Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 5468RESOLUTION NO. 5468 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY GRANTING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKEWOOD AND FIRESTONE BOULEVARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. An Application was duly filed by Moses Lerner (hereinafter "Applicant ") to consolidate 8 lots of Tract 8326 and adjacent portions of vacated alleys into a single parcel of approximately one acre at the northwest corner of Lakewood Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard (hereinafter "Subject Property "). B. The City Council held a duly- noticed public hearing on July 23, 1991 and, after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 5468 approving Tentative Parcel Map 23003. SECTION 2. The City Council further finds and determines that: A. The proposed consolidation is consistent with the provisions of Downey's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing eight parcels, although established legally in 1925, are now substandard in size for parcels designated General Commercial and zoned C -3. The proposed parcel of approximately 45,000 square feet is larger than the 6,000 square feet required for new parcels created in this zone. No specific plan currently governs this area. The application complies with Section 9212 of the Downey Municipal Code governing parcel maps. B. A parcel map is required for this consolidation, as certain dedications and easements are required for purposes of alley improvements, sidewalk width, and future roadway improvements to achieve established future standards for Lakewood Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard. These dedications and easements are listed in detail in the following section. C. The land is physically suitable for the proposed type and intensity of development and will not conflict with easements on or across the property. RESOLUTION NO. 5468 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 PAGE 2 D. Neither the design of the consolidated parcel nor the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. Mitigation measures have been developed to address potential environmental effects of the project as identified by the initial study. The project does not have substantial environmental effects that cannot be mitigated. E. When considering the whole record of this application, including the initial study of environmental impact, there is no evidence that the proposed consolidation will have an adverse effect on fish or wildlife or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The City Planner shall file a California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption, with the appropriate fee provided by the applicant. F. The new parcel will not adversely affect the purpose and intent of the City's general plan or the public convenience or welfare. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, including the mitigation monitoring program, attached to this Resolution as Attachments A and B and by this reference incorporated herein. SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 and the conditions of approval, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", the City Council hereby approves with respect to the Subject Property said Tentative Parcel Map. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65907 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void or annul this decision, or concerning any of the proceedings, acts, or determinations taken, done or made prior to such decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached to this decision shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of this Resolution and the City Council is served within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date.of this Resolution. The City Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Appellant at the address of said person set forth in the record of the proceedings and such mailing shall constitute the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6 RESOLUTION NO. .5/1 AR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 PAGE 3 ATTEST: SECTION 6. The Ci ty Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JULY, 1991. Judith E. McDonnell, City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of July, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: 5 Councilmembers: Cormack, Boggs, Paul, Brazelton, Hayden NOES: 0 Counci lmembers: None ABSENT: o ABSTAINED: o Councilmembers: None Councilmembers: None - Barbara. Hayden, Mayor City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. g TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 PAGE 4 PLANNING EXHIBIT "A" 1. This approval is to allow consolidation of eight parcels of Tract 8326 and adjacent portions of vacated alleys into a single parcel of approximately one acre, as shown in Tentative Parcel Map 23003 dated May 3, 1991 and with the modifications prescribed by all conditions of this Resolution. Further deviations or exceptions from said Tentative Parcel Map shall not be permitted without the approval of the City Planning Commission. 2. The Planning Commission shall retain jurisdiction to amend or add condi- tions with further public notice or hearing to assure compatibility with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 3. All conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 23003 shall be complied with before a Final Parcel Map may be recorded. 4. Within two days of approval of this Resolution, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division a check for 525 made out to the Los Angeles County Clerk, to cover filing of the California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption as required by Assembly Bill 3158. This condition is designed to address the statutory requirements to reduce challenge period under CEQA. Failure to satisfy this condition in the prescribed time shall not be construed as non - compliance with the other conditions of this approval. ENGINEERING 5. Ten feet (10') shall be dedicated for right -of -way purposes along the alley north of Lot 9, Tract 8326, and said dedication shall be reconstructed to the standards of the City Engineering Division. 6. A corner cutoff with a seventeen foot (17') property line radius shall be dedicated at the Firestone /Lakewood intersection to provide minimum eight foot (8') wide parkway sidewalk. Sidewalk return minimum eight feet (8') wide shall be constructed at Lakewood /Firestone to the standards of the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Division. This construction shall be completed concurrently with project development. RESOLUTION NO. 5468 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 PAGE 5 7. Parcel Map must show an irrevocable Offer of Dedication (future street) six feet along Lakewood Boulevard (Lot 20 only, Tract 8326) and one foot along Firestone Boulevard with a twenty -seven foot (27') property line radius at the corner intersection to connect the six foot and one foot -- offers. The property owner must maintain this area with landscaping, although such plantings may not count toward the project's total landscaping requirement. 8. Cement concrete driveway approaches shall be constructed per Caltrans standards and specifications. 9. The existing curb depression shall be replaced with curb and gutter to the standards of the City Engineering Division. 10. Damaged concrete improvements shall be removed and replaced and handicapped ramp shall be installed along Lakewood and Firestone Boulevards. Said improvements shall be permanently maintained to the standards of the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Division. 11. The Subject Property is shown in the most recent Flood Insurance Study Work Map (May 1991) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be subject to effects of 100 -year floodwaters. New construction shall comply with FEMA regulations for floodproofing. 12. An engineered grading plan and drainage plan for the site shall be submitted by the developers for approval by the Engineering Division and Building and Safety Division, and the lot shall drain to storm drain catch basins in Lakewood and Firestone Boulevards and have not less than a 1% grade, and whenever the grade differential exceeds one foot, a retaining wall shall be required. 13. The standards of improvement, construction materials, and methods of construction shall be accomplished in conformance with the standard plans and specifications as outlined by the City of Downey. 14. All necessary drainage structures shall be approved by the Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 5/i6a TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23003 PAGE 6 BUILDING 15. Separate sewer shall be constructed to the building to the standards of the City Engineering and Building and Safety Divisions. 16. All electrical and telephone utilities shall be installed underground to the standards of the Engineering Division and Building and Safety Division. 17. Obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits. 10:tpm23003.res Project Number: Location: Project Title /Description: ® NEGATIVE DECLARATION ATTACHMENT A CITY OF DOWNEY PLANNING DIVISION 11111 Brookshire Ave. Downey, CA 90241 Conditional Use Permit 91 -58 N/W Corner Lakewood Blvd /Firestone Blvd A conditional use permit to exempt a property from provisions of ordinance 927 (Lakewood /Firestone Moratorium) to construct a 10,900 square foot, three - tenant commercial center in the C -3 zone. The City of Downey has conducted an Initial Study of Environmental Impacts for the above - referenced project in accordance with guidelines for the implementation of the California environmental Quality Act. Based on this Initial Study, Negative Declaration status is granted for this project because it is found that 0 there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. ® revisions have been incorporated into the project to avoid significant effects on the environment which could otherwise occur. These are specified as mitigation measures in the Initial Study. CITY OF DOWNEY INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 213/553 -0316 3. Date Checklist was Submitted 4. Name of Proposal, if applicable 5. Application Number(s) CUP 91 -58; TPM 23003 6. Description A reauest to develop a 3- tenant. 10.9004 commercial center: and a reauest to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel of approximately one acre. 7. Location NW corner Lakewood /Firestone II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physi- cal feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, stream, or bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ X Environmental Checklist - 1 Mrsgs Lerner 9879 Santa Monica Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90212 June 6. 1991 1 Yom£ Maybe N� 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the nor- mal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? * Will the loss of existing vegetation be adequately compensated for by conventional project landscaping? Yes 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of ani- mals? Environmental Checklist - 2 I Yes Maybe No f. Alterations of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X i. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (in- cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? * X* g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ X X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitats? _ X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? _ X * Is the project consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning requirements? Yes b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? * Estimated population displaced: 0 * Population Anticipated: 0 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? * Housing units lost: 0 * Housing units proposed: 0 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Environmental Checklist - 3 Yes Maybe No X X b. Will the project have a substantial impact on surrounding land uses? * * X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci- dent or upset conditions? _ X X X * * d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? _ X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? _ X * Anticipated traffic generation: 436 vehicle trip ends daily. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire Protection? Yes Maybe No X b. Police Protection? _ _ X c. Schools? — X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X f. Other governmental services? _ _ X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in a substantial increase in the use of an energy source or require the development of new sources of energy? _ X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to existing utilities? _ X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X– b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aes- thetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistor- ic or historic archaeological site? Environmental Checklist - 4 X X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehis- toric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X Maybe No c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the poten- tial impact area? X III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. 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? 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION See attached sheets. Environmental Checklist - 5 4. Does the project have environmental effect which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — X V. DETERMINATION Date On the basis of this Initial Study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect . on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENT TAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. J ., ta 4 1991 Signature VI. OTHER AGENCIES AND /OR PERSONS CONSULTED: Weston Pringle & Associates Traffic Study, Dated June 3, 1991 Richard Redmayne, City Engineer Robert Brace, Civil Engineer Joanne Itagaki, Acting Traffic Engineer Environmental Checklist - 6 IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following sections discuss the yes, maybe, and no responses given in the Initial Study Checklist for Conditional Use Permit 91 -58 and Tentative Parcel Map 23003. The responses were prepared assuming consolidation of eight lots into a single parcel of approximately 1 acre and development of the property with a 10,900 square foot multiple- tenant commercial center in the C -3 (Central Business District) zone. 1. Earth a. The proposed center would not create unstable geologic conditions or impact any geologic substruc- tures. The land was previously graded to ready it for the structures that most recently stood there. b. Soils may be disrupted or displaced only during new construction on the property. Some minor grading and recompaction of soil may be necessary to accommodate new development. Because such disruption would occur only for a limited period of time, impacts would not be significant. c. Because the site is flat, development would not result in changes to the property's physical features. d. The property has no unique geologic or physical features. e. The property is currently undeveloped, and the entire parcel is open to wind and water erosion. Developing the parcel as proposed would cover much of the land with impervious surfaces, which would reduce such erosion. Future erosion would be minimal, as any portions of the site not covered with structures or impervious surfaces would be required to be landscaped. f. The property is within a developed community a significant distance from the ocean and has been previously improved. Further development would not be capable of eroding or silting natural water courses. g. Commercial development may cause more people to visit these parcels, exposing them to any geologic hazards of the properties. No unusual hazards are known, however. Also, new construction would be built to current earthquake safety standards. No additional geologic hazards would occur as a result of this development. 2. Air a. The new commercial development is not expected to produce significant additional air pollutants. The total number of vehicle trips generated at this center is 436 trips daily. Because the parcel is only one acre, impacts to air quality are not expected to be significant. Traffic and resulting pollutants are not expected to be significant. b. /c. Development allowed under C -3 zoning typically does not include activities or materials that produce objectionable odors. Nor would it be of the scope or magnitude to affect the climate or regional or local air temperatures. 3. Water a. No marine or fresh waters are located on this property or on neighboring sites. b. This development would increase coverage of this land by impervious surfaces, decreasing absorption rates and increasing surface runoff. The properties have previously been developed with commercial uses, however, and absorption, drainage and runoff under the proposed development would not change significantly from that figure. On -site drainage would be developed to the standards of the Engineering and Building and Safety . Divisions to avoid adverse impact on surrounding properties. Irrigation systems for landscaped areas would be approved by the Design Review Board. c. The proposed development would not be of the magnitude to alter the course or flow rate of flood waters. Further, no bodies of water exist on these or neighboring properties. Initial Study Discussion - 1 d. /e. Because of the location and small area of this site, and because of the drainage improvements required by the Engineering Division, runoff will not impact surface water quality, nor will the proposed consolidation and development cause it to change. Further there will be no be direct dis- charge into surface waters. f. The proposed uses do not differ with others in the C -3 zone or with others in the immediate area. The type and scale of this development would not cause the direction or flow rate of ground waters to change. g. /h. Downey's municipal water system supplied the needs of the property's previous development and would provide the water for future improvements. Commercial development would place greater demand on existing groundwater supplies and delivery systems than the existing vacant land does. Because the total area is small, however, these impacts would be Tess than significant. Given the small size of the study area, water available for public use would not be greatly reduced. Any new construction would be built to current Fire Department standards. i. The site is located away from natural and constructed water bodies and water courses. The most recent (May 1991) Flood Insurance Study Work Map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shows this property to be in Zone AE, and subject to more than 2 feet of flooding in the event of a 100 -year flood. The project will be required to meet FEMA regulations, as detailed in the attached mitigation monitoring program, to floodproof the structure and so that employees and customers are not exposed to flooding. The project will not expose people to tidal wave hazard. 4. Plant Life a. With an increase in impervious surfaces, the area available for plant life would decrease. However, no landscaping currently exists on the property. Therefore all landscaping will introduce new plant species to the site. The Design Review Board reviews the landscaping plans and plant palettes for new commercial developments for appropriateness. b. No unique or endangered plant species exist on the site. c. New plant species may be introduced to the site, but they will not differ from species used in Downey for conventional landscaping projects. d. There are no agricultural uses on these or neighboring properties. 5. Animal Life a. /b. This action would not affect the presence or numbers of any animal species, fish, or game on the property. Further, no unique or endangered species are known to inhabit it. c. No new species of animals, including fish and game, would be introduced as a result of this action. The properties are part of a built, urban environment and are not part of an animal migration route. d. No fish or wildlife habitats exist on these or neighboring properties. 6. Noise a. Because development will generate vehicle trips to this now- vacant site, noise levels may increase slightly. The number of vehicle trips produced, however, would be less than those generated by the previous service station and car wash use. Because new development would be similar in character to that which previously existed on this site, noise impacts would be less than significant. This site is located at the intersection of Firestone and Lakewood Boulevards, which carry significant traffic. Commercial development of the site would not likely produce more noise than surrounding uses. b. Commercial development proposed by this application does not typically produce or expose people to severe noise levels. Initial Study Discussion - 2 7. Liaht and Glare New structures will produce some light and may have reflective surfaces, but such light would be similar to that produced by other commercial developments within Downey and would not negatively affect the commercial uses across Lakewood or Firestone. 8. Land Use a. Although this proposal will cause currently vacant land to be developed, the project is consistent with the site's zoning and general plan designation and will not alter the planned land use. Before being cleared, the property was used as a service station for many years. Further, the property is in an area extensively developed with retail commercial uses. b. The project will not substantially impact surrounding uses, which are commercial to the east, south, and southwest; office to the north; and residential to the northwest; parking area will abut the residentially zoned properties. 9. Natural Resource New commercial development will require water and electricity, but the quantities used by the project, compared with the service station and car wash that existed there previously, should not be significant. The City has planned for commercial uses to exist on this site for many years. 10. Risk of Upset a. The development is not expected to foster a risk of upset because, of the generally non- hazardous nature of the proposed use. Use of hazardous materials that may be employed by commercial businesses is governed by the Hazardous Materials chapter (1990) of Downey's General Plan and by Fire Department regulations. b. The proposed land use would not result in an increase in the need for emergency services. The proposed retail uses would likely pose less of a potential need for emergency services than the service station that previously occupied this parcel. The nature and scope of the land use would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. 11. Population Under the Downey Municipal Code, residential uses are not permitted in commercial zones. Therefore, this action will not affect the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of Downey's population. 12. Housing No residential units exist on the site, and residences are not permitted under the existing zoning. This action will neither increase or reduce the area envisioned for housing development by Downey's general plan. The development would create jobs that may increase housing demand in the City, but such an increase would not be significant from a project of this size. 13. Transoortation /Circulation a. Small commercial centers such as the one proposed generate approximately 40 trips per 1000 square feet. The proposed project would produce approximately 436 vehicle trips per day. These trips will be added to an intersection that is already congested (i.e., it is operating above capacity). Trips generated by this project, existing development in the area, and expected growth in this part of Downey will combine to make the congestion at this intersection worse. Both Lakewood Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard will be included on the regional network of streets and highways included in the forthcoming Congestion Management Plan authorized by Proposition 111. The City will be required to maintain monitored levels of service at this intersection and establish measures to off -set the impacts of development projects affecting it. The City of Downey has determined and established as a policy the future right -of -way widths required on each leg of this intersection to improve traffic flow, including curb -to -curb roadway and 8' -wide parkways. This determination was based on data and improvement options detailed in a City- commissioned traffic analysis, which recommended improvements to properties at all four corners of Initial Study Discussion - 3 the intersection. This analysis estimated that, with no improvements the peak -hour volume -to- capacity ratio of this intersection —its ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) value —would be 1.34. This corresponds to Level of Service F. This represents effect of traffic from the proposed project, existing development, and expected growth in the immediate area. Improvements suggested by this study and identified as most practicable by the City (Alternative 3) would reduce the ICU value to .95 —Level of Service E. It is the City's intent to equalize, to the maximum extent possible, the right -of -way impacts to each corner. The City's Engineering Division has developed a modified version of Alternative 3 in the traffic study as the standard for future right -of -way at this intersection. This standard will result in an ultimate right of way of the following widths, with no median: Existing Right -of -Way Future Right -of -Way Lakewood Blvd., North Leg: 102' 114' Lakewood Blvd., South Leg: 102' 114' Firestone Blvd., East Leg: 115' 116' Firestone Blvd. West Leg: 100' 102' This future right -of -way, distributed among the four corner properties, will require a dedication of six feet of the subject property along Lakewood Boulevard. Because the parcel's Lakewood frontage curves, however, the expansion will not occur along the entire frontage but along the southern portion. In addition, one additional foot will be required along Firestone. The applicant shall execute a Future and Private Roadway agreement with the City of Downey, to reserve this area for future right -of -way expansion, and shall landscape and maintain the property until such time as it is improved. This area may not be used as required parking or landscaping area for the project, nor for permanent structures. The improvements identified for this intersection will mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal, existing development, and ambient growth. b. On -site parking would be provided for new construction in accordance with the Downey Municipal Code. Therefore, this action would not create demand for new off-site parking, nor would it affect existing parking facilities. c. The site is located at the intersection of two state highways served by regional bus service. Existing transportation systems will not be significantly affected. d. The location of a commercial development of approximately one acre at the intersection of two major streets will not impede movement of vehicles, people, or goods along Lakewood, Firestone, or other nearby streets. Required right -of -way expansion on this and the other three corner properties at this intersection will improve mobility. e. No waterborne, rail, or air traffic uses this property. f. Since this action may slightly increase traffic in the area, it could increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians. Although the property is served by sidewalks along both Lakewood and Firestone, sidewalk width is reduced at the intersection to 6' —two feet less than the City's 8' standard for such arterials. It is likely that commercial development of this parcel will attract shoppers from Stonewood Center across the street, increasing pedestrian traffic to this site. The constriction of the sidewalk to a substandard width may pose an additional pedestrian hazard. Pedestrians who might have to step into the roadway to pass around each other would step into one of the busiest intersections in Downey. To mitigate this potential hazard, the applicant shall be required to dedicate land to allow a full -width sidewalk to be constructed around the corner. 14. Public Service4 a. /b. The proposed development will require police and fire protection. This service need, however, should not be significantly greater than that which has existed in the past for this property. In addition, any new structures would be built to current fire safety standards. Initial Study Discussion • 4 c. /d. As no new dwelling units will be built on this site, this action will not likely impact existing school facilities. Similarly, it win not significantly increase the need for parks or other recreational facilities. 15. Enerav New development will use some additional electricity, natural gas, and water. The effect on existing supplies, given the small size of the site, would not be significant. No new energy sources would be required. e. /f. The proposed development is a commercial center in an area long planned for such use. Therefore, this action would not significantly impact government services and maintenance of public facilities such as roads. Required dedications to accommodate increased traffic at this intersection is discussed in the traffic section of this initial study. 16. Utilities Because this proposal is no larger than one acre, this action will not negatively affect existing communica- tion, water, sewer, storm drain, natural gas, and solid waste disposal systems. 17. Human Health a. /b. This development will not create unique or unusual health hazards or potential health risks. The typically non - hazardous nature of commercial land use would not expose people to additional hazards. 18. Aesthetics This property is not within a scenic vista or view corridor. Further, architecture and landscaping of new commercial development would require Design Review Board approval. 19. Recreation Employees of new development may use park and recreation facilities. Such impact would be small, however, because the total number of employees would not be large and no more than a few of these are likely to use any recreational facility at the same time. Further, the property is not in a recreational area or planned for such an area. 20. Cultural Resources a /b /c /d. There are no known prehistoric or historic sites on this parcel. This development would not harm any ethnic groups or cultural values. Further, no religious or sacred uses exist on or adjacent to this property. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 111. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. The land use proposed does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or impact wildlife populations or their habitats. 2. No long -term environmental goals would be compromised by the proposed planning action. 3. The proposed land use is not anticipated to produce limited individual impacts which, taken together, would be considerable. 4. The proposed planning action would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects or pose health hazards to human beings. Initial Study Discussion - 5 fT A W N 3 w T �^ D �^. y o ' Oo O v c °7 c T T r r m m m D 0 n D 0 n a o n° 2° m 0e a 2 m m x me ° 0 m 3 77 ° 0 m = 7yE70.23-8 c mmmm • m 3 , o 0,0' f y Et !Ell . d e m 2,g- j j 0 0 m° y 2 T m 0 iA 7 ,. 2 no 30 01 3• ; � m =°OO.a mmo n o3 3 F m c� m 7 v 5 C 0 cD D 3 0 7' G C ti f = D O Q c c n C Gm VlZ 7c, n z w � o d . ��omo m yc�� m.. O O c m i x� m r 1Jii a„ m . rm _ ,r; .m' mf° m • f no x S "m � CDy 3 3 ____ a o . m m y y c d w x M 7 W O 0 • = Z y" 0 d 3 7 V K » U1 N N* k . f D N Z 7C �• m N D d f7 7 n 7 7 �, M .e fA 3< . 01 K O a d O' 0 N 7 m m 0 O C n 0 ° 7 m '7.00 O N . . 7 2 7' v 7 O *L m0 f � .< 0 m 0 .. O ____=, ° n D f 3? n < C < X m m °, Ol m . O) ,r d C y 0 Z • N y y N 7 7 S f o' c 0 D 7 O < 3 7 C a o m o Ma O' 070303 O O G N j °° m O CDD ° 7Em =OR 2 y M CD -1 7 OM O . y co • y 7 co d. A- N 0 —' 3 m 0 A09!5 m O 0 o < C o o < D en c v a CD a m n o m 7 C n m � , n a m ' • 2 a O o o m F T M o T O ;I O 3 v, ° 3 v v m m 7 d 'O d v N 7 lil v 2 v o a ' n ° o y m 7 d A ga KM �m m d v v c f , 7R c ° 3 o o = m 9' 2 m 2 n n no M m ▪ my co m m 7 5' 7 7 3 m m co m m m m nn « • 7 M M n n c z c3° W o W N o, N7 g 0 CP. m m O O m w o N d 7 C E d-oa3m v°y oo a - 3 rug — - 303 , 4 o m D y cm.,c < g O C C m 7 y -0 m o 0 < v w 2: Z o7yfD�° n D ^ 0 ko ai 1 w 7 t OD O 3 m D (2D al al o Z 1 o r 0) W o once .74" rn Om Z d' © —I -a m T y O C MI osd mO 7 /1 O F o d • D ▪ D C v Di CV co <<DO, m � c r m