residing or working in the project area? nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in granted)? ✓ the project area? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ✓ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death siltation on- or off - site ?. involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ✓ to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream wildlands? or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality ✓ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially degrade 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 li.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)? 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 ?. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to ✓ control? 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? g) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would ✓ impede or redirect flood flows? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Comment This project would include a zone change of an existing residential zoning district to a commercial zoning district. This project is situated at the edge of a neighborhood district, adjacent to a large commercial center. The neighborhood will not be divided with the development of this project. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not Significant Significant Significant Impact limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, Issues Unless Impact or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral Mitigation b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne mitigating an environmental effect? resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific Incorporated vibration or groundborne noise levels? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not classified MRZ -2 by the State Geologist that would be of value ✓ limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, to the region and the residents of the state? ✓ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral standards. The existing stereo installation shop with outside work has a higher noise level than that of the proposed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne mitigating an environmental effect? resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? CojtmenA. Tkis proposal included changing the General Plan designation and zoning designation to be consistent wr eac o er. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ✓ communities conservation plan? ✓ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ✓ 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral standards. The existing stereo installation shop with outside work has a higher noise level than that of the proposed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? ✓ plan or other land use plan? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ✓ ✓ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Comment. This project will expose and generate noise levels but not in excess of the city's noise ordinance standards. The existing stereo installation shop with outside work has a higher noise level than that of the proposed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ✓ vibration or groundborne noise levels? ✓ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the c) - Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ✓ project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ✓ excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ✓ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ✓ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) - Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Issues-and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ✓ Significant Significant Significant Impact ✓ Issues Unless Impact ✓ ✓ d) Parks? Mitigation ✓ e) Other public facilities? Incorporated 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantially adverse physical impacts associated with the . provision of new or physically altered government 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: a) Fire protection? ✓ b) Police protection? ✓ c) Schools? ✓ ✓ d) Parks? ✓ e) Other public facilities? ✓ 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or iegional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ✓ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ✓ b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse ✓ physical effect on the environment? load and capacity of the street system. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the 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)? Comment: This project will cause an increase in traffic but not substantial enough in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management ✓ agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in area traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ✓ substantial safety risks? Comment: This project will result in a change in area traffic patterns but not significant enough to result in substantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e. g. ✓ farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ✓ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Comment: This project includes a zone variance for development with less than the required parking. However, the applicant has proven that the site will be developed within 91 % of the parking code requirement. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ✓ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ✓ Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the Mitigation ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental Incorporated 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ✓ Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ✓ entitlements needed? 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? ✓ f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal ✓ needs? 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 the 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? E S TENTATI-'B MAP f APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) page 1 of 2 CITY OF ROSEHEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288 -6671 s1TP ADDBEss: S AN GABRIEL BLVD. @ GARVEY AVE. DATE: 12/10/99 DESCiIPTICc17 0= ry4u = - ST /PROD -CT: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existing structures to construct 2,868 S F building and associated parki S i V L-04- COrt O I r of ' 6N 2>:isting ]70. of lots: n Pro?osed !row of lots: Tentative Y. No.: ,S�Q�1 Total lot z_ea: �7 -�� •�- Jr is Legal Description (use separate sheet if more s ?ace s rewired)_ i -_ to ole. =.s _ec�,ired by =tem f7 of �;e instruction sheet, the ..... -'Io'w: ng __ems will also be recd red: - - -- grope y ounec's aC_icavit for each parcel i nvolved that is not owned by t..e s�bdivi der. 2. .. ware= certi_'icate _fz :om comestic .water company shall be provided the .water orsssure (i.e. fire _ "_ow•) capabilities of all fire hvdrants within 300 _feet of the subject property- -_ D E C 2 9 1999 Ilk ��r1 I It EXHI / ZONE VARIANCE APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITY OF ROS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288 -6671 SIT --- ADDRESS: SAN GABRIEL BLVD. @ GARVEY AVE. DATE: 12/10/99 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST /PROJECT: �]aCk in the Box- Demolition of existing ctrnrturat to ronstruct 2,868 S F building and associated park.ing. Recuest for relief from Rosemead Municipal Code Section(s) : 9122 1 Add SQL Address the following statements on a separate sheet. / n&'�AfeJ (1) The variance granted shall be subject to uch conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized sh not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. (2) The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located_ (3) 3ecause of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. (A) The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. _ J % SIGN.ATUZ=_:�l //il� T __. 5 975 TNITIP.L STUDY: $ 300 (if applicable) _L -ZV. ... 1K Korve 1 Engineering December 10, 1999 City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA. 91770 RE: Application Supplement Zone Variance Jack in the Box San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Ave. The following are responses to items 1 -4 on the Zone Variance Application Supplement: 1. The Zone Variance will be consistent with other similar businesses in the area. t 2. The parking proposed for the .tack in the Box will improve traffic circulation patterns within the existing site. The proposed site plan will result in a parking ratio of one (1) parking stall for each 54 square feet of building floor space. Typical Tack in the Box projects in Southern California provide a ratio of (I ) parking stall for each 100 square feet of building area. The layout far exceeds the typical number of stalls provided and therefor will not be detrimental. 3. The project site is surrounded oil all sides by either public streets or other existing improvements limiting the total available site area. The site plan provides for the maximum number of parking stalls which can be provided within the site limits while maintaining safe and effective traffic circulation patterns. The parking field is contiguous with a major commercial center which allows for reciprocal parking. The site plan is consistent with other similar uses in the area. 4. The site is within 91% of the parking code requirement and granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. ._ A California Corooratlon with offices in. - - Sao Francisco 36946 Avenue 12 Oakland Los Anaeles Madera Ranchos, CA 9.633 Sacramento San Bernardino 209- 645 -3600 - San Jo <e Cathedral City 209- 645 -3606 Fax - Center Sa''�*. Lai:- City 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) 1 � CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMKNT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288 - 6671 SITE ADDRESS: CAN GARRTFI RI 2 GARVFY AVE DATE: 12/10/99 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST /PROJECT: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existing structures to construct 2,868 S.F. building and associated parking. Address the following statements in the space provided below. Please type or print on a separate sheet if necessary. 1. Describe materials, color, and any other architectural aspects of the project. 2. Describe the features that the proposed design has included to minimize impacts on surrounding property. 3. Describe the landscaping /irrigation proposed. 4. Describe any mechanical equipment and visual screening methods. Descrive location, height, size, and lighting of signs SIGNATURE: DATE: G� /L^ � � B FEE $ 390 Initial Study: $ 300 (if applicable) _L -DR DEG 2 9 1999 i L` �T 7i7� X71 1 Korve 1 Engineering December 10, 1999 City of Rosemead Planning Department 8838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA. 91770 RE: Application Supplement Design Review Jack in the Box San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Ave. The following are responses to items 1 -5 on the Design Review Application Supplement: 1. The Jack in the Box for the Rosemead site will be a Mission Style design utilizing earth tone colors. The exterior will be predominately textured plaster and will feature the standard Jack in the Box wall mounted sign. One seF�of colored elevations have been supplied for your review. 2. Noise tllitigation — The drive through will be equipped with a sound - attenuating speaker and a LCD screen built into the order board. The result will be the lowest effective noise level possible and a reduction in the length of conversation required for each order. The LCD screen will show the customers order and cost of the order to eliminate the need for the attendant to repeat the order back to the customer. Lighting - The lights in the parking area will be shielded to eliminate overflow lighting and glare in the surrounding areas. Visuallnipacts - The roof parapet will shield the roof - mounted equipment from the neighboring areas and a screen wall will be provided along the Borth property line to provide a visual barrier. 3. The site will include a new landscape buffer along both Gladys AvcnLi e and San Gabriel Boulevard as well as numerous landscape strips and islands dispersed throughout the project. The general landscape theme will be to provide plants and trees indigenous to Southern California. The irrigation system will be controlled by an automatic timer system which will be programmed to conserve water usage while maintaining healthy plant growth. A California Corporation with offices in: San Francisco 36946 Ivenoe 12 OaHand Los Ang =es Madera Ranchos, CA 936'3 Sacramento San Bernardino 209 -fi�5 -:500 San lose Cathedral City 209 -545 -3606 Fax Denver Sall Lake City Design Review Supplement Page 2 4. "flie roof parapet will provide full screening of all roof mounted equipment from . neighboring areas. The site signage will include tIllee (3) internally light 5' 5' signs and a sign to be ncorporated welt the existing aiul pylon signs on both San Gabriel Boulevard Gexvey. ZONE C8 APPLICATION SDPP (1) CITZ OF ROSMCEAD, PLARASIVC DEPAFC=KEWT 8838 vArrry BOULEVARD ROSExum, ca 91770 (BIB) 288 -6671 S:T= 7-OD=- SS: SAN GABRIEL BLV D. @ GARVEY AVE. D„= =_ 12/10/99 DESC.=,_=T10N Ov = 'FQrrST /=Roj�_cT: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existing structures to construct 2,868 S.F. building and associated parking. xisting Zoning: 13 & R2 PzopDc d Zoning: C3 Pxcsting General Plan Designation: COMMERCIAL & ME_DIUM DENSITY R ESIDENTIAL .5 follo::ing statements on a separate sheet. 1. The proposed change of zone meets the intent and is consistent with the JJ General Plan designation applicable to to area. 2. The proposed change of zone provides for the logical and best use _ °or the Property or properties involved, and does not conct°tate a - spot zoning" situation. T:;e proxsed c:^,ange of zone is necessary to provide for the ceneral wel° are and benefit of the Duhlic at lace. S- -he pablic necessity supports t.._ proposed c,^.ance. Isere is a real need in t.,- co==nity for more of the type of uses permitted h_ the zone recy ested- 5. Tne nrooerty invclved in the propose; rezoning is more sc<table for the _sus oe=itted in the xossed gone titan for the cses De_ pitted in t.._ =_sea =one. . 5. Ine cses oermitted by the proposed cesicnation are not detrimental to s�rrocn3ing nE S'_350 -i /ZC r J[J rr 0� A Korve Engineering December 10, 1999 City of Rosemead Planning Department 5838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA. 91770 RE: Application Supplement Zone Change Jack in the Box San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Ave. ^1 1 The following are responses to items 1 -6 on the Change Application Supplement: 1. The proposed change of zone will allow for expansion of the contiguous commercial retail center. r 3. The proposed change of zone will provide for expansion of the existing commercial retail center and provide for an improvement to the overall traffic circulation of the center. 3. The Jack in the Box site plan provides for a landscape buffer along both San Gabriel Boulevard and Gladys Avenue. Removal of the existing curb cut on Gladys and replacement with a landscape buffer provides a site frontage more appropriate for a residential street. 4. The project will promote an increase in competition and create a greater variety in the local fast food market. 5. The proposed project creates a parking area which provides for better traffic circulation between the commercial center and the project site while providing a natural expansion of the existing parking area. 6. The proposed Jack in the Box will be staffed with employees who will be required to meet the very stringent corporate standards for customer service, safety and cleanliness. In addition, noise and visual impacts will be mitigated and no alcoholic beveragcs will be served on the premises. =. Caliiorna Corporation 369 12 Madsra P.andI05, CA 93636 ?09 -6 -'5 -3600 - 209 -64 -3606 Fax With o "Aces in San . co Oakland Lcs-- . .E!es Sacramento San -. _ �ardino San Jose City Doneer Sari __ke City GENERAL PLAN AML+NDHENT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT (1) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTKKNT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSENEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288 -6671 SITE ADDRESS: SAN GABRIEL BLVD. 0 GARVEY AVE. DATE, 12/10/99 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST /PROJECT: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existing structures to construct 2,868 S.F. building and associated parking. Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Existing General Plan Designation: COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL t Proposed General Plan Designation: rnMMFRC)AI Address the following statements on a separate sheet. 1. The proposed general plan amendment provides for the logical and beat use for the property or properties involved, and does not constitute a "spot zoning situation. 2. The proposed general plan amendment is necessary to provide for the general welfare and benefit of the public at large. 3. The public necessity supports the proposed amendment. There is a real need in the community for more of the type of uses permitted by the designation requested. 4. The property involved in the proposed general plan amendment is more suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone than for the uses permitted in the present zone. 5. The uses permitted by the proposed - surrounding properties. -- - - -- - SIGNATURE: FEE $1250 FL /GP designation are not detrimental to DATE: 1 98 7 � D €6 � 91g9Q 1 �1 1� Korve 1 Engineering December 10. 1999 City of Rosemead Planning Department 5838 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA. 91770 RE: Application Supplement General Plan Amendment Jack in the Box San Gabriel Boulevard & Garvey Ave. The following are responses to items 1 -5 on the General Plan Amendment Application Supplement: 1. The requested General Plan Amendment will simply provide for expansion of a contiguous commercial zone. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment, required for the .Tack in the Box project will ultimately provide better traffic circulation, more competition and no negative impacts. 3. The Jack in the Box project will increase competition in the general area and create a greater variety in the local fast food market. 4. The proposed Jack in the Box Site Plan will improve traffic circulation, provide adequate parking and improve public safety by eliminating existing traffic conflict cones. 'file project is a natural extension of the existing commercial center. 5. The proposed Jack in the Box will be staffed with employees who will be required to meet the very stringent corporate standards for customer service, safety and cleanliness. In addition, noise and visual impacts will be mitigated and no alcoholic beverages will be served on the premises. A California Corporation with o. ices In. - San Francisco - - 36916 Avenue 12 Caidand Los Anceles ! >9ac.'era ;anchor, CA 93633 Sacramento San Bernardino 209 -C 1 5 -_ - 600 San !ose Cad dial City 209 - 645 -3606 Fax Denver Salt Late City GENERAL INFOP,"TIO71 FORM . (2) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PL" - ,gING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY DODL.LWA -RD , ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 2B8 -6671 SITS ,DDRz ss: SAN GABRIEL BLVD. @ GARVEY AVE. DATE 12/10/99 DESCRI OF R7QU7sT /PRO,.ECT: JACK IN THE BOX- DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES TO CONSTRUCT 2868 S.F. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. 5288- 009 -044, 045 LoT SIZE: 0.74 ACRES A?N: 046.052,053.054 05 52017: C;. G EN. ? *_w : II ?RO�7cT /sus11 :7ss r: �a: JACK IN THE BOX, INC- HOURS of OPERA TiON: 24HRS /DAY, 7 DAYS/ WEE K1;o. of 5 -8/ SHIFT (:ype or _r on separate Sher_ L' more space is needed): Existing use: _- OOMtgFRCIAi AND R C]DF14T1A1 s °: + 3 2 , 000 _ to be desto_±shed: 4,050 s_ to - e:nain: 0 Proposed use: Jack in the Box, Inc. a ddi�ionzl s`: total s`: 2,86.8 F.elght: f 24 FT. sf broken 60,n by intended use and ne ^ ,ber of structures or dc: 2,.868_S..F. _ ALL COMIMERCIAL ?acl :zng calcul6tion (show sc /pa_iang ratz.o /�.�nbe= - _red & provided): 2,868 S.F., 1/54 RATIO, 57 REQUIRED, 53 PROVIDED Lot coverace, floor area ratio, landscaped oercer.tace: LOT COVERAGE: 8.8%- 3870 S.F. /ACRE, FLOOR AREA RATIO: 8.8%- 3870 S.F. /ACRE LANDSCAPED PERCENTAGE: 20%' ✓. = = L1CA_2T /SU3DIVID Jack in the Box, Inc 100 N. BA.RRA14CA AVE., SUITE 200 WEST COVINA CA. 91791 -1600 ?:,c ^c: 626 732 - 3005 SAM AS APPL I CANT �I DEC Z 9 i999 I ?hone: ?aoPEart on a7 -: BEACH fRO CO [14C P .O. BOX 231, BURBANK, CA. 91503 =hone, 818 -841 -3016 Rf PRESENTAT7 (a- cr.itect, engineer, ENGINEER ): KORVE ENGIh;EER114G =e;s: 36946 AVE. 12, MADERA, CA. 93638 ?hone: 559 645 - 3600 1 ..- ccr_ -o z -le 'cesc of my ,.no =ool_cmn L'.a Name: Do NOT 57R7TE - 1 - HIS - Lll,!- - ---------------- . =.P?LICATION nC=- ?T_?D BY: �B}E�LOW � -' Di•.1'O_: CASE(S): Nors;I: -.. �I DEC Z 9 i999 I 2LSSESStg77T PORN ( 3 ) CITY OF RDSD(EAD, PI-X"T iG DEPAT.27ENT 8838 V?J= DOOIJ?Vi1RD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 ' (818) 288 76671 SITE ADDRESS: SAN GABRIEL BLVD. @ GARVEY AVE. DATE: 12/10/99 _ DESCRIPTION o: RZQUEST /pRoj—CT: J ACK IN THE BOX- DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES TO CONSTRUCT 2,566 S.F. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. 1. Surrounding land uses of the site: north RESIDENTIAL south COMMERCIAL east RESIDENTIAL vest COMMERCIAL 2. Could the recvest, if granted, have an effect on any of the items listed below? Answer yes or no in space provided. YES a. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas to cublic lands or roads. YES b. Chance in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. YES C. Change in plant or animal life. YfS d. ..crease of so1_•d waste or 'litter. YES e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. YES d. Increase of solid waste or litter. YES e. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 140_ '. Change in ground water u:ality or rn:antity, or alteration of existing c- a_nace _patterns. YES g Change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. NO h. Site on filled land or on slooas of 10E or more. JE _ . Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, or exploeives. YES j. Projected chance in demand for City services, (DDlice, f.._ water, se etc.). YES ::. RelatiDnship to a larger project or series of projects. es, pleasa = ype - or print explanation on a separate sheet. 3. Number of trees on tine site: 2 No, of oak trees: 0 Number of trees to be removed: 2 Somber of oak trees to be removed: O oa: trans are to be removed, please refer to R.4C Sec. 9131 about permit procedures. .. :.re there- Env r_n o.:n cultural, historical, archeological or any other env iro =-,er.t al ascents of the oroject - site and surrounding area that the Plann.'_ng Decartment should be aware of? NO If ves, please tyre or print explanation on a separate sheet. SIGNn1UiLj ��G � .D.iTE: cL / NVIRON (' _� ii, DEC 2 {�I APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT (4) CITY OF ROSEMEAD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROS CA 91770 (818) 288 -6671 The applicant, not the representative, should read this sheet and then sign and notarize signature.it bottom: NOTICE Dear Applicant: You are advised NOT to obtain any loans or loan commitments on the subject property, or to clear the land, or do anything whatsoever that is dependent on final approval of your application. Anything you do before final approval will be AT YOUR OWN RISK. Do not assume that your case will be, or has been finally approved until you are officially notified of such decision IN WRITING by the City of Rosemead. Final approval requires favorable action by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Further, final approval alone may not beeenough. READ the notice of decision and the RESOLUTION of the Planning Commission or City Council on which the decision is based. It is necessary that you comply with ALL the conditions of approval set forth herein before the final approval takes effect. Sincerely, ) D C PETER LYONS ( � DEC 2 0 1999 �II Director of Planning - City of Rosemead y.....____•_ ..ee Site Address: SAN GABRIEL BLVD. @ GARVEY AVE. Date: Description of Request /Project: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existing structures to construct 2,868 S.F. buildi AFFIDAVIT and associated parking. City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles) _ - - - - -- - - - State of California ) !/We, Jack in the Box,.Inc. hereby certify that I /we am /are the applicants) involved in this request, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our ' and belief. Sicned: Print Name(s): Michael Palmer Mailing Address: 100 N. Barranca Ave., Suite 200 Phone: 626 - 732 -3005 - City /state /zip: West Cov CA. 91791 -1600 Date subscribed and sworn to before me this 0 day of ✓I`�'�x >"'P� -� NOT R' PUBLIC l u JUDITH A.00HOTOREIIA rrnn Comm. ' 1094503 VI l; OtA.AY ?U °LIC "CALIFOAlA _ Los .Angeles CoLmy M7 Co:r.:n. E:,m apiil 1 -' 19 6 . L /AF P:I L'AV IT i PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (5) CITY OF ROSEHF.AD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (818) 288 -6671 SITE ADDRESS: SAN GABRIEL BLVD @ GARVEY AVE DATE: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST /PROJECT: Jack in the Box- Demolition of existi structures to construct•2,868 S.F. building and associated parki AFFIDAVIT City of Rosemead ) County of Los Angeles) State of California ) I /we, Beach Grocery Co. Inc. , hereby certify that I /we am /are the owner(s) of the property involved in this reguest, and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained, and the information herewith su mitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knled and /D/1 i�e' j 7: n �l Sioned: R Print Name(s): Steve 6,l�X S � mail q ing Address: City /State /Zip: P.O. Box 231 Burbank. CA. 91503 Phone: 818- 841 - 30 Date: /.^�/ 9 Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ✓ "" "��'y��'`✓!�� 19 Cl �- V a JUDITH .4.00HOIOR EhIA NOTAE� /PUBLIC � Comm. k )094503 � ✓ ROTARY PUBLIC CAUFORItIA > � Eos An;eL =s Counip ' •�LSy Ccm Expires h,ul� 17�?ppp ^ � =C2 U - - -- - - - -- - ------- - - - - -- FL /AFFIDAVIT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY — Do NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Filed with Case No.: on the day of 19 =C2 U - - -- - - - -- - ------- - - - - -- FL /AFFIDAVIT CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Alarcon. Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Breen. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Alarcon, Vice- Chairman Ortiz, Commissioners Breen, and Loi ABSENT: Commissioner Ruiz EX OFFICIO: Crowe, Price, Johnson, Wilkinson, and Romanelli 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of March 6, 2000 (MO) Motion by Vice - Chairman Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Loi, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2000 be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: I It T L OF j. O ,, I• \ [ G : °x,11► NO: NONE 8,� I EA ST ��I �. ° I I , �� :, ,� �►- �I ,I� ` lip li►; NONE ABSENT: RO E` 1 1:. EA D, ., I , li I. OR. ! l' . °`i PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 20, 000 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Alarcon. Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Breen. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Alarcon, Vice- Chairman Ortiz, Commissioners Breen, and Loi ABSENT: Commissioner Ruiz EX OFFICIO: Crowe, Price, Johnson, Wilkinson, and Romanelli 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of March 6, 2000 (MO) Motion by Vice - Chairman Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Loi, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2000 be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 2. EXPLANATION OF BEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Deputy City Attorney Stan Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal planning commission decisions to the city council. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH The commission secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak before the planning commission. EXHIBIT 111ll 3/20/00 Ma4UFES, PAGE 2 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25890/LONE VARIANCE 99- 293/DESIGN REVIEW 99- 79/ZONE CHANGE 99- 211 /GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99- 01 3038North San Gabriel Boulevard A request by Jack -in- the -Box, Inc, dba "Jack -in- the - Boa," to consolidate six (6) lots into one (1) parcel for the development of a fast food restaurant with less than the required number of parking spaces, to review a conceptual design plan, to zone change from Light . Multiple Residential (R -2) to Medium Commercial (C -3), and to amend the General Plan from the existing Medium Density Residential to Commercial land use. . Presentation: Planning Director Johnson Staff recommendation: APPROVE— Tentative Parcel Map, Zone Variance, Design Review, Zone Change, and General Plan; all subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." ADOPT— Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL —of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: Vice- Chairman Ortiz expressed three (3) concerns: 1. Possible parking overflow 2. Employee parking availability 3. Measures for controlling San Gabriel Boulevard and Gladys Avenue vehicle circulation On the subject of employee parking, Planning Director Johnson corroborated the mutual use of the adjoining Beach Grocery lot; however, the director advised redirecting the remaining concerns to the applicant's attending representatives. . . Chairman Alarcon opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: By reason of community aesthetic enrichment, the vice - president of Beach Grocery Company, Mr. Steve Gruehlke of 301 East Olive Avenue, Suite 202, Burbank, voiced his endorsement of this future project. Correspondingly, to address Vice - Chairman Ortiz' vehicle flow apprehension, Mr. Gruehlke acknowledged the existing two (2) speed bumps and stop sign to regulate traffic. The representative for Jack -in- the -Box, Inc., Mr. Michael Palmer of 100 West Barranca Avenue, Suite 200, West Covina, approached the podium and reaffinned his commitment to and acceptance of all stipulations; furthermore, the following admirable features were promoted: ➢ Unique architecture — o One -of -a -kind structure devised specifically for the site. ➢ Ambiance — o "Speakeasy pager system" mitigates feedback/static by sensing surrounding resonance and adjusting the volume accordingly. • "Word confirmation board" comprises LED readout; thereby, reducing and enhancing verbiage between customers and order recipient. 3/20/00 MNMS, PACE 3 ➢ Parking lot design i o The reduction of four (4) traffic conflict points to one (1) Additionally, Mr. Palmer anticipated an operating schedule of twenty -four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week. Wherefore, stipulated conditions do not limit business hours, Planning Director Johnson agreed to the aforesaid proposed operating hours. In view of the fact that vehicle overcrowding is imminent during the noon lunch hour, Chairman Alarcon speculated whether the north and west driveway approaches would be manageable and whether a franchise or corporate- operated project is expected. Inasmuch as the drive -thru aisle way is designed fifty (50) to sixty (60) percent wider to handle three (3) to four (4) more vehicles than other retail facilities and is accompanied by a double line -up order kitchen, Mr. Palmer predicted optimum traffic flow with plenty of room and no impediments. Lastly, a corporate - controlled venture was confirmed. Commissioner Loi requested the refuse timetable; whereby, Mr. Palmer indicated pick -up would be three (3) to four (4) times per week. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public /tearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Vice - Chairman Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 25890, Zone Variance 99 -293, Design Review 99 -79, Zone Change 99 -211, and General Plan Amendment 99 -01 —all subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A "; ADOPT Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; and RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment 99 -01 and Zone Change 99 -211. Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered B. DESIGN REVIEW 00 -81 -3500 -3600 Rosemead Boulevard A. request by Aespace America, Inc., dba "Rosemead Square," to review a master sign program for property located in the Medium Commercial with Design Overlay (C -3D) zone. Presentation: Associate Planner Wilkinson Staff recommendation: APPROVE- -for a period of five 151 years, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. 3/20/00 NtNUTES, PACE 4 Questions from the commissioners to the staff.- Whereupon, the shopping center's eastside establishments are excused from the master sign program, Chairman Alarcon probed the basis for their exemption and the height of the existing pole sign. In explanation, Planning Director Johnson asserted that the exemptions are the choice of the property manager and sign contractor. Nevertheless, the eastside is not associated with the shopping center. In acknowledgement of the chairman's height query, Associate Planner Wilkinson declared the present pole sign to be sixty -five (65) feet: Whereas, the maximum height limit for a freestanding sign is thirty -five (35) feet, Director Johnson informed Vice - Chairman Ortiz that a design review confers upon the planning commission the authority to exceed CALTRANS' standards and review. Commissioner Loi queried the maximum freeway sign height; whereby, Associate Planner Wilkinson affirmed that CALTRANS signage review is not obligatory. To ease Commissioner Loi's apprehension relating to pylon signs, Director Johnson agreed to incorporate a condition; wherein, proposed pylon sign plans can be forwarded to CALTRANS for further review whenever necessary. Public hearing was opened by Chairman Alarcon to those INFAVOR of this application: The sign contractor, Mr. John Hadaya of Ultra Neon Signs, 5450 Complex Street, Suite 307, San Diego, emphasized the formulation of a comprehensive sign criteria program; wherein, the integration and refurbishment of placard colors is the main objective. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the eastside is typically office use, externally - illuminated signs are unwarranted. Consequently, Aespace America chooses to concentrate on the westside retail sector. Similarly, in answer to Vice - Chairman Ortiz' southeast comer tenant issue, Mr. Hadaya established the former criteria as remaining in effect for this older complex portion. Whereto fore, item "G" of the Rosemead Place Master Sign Program states: "Landlord reserves the right to hire an independent electrical engineer... to inspect the installation of all Tenarn's[sicjsigns.... " Vice - Chairman Ortiz asked whether this provision is recognized as standard policy. In rebuttal, Mr. Hadaya clarified that all leases must meet the ascribed signage guidelines; otherwise, the landlord may at his /her own discretion, hire an independent contractor. Public hearing was opened to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the commission, Chairman Alarcon closed the public !tearing segment for this project (MO) Motion by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Vice - Chairman - Ortiz, -to APPROVE Design Review 00 -81 for a period of flue [51 years, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARC6N, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly carried and so ordered 3/20/00 Nf1NLTrES, PAGE 5 5. OTHER BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99 -761 (EXTENSION�- Walnut Grove Avenue A request by Southern California Edison to extend a permit to construct a chiller plant, cooler tower, and emergency generator. Presentation: Associate Planner Wilkinson Staff recommendation: APPROVE- -for a period of five (5) y ears, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: None. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 99 -761 (Extension) for a period of live 151 years, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said notion duly carrier/ and so orderedt B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -758 (EXTENSION) -3518 -3522 Rosemead Boulevard A request by Neil Simon, dba "Peter Piper Pizza," to extend a permit allowing the establishment of an arcade and the on -sale of beer & wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with an eating establishment. Presentation: Associate Planner Wilkinson Staff recommendation: APPROVE- -for a period of two 121 years, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Applicant(s): In the audience. Questions from the commissioners to the staff: None. (MO) Motion by Vice - Chairman Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Loi, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 98 -758 (Extension) for a period of[WO 121 years, subject to the conditions listed in "Exhibit A." Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declarer/ said notion duly carrier/ and so ordered. 3/20/00 MD =s, PAGE 6 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC RESOLUTION 00 -08 ARESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 99-76, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25515, AND ZONE VARIANCE 99-289 TO ALLOW THE CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR (4) LOTS INTO ONE (1) PARCEL AND TO REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT STRUCTURE (DBA "CARL/S JR.ff) WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9021 EAST VALLEY BOULEVARD APN: 5391- 013- 005/06/07/08). B. PC RESOLUTION 00 -09 ARESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00 -791 ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A BUS FACILITY COMPRISING STORAGE, DISPATCH/MAINTENANCE YARDS, WASH AREA, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5016 EARLE AVENUE (APN 5373 -033- 800/801). Deputy Attorney Stan Price presented the resolution(s) by title only. (MO) Motion by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Vice- Chairman Ortiz, to waive further reading and adopt said resolution(s). Vote results: YES: ALARCON, ORTIZ, BREEN, LOI NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ Chairman Alarcon declared said motion duly curried and so ordered 7 ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE This is the time for the public to address the planning commission on any matter not presented on tl :e agenda. No response. A MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Vice - Chairman Ortiz reported an illegal "A- frame" sign positioned on the sidewalk in front of the Garvey Avenue "Melody Lounge" establishment. B. Commissioner Loi reported graffiti on a Del Mar Avenue motel wall. C. Recalling the last commission meeting in which Vice- Chairman Ortiz recounted an unsightly "port-o- potty" on Hellman Avenue, Planning Director Johnson notified the commissioner of his investigation outcome, whereby, the offender will be obliged, to comply with one (1) of . . three (3) options: 1) Apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) 2) Screen the portable toilet 3) Relocate out of sight In any case, the director vowed to resolve this matter shortly. 3/20/00 MNUMS, PAGE 7 D. Chairman Alarcon broached two (2) subjects: 1) Status of Victory Outreach Church dilemma 2) Abandoned shopping carts at Sullivan Avenue & Whitmore Street Wherefore, I'ictory Outreach has relocated to the Nazarene Church on Walnut Grove Avenue, Director Johnson informed the chairman that the parishioners will be meeting two (2) times per week. Moreover, an on -site residence may be converted to an office use; hence, should this transpire, a conditional use permit would be mandatory. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. The next meeting will occur on MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000, at 7:00 P.M. PC RESOLUTION 00 -10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 25890; ZONE VARIANCE 99 -293; DESIGN REVIEW 99 -79; ZONE CHANGE 99 -211; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99 -01, ALLOWING THE CONSOLIDATION OF SIX LOTS INTO ONE LOT WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, A ZONE CHANGE FROM R 2; LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL TO C -3; MEDIUM COMMERCIAL, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE A LAND USE AREA FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL, LOCATED AT 3038 N. SAN GABRIEL BLVD. (APN: 5288- 009 - 044, - 045, -053,- 054, -055). WHEREAS, on December 29, 1999, Jack -In- The -Box, 100 West Barranca Avenue, Suite 200, West Covina, CA, 91791, filed tentative parcel map, zone variance, design review, zone change, and general plan amendment applications allowing the consolidation of six lots into one lot with the construction of a drive through restaurant with less than the required number of parking spaces, a zone change from R -2; Light Multiple Residential to C -3; Medium Commercial, and an amendment to the General Plan to change a land use area from Medium Density Residential to Commercial on property located at 3038 N. San Gabriel Blvd.; and WHEREAS, 3038 N. San Gabriel Blvd., is in the C -3; Medium Commercial Zoning District; and 3033, 3037, 3041, & 3043 Gladys Ave. are zoned R -2; Light Multi- Family Residential; and WHEREAS, Sections 16.08.010- 16.08.220 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) requires a tentative parcel map for the consolidation of six lots; Section 17.108.020 of RMC requires a zone variance for development with less than the required parking stalls; Section 17.72.050 of RMC requires a design review of all design and functional aspects of a site development; and Section 17.116 set forth procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments; and WHEREAS, Sections 65800 and 65900 inclusive, of the California Government Code, and Section 17.112.010 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve or deny tentative parcel maps, zone variances, and design reviews; and WHEREAS, Sections 16.08.010- 16.08.220, Section 17.112.030.024, Section 17.108.020, Section 17.72.050, Section 17.116 & 17.120 of the Rosemead Municipal Code specifies the criteria by which a tentative parcel map, zone variance, design review, and zone change may be granted; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has an adopted General Plan, zoning ordinance, and map including specific development standards to control development; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment 99 -01 would designate the subject property "commercial" allowing a maximum commercial floor area of 1:1; and WHEREAS, Sections 17.116 and 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed zone changes to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2000,46 notices were posted in 10 public locations and sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Tentative Parcel Map 25890, Zone Variance 99 -293, Design Review 99 -79, Zone Change 99 -211, and General Plan Amendment 99 -01; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2000, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Tentative Parcel Map No. 25890, Zone Variance 99 -293, Design Review 99 -79, Zone Change 99 -211, and General Plan Amendment 99 -01; and EXHIBIT "Ell WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted for Tentative Parcel Map 25890, Zone Variance 99 -293, Design Review 99 -79, Zone Change 99 -211, and General Plan Amendment 99 -01. An initial study was completed to analyze potential environmental impacts pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study found that there would not be potential environmental impacts. The initial study is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that placing the property in the Zone Change 99 -211 and General Plan Amendment 99 -01 are in the interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed zone change, in that the change to the General Plan Land Use Area will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of residential neighborhood where the development is proposed. SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Zone Change 99 -211 and General Plan Amendment 99 -01 are consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: A. Land Use General Plan Amendment 99 -01 consists of amending the existing land use designation from "Medium Density Residential" to "Commercial'. This amendment will allow for this commercial development to be compatible with the surrounding area that is designated "Commercial'. B. Circulation This development is adjacent to San Gabriel Blvd. and Garvey Ave., both major arterial roadways. Access from San Gabriel Blvd. is provided by a 56 foot wide ingress /egress at the west property line. A historic circulation pattern allows access from Garvey Avenue. One northern driveway approach will be located off Gladys Avenue, a local street. C. Housing Although a portion of this site is currently zoned R -2; Light Multiple Residential, the proposed zone change and general plan amendment will not deplete available land for housing. Existing housing on lot is surrounded by commercial uses and is dilapidated. Only a single home will be removed. D. Resource Management Development required to provide landscaping areas in the overall site plan. E. Noise This development will not generate any significant noise levels for the surrounding area. An initial study was completed and its findings have determined that this development could not have a significant effect on the environment. F. Public Safety The Fire and Sheriff Departments have reviewed the proposed plans. The site is not located in any special study zones. The entire City of Rosemead is free from any flood hazard designations. SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Change 99 -211, amending Rosemead Zoning map land use designation from "R -2; Light Multiple Family Residential to "Medium Commercial', and approving General Plan Amendment 99 -01, amending the General Plan land use designation from "Medium Density Residential' to "Commercial", located at 3038 N. San Gabriel Blvd. (APN: 5288-009-044,-045, -053, -054,-055), pending City Council approval. General Plan Amendment 99 -01 is approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1 SECTION S . This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Article IX - Planning and Zoning of the Rosemead Municipal Code. SECTION 6 . This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2000, by the following vote: YES: LOI, ORTIZ, BREEN, ALARCON NO: NONE ABSENT: RUIZ ABSTAIN: NONE SECTION 6 . The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, this 3rd day of April 2000. William Alarcon, Chairman CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 3rd day of April, 2000 by the following vote: YES: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: William Crowe, Secretary