HomeMy WebLinkAbout1. PLN-13-00064 8767 Firestone -11101 Lakewood
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2013
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRIAN T. SAEKI, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MARK SELLHEIM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLN – 13 – 00064 -- IN- N- OUT BURGER DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL TO ENLARGE ITS PARKING AND DRIVE-THROUGH
FACILITIES BY CONVERTING THE ADJOINING PROPERTY INTO A
PARKING LOT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION.
LOCATION: 8767 Firestone Boulevard (6254-028-065); and
11101 Lakewood Boulevard (6254-028-055)
ZONING: 8767 Firestone Boulevard – Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (SP-91-2)
11101 Lakewood Boulevard – Professional Office (C-P)
REPORT SUMMARY
PLN – 13 – 00064 is a development proposal to expand the parking area and
increase the length of the drive-through lane of the In-N-Out Burger at 8767 Firestone
Boulevard by using the adjoining property to the north, 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, to
accommodate the expansion. The applicant’s purpose in implementing the project is to
improve onsite circulation by increasing In-N-Out’s parking supply and lengthening and
reconfiguring its drive-through aisle. It’s worth noting that under the proposal, the
existing In-N-Out building will not be altered nor most of the on-site improvements,
except the parking area in the northerly portion of the site. Zoning entitlement
applications the applicant filed to implement the proposal include, a zone change
petition, a conditional use permit and a summary vacation. Each is described briefly
below:
A zone change to rezone 11101 Lakewood Boulevard from Professional Office
(C-P) to Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (SP-91-2) in order to permit the
planned improvements. A restaurant with a drive-through lane is not permitted
in the C-P zone, whereas a drive-through restaurant is a conditional use in SP-
91-2. The property In-N-Out Burger occupies is also zoned SP-91-2.
A conditional use permit to reconfigure In-N-Out Burger’s parking lot layout and
permit the development of the expanded parking facilities on the adjoining lot,
11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
A summary vacation to abandon the public alley that overlays both properties,
plus vacate a small portion of surplus Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way (about
2,000 square feet) that parallels the frontage of 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
In addition to the above applications, In-N-Out Burger intends to file a merger
application to combine the properties. In-N-Out plans to submit the application after
they secure approvals to expand the parking/ drive-through facilities and assume title of
11101 Lakewood Boulevard. According to the applicant, escrow is scheduled to close
on this property at the end of 2013.
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 2
Based on the analysis provided in this report, staff has developed findings to support
both the zone change and conditional use permit applications. Therefore, staff
recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following titled resolutions.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINIG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DOWNEY RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION PLN – 13 – 00064 AND
APPROVE SAID APPLICATION, A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY
AT 11101 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (C- P)
TO LAKEWOOD/FIRESTONE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP- 91- 2).
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DOWNEY ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT APPLICATION PLN – 13 – 00064 AND APPROVING SAID
APPLICATION, A REQUEST MODIFYING THE LAYOUT OF THE PARKING
LOT AND DRIVE-THROUGH LANE OF THE IN-N-OUT BURGER AT 8767
FIRESTONE BOULEVARD AND PERMITTING IN-N-OUT TO ENLARGE ITS
PARKING AREA AND LENGTHEN ITS DRIVE-THROUGH LANE BY
CONVERTING FOR ITS USE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, 11101
LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD, INTO A PARKING LOT.
In regards to the summary vacation, Staff suggests the Planning Commission adopt:
A MINUTE ACTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
VACATING BOTH THE ALLEY THAT OVERLAYS 8767 FIRESTONE
BOULEVARD AND 11101 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD AND THE SURPLUS
LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD RIGHT- OF- WAY THAT PARALLELS THE
FRONTAGE OF 11101 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD CONFORMS WITH THE
GENERAL PLAN.
BACKGROUND
In-N-Out Burger – 8767 Firestone Boulevard
Two contiguous properties comprise the project site, which is just northwest of
the Lakewood/Firestone intersection; they include 8767 Firestone Boulevard and the
adjacent parcel to the north, 11101 Lakewood Boulevard (see aerial photo) An In-N-
Out Burger restaurant occupies the intersection’s northwest corner: 8767 Firestone
Boulevard. This parcel maintains 104 feet and 168 feet of frontage along Firestone
Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard, respectively. For land use classifications, the
property is zoned Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (SP-91-2) and maintains the
corresponding General Commercial General Plan designation (see zoning map).
In 1995, the Planning Commission granted In-N-Out entitlements to develop the
drive-through restaurant and construction was completed a year later. The entitlements
included Parcel Map No. 24315, which consolidated several substandard size lots into a
single, 34,175 square foot parcel; and Conditional Use Permit No. 95-39, which
permitted development of the drive-through lane. It was also under these entitlements
that In-N-Out dedicated a 10-foot wide easement along the site’s northerly property line
for a public alley, now the subject of the summary vacation application.
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 3
In-N-Out Burger – Firestone Blvd. Elevation
The restaurant, with its 71 inside seats covers slightly less than 9% of the site and
measures 2,912 square feet. Outdoor dining is also provided along the east side of the
building. The aerial photo shows the restaurant sited near Firestone Boulevard, with
the front entrance facing Firestone and the building oriented in a north/south direction.
Another entrance is provided on the east side of the building. The parking area and
drive-through lane make up the balance of the site; the parking area covers the easterly
and northerly portions and 42 parking spaces are provided currently.
The alignment of the drive-through lane is “S” shaped with its entrance to the lane
situated in the northwest corner of the property; the aisle hugs the west side of the
building, and also parallels sections of the the site’s southerly and westerly boundaries.
It currently provides stacking space for nine vehicles. After customers finish at the
drive-up window, they drive directly to Firestone Boulevard, egressing at an exit-only
driveway. This driveway is also restricted to right-turns only. The site’s other two drive
approaches are 2-way driveways; one is located on Firestone Boulevard, near the
intersection with Lakewood with the other on Lakewood near the site’s northerly
boundary.
In-N-Out Burger – Lakewood Blvd. Elevation
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 4
Two-Story Office Building – 11101 Lakewood Boulevard
A 2-story, L-shaped office building occupies the project site’s other parcel, 11101
Lakewood Boulevard, and it was developed with a zone exception approval. In
1977, the Planning Commission granted Zone Exception No. 1361 (ZE No.
1361), which was an exception from the R3 zone (Medium Density Multiple-Family
Residential) to develop a 4,580 square foot office building with a 15-space parking lot
on the 8,000 square foot parcel.
The office was constructed in 1978. That same year, the City Council rezoned the
property to Professional Office. Also included in that zone change were the
properties on the west side of Lakewood Boulevard, between this parcel and 5th Street.
City Council rezoned the block because a few of the properties were transitioning from
residential to commercial uses, due to their Lakewood Boulevard location. With respect
to the General Plan, this property, like the In-N-Out parcel, maintains the General
Commercial General Plan designation.
11101 Lakewood Blvd.
Other modifications granted by ZE No. 1361, included deviations to the front and side
yard building setbacks to 10 and 5 feet, respectively. The zone exception also
stipulated that the applicant dedicate easements for the alley, which is also the subject
of this project’s summary vacation. Specifically, a 20-foot easement was dedicated
along the west side of the lot, while 10 feet was dedicated along the southerly property
line, which matches the 10-foot easement dedicated on the In-N-Out parcel.
Neighboring Properties
The project site, as identified above, occupies the northwest corner of the
Lakewood/Firestone intersection, one of the most heavily-traveled intersections
in Downey. In the General Plan’s Circulation Chapter, both Firestone and Lakewood
Boulevards are classified as Major Arterials, with each providing six travel lanes and a
median divider. The section of Firestone adjacent to project site carries about 48,000
vehicles per day, while the section of Lakewood next to the site carries approximately
42, 000 vehicles daily.
Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include a mix of uses. For example,
single-family residences occupy the properties immediately north and west of the
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 5
project site (see aerial photo). The residences to the north front on Lakewood
Boulevard and also use Lakewood to access their properties. In addition, the properties
are oriented in an east/west direction and zoned C-P.
The rear yards of the residences west of project site back up to it; these properties are
zoned R-2 and Marbel Avenue provides access to them.
Also west of the project site is a 20-room motel that fronts on Firestone Boulevard,
while small, commercial businesses are located west of it. The motel property is zoned
SP-91-2, while the properties west of it are zoned Central Business District (C-3); all of
these properties maintain the corresponding General Commercial General Plan
designation.
A Citibank branch office occupies the property across the street from the project site, at
the southwest corner of the Lakewood/Firestone intersection; this property, like
the project site is also zoned Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. The rest of the
southwest corner is undeveloped currently.
Properties located diagonally of the project site, at the southeast corner of the
Lakewood/Firestone intersection, support a fast food restaurant, Carl’s Jr., a
Walgreens drug store and a Big Lots store. These properties are also zoned Lakewood/
Firestone Specific Plan and are designated General Commercial.
At the northwest corner of the intersection is a Starbucks coffee house that’s housed in
a converted bank building , while the adjacent property to the north supports a 2-story,
45-room motel. These parcels are also zoned Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan SP
and designated General Commercial. In addition, parking areas for Stonewood Center
occupy the area north of the motel and east of Starbucks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the applications that comprise PLN -13 – 00064, starting
with the zone change, then followed by the conditional use permit and summary
vacation. Lastly, this report concludes with a brief discussion about the environmental
document that was prepared to assess the development proposal’s potential
consequences (i.e., Negative Declaration). A copy of the Negative Declaration is
attached.
1. Zone Change Application
The zone change petition, as briefly described above, is a request to rezone 11101
Lakewood Boulevard, the northernmost of the two properties comprising the
project site, from Professional Office (C-P) to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan
(SP-91-2). The applicant filed the request in order to allow In-N-Out Burger to expand
its parking area and drive-through lane to include 11101 Lakewood Boulevard. In the
C-P zone, drive-through restaurants are not allowed, whereas SP-91-2 permits them
with a conditional use permit. Please note that the CUP application for the drive-
through lane encompasses the In-N-Out parcel, as well as 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
Staff, however, has developed a condition of approval stating the CUP will not become
valid until the City Council approves the zone change petition.
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 6
Also note that since In-N-Out is a drive-in business, the applicant incorporated several
development standards into the project’s design from the Drive-In Businesses section of
the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9406). For example, the proposed parking lot and drive-
through lane expansion abut two R-2 zoned properties. With this residential interface, a
provision in Section 9406 stipulates wherever vehicle parking or a driveway abuts
residentially-zoned property, a minimum 10-foot wide planter shall be installed along the
property line adjacent to the residential zone. The provision further mandates that the
landscape strip shall be planted with trees and shrubs, which form an uninterrupted
screen not less than 10 feet high nor more than 15 feet when planted.
A single-family residence also occupies the adjoining property north of the project site.
The house is oriented in an east/west direction, siding up to northerly boundary of the
project site. As noted above, the neighboring property is zoned Professional Office and
the Zoning Ordinance stipulates where a parking lot in a commercial zone abuts a non-
residentially-zoned property, a minimum 5-foot wide landscape planter shall be
installed along the property line. This landscape strip shall also be planted with trees
and shrubs that are not less than 10 feet high at the time of planting.
Staff also is recommending, as a condition of approval, the applicant erect a 7-foot high
decorative masonry wall along the site’s northerly boundary. Staff is requesting the wall
due to the nature of the use occupying the neighboring property and its zoning status.
Namely, the property is zoned Professional Office (C-P) and a residence in this zone is
a permitted use, whereas a single-family residence in most commercial zones is a
nonconforming use. These landscape and wall provisions will act as a buffer to help
insure that the usual activities associated with a parking lot don’t impact the neighboring
uses.
To provide physical context to the zone change application, the requested
Lakewood/Firestone specific plan area encompasses the commercial properties that
frame Stonewood shopping center. The specific plan area totals 36.5-acres and is
divided into five subareas. The In-N-Out Burger property and adjoining motel parcel
comprise Subarea 2, encompassing the northwest corner of the Lakewood/Firestone
intersection. The other subareas encompass the intersection’s other corners, along
with the southeast corner of the Lakewood/Cecilia intersection and properties along the
south side of Firestone Boulevard, between Lakewood Boulevard and Woodruff
Avenue.
Stonewood Center is the reason why the City adopted the Lakewood/Firestone specific
plan. Shortly after the mall was enclosed/expanded, the City recognized the
conventional zoning provisions of the commercial properties near the mall failed to
acknowledge that these parcels, with their ability to attract retail uses due to their
proximity to Stonewood, differed markedly from Downey’s other commercial districts.
To take advantage of this opportunity, the City developed the Lakewood/Firestone
Specific Plan. And the primary goal of the specific plan’s land use plan is to attract and
retain retail commercial uses that will benefit from and enhance the regional draw of
Stonewood Center, an important economic engine for the City. With this goal in mind,
the proposed project will not only benefit In-N-Out, but also neighboring businesses.
That is, the purpose of the project is to improve onsite conditions at In-N-Out, which in
turn will improve traffic flow on streets bordering the site. Improving access and traffic
flow should not only benefit In-N-Out customers, but also benefit neighboring
businesses in the same manner.
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 7
In-N-Out’s reason for expanding is to improve on- and off-site circulation for its
customers. In-N-Out Burger, as is widely known, is very popular and occasionally
customer vehicle queues trying to access the site at its Lakewood Boulevard drive
approach, back out onto out onto Lakewood. The proposed expansion will help
alleviate this. Not only will the plan increase the parking supply, from 42 to 61 spaces,
but increase the capacity of the drive-through aisle from 9 to 14 vehicles. Moreover, by
encompassing the adjacent parcel, the applicant is able to reconfigure the drive-aisle so
it follows the site’s interior lot lines, thus accommodating more vehicles onsite.
Given the characteristics and purpose of the revised parking lot layout, project
implementation will achieve the following goals of the Lakewood/Firestone specific plan.
They include:
Improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation on streets within and around the
specific plan area, and minimize impacts to nearby streets and intersections
from future commercial development; and
.
Encourage assembly of parcels to facilitate development of efficient, master-
planned projects.
In addition to achieving specific plan goals, project development will also implement
several General Plan programs and a General Plan policy. They include:
Program 1.3.2.7. Encourage the grouping of adjoining small or odd-shaped
parcels in order to create more viable developments. Allowing the development
to proceed and the subsequent lot merger will result in a more viable
development for In-N-Out customers with its more efficient parking facility.
Program 2.1.2.3. Reduce the number of driveway access points on streets.
Project implementation will eliminate one drive approach. According to the
project site plan, In-N-Out will continue to use its existing access points, while
eliminating the approach that provides access to 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
Policy 2.5.1. Provide for adequate parking supply to meet parking demands.
Increasing the restaurant’s parking supply from 42 to 61 spaces is designed to
help meet current parking demand.
Program 2.5.1.5. Minimize parking demand spillover effects onto adjacent
streets and properties. The intent of the project is to help reduce the
restaurant’s impacts on Lakewood and Firestone Boulevards.
Program 2.5.1.8. Promote safe and efficient design for parking areas. The city’s
traffic engineer worked with In-N-Out’s representatives to develop the
proposed circulation plan and he supports the project, as submitted. Moreover,
the submitted design complies with standards of both the Planning Division and
Public Works Department. In addition, the city’s Fire Department has approved
the design in regards to their purposes.
Another criterion for evaluating a zone change request pertains to the size of the lot
under consideration, relative to the applicable minimum lot area standard. The
applicant intends to combine the two parcels that make up the project site; and the
merged parcel will total approximately 44,000 square feet. Separately, the In-N-Out lot
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 8
contains approximately 34,000 square feet, while the other lot measures 8,000 square
feet. According to the lot area provision in the specific plan, the minimum lsize of a
property is 32,670 square feet (.75 of an acre). The In-N-Out parcel and the merged
parcel both exceed the minimum standard, while the other parcel by itself falls
substantially short. Assembling the two parcels increases the site’s design
opportunities, as is evident by the expanded and reconfigured parking lot layout.
Merging the properties will also increase In-N-Out’s frontage along Lakewood
Boulevard from 179 to 285 feet.
With the respect to the merger process, the applicant, as noted above, intends to
combine the properties, and plans to file a merger application after the Planning
Commission and City Council consider the current applications. In-N-Out holds title to
the restaurant property and is in the process of purchasing the neighboring property,
with escrow scheduled to close at the end of year.
Zone Change Findings
Municipal Code Section 9830.06 requires that the Planning Commission must make the
following findings, prior to making written recommendations to the City Council.
That the zone change is necessary and desirable for the development of the
community In harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter and is in
the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare. Project
implementation will be desirable for the community, especially the site’s neighboring
properties, in that it will make the area a more attractive location by improving traffic
conditions at the project site, as well as the two highways serving it. With respect to the
General Plan, the requested zone change and its accompanying project will implement
several General Plan programs and a General Plan policy. For General Plan programs,
the zone change request and its associated project will implement Program 1.3.2.7.,
“Encourage the grouping of adjoining small or odd-shaped in order to create more
viable developments” and Program 2.1.2.3. “Reduce the number of driveway access
points on streets.” Other programs they’ll implement include, Program 2.5.1.5.,
“Minimize parking demand spillover effects onto adjacent streets and properties” and
2.5.1.8., “Promote safe and efficient design for parking areas.” The General Plan policy
that will be implemented is Policy 2.5.1, “Provide for adequate parking supply to meet
parking demands.”
That the zone change will be compatible and complementary to existing conditions and
adjoining property in the surrounding area. The requested zone change and its
associated project will be compatible with the affected site’s adjoining properties.
Compatibility will be achieved by the buffers that will provided along the site’s property
lines. Specifically, buffers, as prescribed in the zoning ordinance, will be installed along
the site’s northerly and westerly property lines and consist of a combination block wall
and landscape planter with trees and shrubs, measuring at least 10 feet high at the
time of planting.
That the site is adequate in size to accommodate the uses permitted in the zone
requested and that all applicable property development standards can be complied
with. The project site consists of two properties. Under the development proposal,
the zone change parcel and the adjoining parcel will merge; further, the adjoining parcel
maintains the same zoning that the zone change property is seeking:
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. Combined, the two properties are more than
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 9
adequate in size to accommodate the kind of uses that are permitted in the
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. Specifically, the minimum lot size in the requested
zone is 32, 670 square feet, whereas the merged parcel is approximately 44,000
square feet. Moreover, the development plan that’s proposed for the merged parcel
does not include any variances from the requested zone’s development standards.
That the site properly relates to streets and highways designed and fully improved to
carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area and
that utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the property as
rezoned. As noted above, the parcel that is the subject of zone change is slated to
merge with an adjoining parcel. Moreover, the project accompanying the zone change
consists of enlarging the parking lot of an existing drive-through restaurant and does not
propose adding floor area. Consequently, the project will not generate traffic. In fact, it
is intended to improve traffic conditions at the project site and the streets serving it. To
that end, the project will increase the restaurant’s parking supply, along with increasing
the capacity of its drive-through lane. By implementing these improvements, the project
will increase the capacity of the site and in turn, avoid impacting adjoining streets.
Utilities serving the project site are fully improved and adequate in capacity to supply
the demands of the site’s improvements. .
That the proposed zone change is in general conformance with the General Plan and
General Plan land use designation for the parcel. The Lakewood/Firestone Specific
Plan is the requested zoning classification and it is consistent with the affected
property’s General Commercial General Plan designation. Furthermore, both the land
uses permitted by the Lakewood//Firestone Specific Plan and the other specific plan
provisions are consistent with the General Commercial designation.
2. Conditional Use Permit Application
The project’s conditional use permit (CUP) application is a twofold request: 1) a petition
to modify the layout of the parking lot and drive-through lane of the In-N-Out Burger at
8767 Firestone Boulevard; and 2) permit In-N-Out Burger to enlarge its parking area
and lengthen its drive-through lane by converting for its use the adjacent property,
11101 Lakewood Boulevard, into a parking lot. For the authority to file the CUP
application, Section III – C.2.g. of the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan lists drive-
through restaurants as standard conditional uses for specific plan area properties.
As the discussion and site plan points out, the development proposal deals strictly with
expanding the parking area for In-N-Out and does not involve enlarging or modifying
the restaurant. As such, the project will not generate additional vehicles trips. Instead, it
is designed to better accommodate existing parking volumes and the demand placed
on the drive-through so onsite circulation operates more efficiently.
The In-N-Out Burger currently provides more parking than is required; 30 stalls is the
minimum requirement, whereas it provides 42 spaces. The drive-through lane also
complies with stacking space requirement that was in effect in 1995 when the City
entitled In-N-Out: provide adequate stacking space for three vehicles before the menu
board. Nevertheless, In-N-Out is so popular that occasionally customer vehicle queues
entering the site at its Lakewood drive approach back out into Lakewood Boulevard’s
southbound right-turn lane. Customer vehicle queues on occasion also back out into
Firestone Boulevard.
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 10
The aerial photo shows In-N-Out’s existing parking lot layout, while the project site plan
shows the proposed parking layout, as it’s imposed on both properties. To implement
the proposal, the applicant will raze the office building and convert the site into a
parking lot, including a drive-through extension, that’s coordinated with In-N-Out’s
existing parking area. As the exhibits illustrate, most of In-N-Out’s existing
improvements will remain intact, except the east/west parking row that stretches along
the northerly property line; it will be demolished so the parking lot can be reconfigured
with the aisles having a north/south orientation. Also remaining unchanged are the
locations of In-N-Out’s drive approaches.
Features that comprise the enlarged parking and drive-through facility are described
below:
1) Increase In-N-Out’s parking supply from 42 to 61 spaces. This is twice as many
spaces as In-N-Out is required to provide and 19 more than it currently provides,
which represents a 31% increase. Lengthen the drive-through lane, thus
increasing its stacking capacity from 9 to 15 vehicles; under the Code, the project
is required to provide a minimum of eight stalls. And by reconfiguring it, the
entrance to the drive-through lane will be relocated to the northwest corner of the
site; so instead of accessing the entrance by driving directly west after entering the
site, drive-through customers will turn right after entering the site and follow the
aisle as it wraps around the property lines.
2) The contemplated parking lot expansion will feature 5,667 square feet of
landscaping. And the landscaping will consist of a 5-foot, a 5.5-foot and a 10-foot
wide planter framing the perimeter of the parking lot. In addition, a planter in the
shape of an exaggerated I will be located in the center of the lot. Also included is
an 18-inch wide planter paralleling the east side of the drive-through lane, which is
designed to screen vehicles from Firestone Boulevard, as they queue in the drive-
though lane.
3) Double the width of the landscape planter from 5 to 10 feet that currently
separates the drive-through lane and the adjoining R-2 zoned properties. Zoning
Ordinance Section 9520.04 (c) (3) (i) requires the development of the 10-foot wide
planter, which became effective in 2008 with the Zoning Ordinance update (the
Code required a 4-foot wide planter before the update). This Code section also
requires that the landscape strip be planted with trees and shrubs which shall form
an uninterrupted screen foliage not less than 10 feet no more than 15 feet in height
at planting and which will grow to be not less than 15 feet no more than 20 feet in
height at full growth. Also adding to the separation between the project site and
the neighboring R-2 zoned properties is a 6.5-foot stuccoed block wall with a 2-foot
tube steel fence affixed atop of it. Erecting the wall was a condition of approval
linked to the zone exception case for the existing office building.
4) A 5.5-foot wide landscape planter will be provided along the site’s northerly
property line and it too will be planted with shrubs that form an uninterrupted
screen. In addition to the landscape screen, staff is requiring, as condition of
approval, the applicant to erect a decorative masonry wall not less than 7-foot high
along the northerly property line. Although the neighboring property is zoned
Professional Office and the Zoning Code does not require a wall, staff
recommends construction in this instance because a single-family residence
occupies the neighboring property. Given the use that’s next door, staff’s
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 11
requirement is similar to the intent of Zoning Ordinance Section 9520.08(l)(5)(i); it
requires the construction of a block wall wherever a commercial property abuts a
residentially-zoned property. The wall together with the landscape screen will
serve as a buffer between properties, blocking impacts such as headlights from
spilling onto the neighboring property.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the Planning Commission shall make a
finding from the evidence as submitted that all four (4) of the following conditions exist in
reference to the project site.
That the requested conditional use permit will not adversely affect the intent and purpose
of this article or the City of Downey’s General Plan or the public convenience or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood thereof. In regards to the
General Plan, the requested conditional use permit (CUP), a drive-through restaurant, is
considered to be consistent with it. According to Section I.A.C., of the
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan, the land uses permitted by Specific Plan SP-91-2,
which includes a drive-through restaurant, are consistent with the affected property’s
General Commercial General Plan designation. Another way the requested CUP is
consistent with the General Plan is that project implementation will implement several
General Plan programs and a General Plan policy. Additionally, the requested CUP is not
expected to adversely impact people working or residing in the vicinity of the project site.
The development plan is designed so the activities typically associated with the requested
CUP will not carry over onto neighboring properties. Design measures incorporated into
the project include property line buffers composed of block walls and landscape planters
featuring an uninterrupted screen of shrubs and trees.
That the requested use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. The intent of the
contemplated project is to improve traffic conditions at the project site, which in turn will
improve traffic flow on the streets that provide access to project site, Firestone and
Lakewood Boulevards. Given these potential benefits, project implementation will have a
positive effect on growth and development in the area.
That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area.
The project site exceeds the minimum area requirement for new lots in the zoning
classification the applicant is seeking. The minimum area requirement for a new lot in the
requested zoned is 32,670 square feet, whereas the project site measures approximately
44,000 square feet, slightly more than an acre. As part of the development plan, the
project applicant filed a request to rezone the smaller of the two lots comprising the project
site to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (the other parcel already maintains the
requested zone and the applicant intends to merge the properties after the decision-
makers consider the entitlements now under consideration). The merged parcel should be
more than adequate in size to accommodate the subject use. The project consists of an
existing fast-food restaurant, with a drive-through lane, enlarging its parking area by taking
over the adjoining property. Features that make up the development plan satisfy all
development standards, and substantially exceed the minimum requirements for two
critical features: required parking and the capacity of the drive-through lane. The minimum
parking requirement for the restaurant is 30 spaces, whereas it’s providing 61 spaces; the
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 12
minimum vehicle stacking requirement for a fast-food drive-through lane is 8 spaces,
whereas the project’s aisle will accommodate 15 vehicles.
That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways in the area. The project will not alter the traffic volumes of the fast-
food restaurant use that’s the subject of the development plan under consideration.
Instead the project consists of enlarging the parking lot and increasing the length of the
drive-through lane of an existing restaurant. It does not involve increasing the size of the
restaurant; consequently, the restaurant will generate the same amount of traffic
regardless of the expanded parking facilities. Rather the parking lot expansion
contemplated is expected to benefit the streets that provide access to the site; the
expanded facilities will provide more capacity on onsite so when vehicles try to access the
site during the restaurant’s peak hours they aren’t force to queue into the street.
3. Summary Vacation
The summary vacation component of the application, PLN No. 13 – 00064, is a request
to vacate the public alley that overlays the properties that make up the project site. Also
included is a request to abandon the sliver of surplus Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way
that parallels the frontage of the project site’s northernmost parcel, 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard. The vacation easement exhibit illustrates the areas contemplated for
vacation.
The origin of the alley, as discussed above, can be traced to 1977 and 1995. In 1977,
the entitlement for the 2-story office building at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, ZEC No.
1361, included conditions of approval to dedicate 10- and 20-foot wide easements for
the alley. In 1995, the entitlements for In-N-Out Burger also included a condition of
approval to dedicate a 10-foot wide easement to match the adjoining easement. The
easements were part of a 20-foot wide alley designed to parallel the rear property lines
of the lots fronting the west side of Lakewood Boulevard, between Firestone Boulevard
and 5th Street.
The surplus Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way was part of the plan for the Lakewood
Boulevard Improvement Project. However, with the finalization of Lakewood’s
alignment, the area under consideration was determined to be surplus.
The city may summarily vacate an excess street or alley not required for highway or
street purposes. The authority and procedures for the summary vacation process are
specified in Sections 8330 - 8336 of the Streets & Highways Code and Section 65402 of
the Government Code. The steps involved in a summary vacation are the following:
1. The city analyses the requested vacation, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. The Planning Commission shall make a General Plan conformity finding.
3. The City Council adopts a resolution of vacation.
4. The city clerk certifies and records a copy of the resolution of vacation. Upon
recording it with the County Recorder’s Office, the vacation is complete.
The city has completed the CEQA analysis, which included the preparations of an Initial
Study/Negative Declaration. In addition to the summary vacation, the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) evaluated the potential consequences of
implementing In-N-Out’s development proposal (see attached negative declaration).
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 13
The 21-day public comment period for the IS/ND ended on October 11, 2013. With
respect to vacating the alley, the environmental document concluded abandoning the
alley would have no impact because it only serves the affected properties. That is, the
alley does not extend beyond the boundaries of the project site; it terminates at the
northerly boundary of the property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, which uses it as a
driveway and for parking.
The Planning Commission’s role in the summary vacation process is to review and
report to the City Council as to whether the proposed vacation conforms to the
Circulation Chapter of the General Plan. Government Code Section 65402(a), reads as
follows:
No street shall be vacated or abandoned, if the adopted General Plan or part
thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose, and extent of such vacation
has been submitted to and reported upon by the Planning Agency as to
conformity with said adopted General Plan or part thereof.
Lakewood Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial in the City’s Master Plan of Streets
and Highways, which is part of the Circulation Chapter of the General Plan. According to
the Circulation Chapter and Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Program, the developed
right-of-way for the section of street next to the 11101 Lakewood Boulevard is 114 feet,
while the actual right-of-way is 116 feet. The additional two feet is therefore considered
excess and not required for street and highway purposes.
Vacating the alley also conforms to the Circulation Chapter’s highway plan in that the
alley is not shown on the plan because it was not implemented. In the late 1970s, the
city planned to extend a 20-foot wide alley along the backside of the Lakewood
Boulevard properties, between Firestone and 5th Street. Its purpose corresponded with
the development trend that was underway then involving those properties. A few of
them had recycled from residential to commercial uses, plus the city had rezoned the
properties to Professional Office to support the transition. According to the alley plan, as
properties recycled to commercial uses, they would dedicate an easement in the rear of
the property for alley purposes. The purpose in developing alley was to divert onsite
traffic to the rear of the properties by reducing drive approaches, which would smooth
traffic flow along Lakewood. However, most of the properties are still residential,
primarily due to the constraints posed by their reduced size and as a consequence, the
alley was not implemented.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Staff prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration to assess the potential
consequences of implementing the development proposal and the summary vacation (a
copy of the proposed Negative Declaration is attached). Staff circulated the
environmental documents for public review and comment for 21 days, pursuant to the
review period in the City’s Guidelines for implementing CEQA. The comment period
started on September 18, 2013 and ended on October 11, 2013.
Basically, staff concluded the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
the environment. Steering that conclusion is the understanding that the development
plan does not involve constructing new floor area and the impacts that typically
accompany it, such generating traffic and noise. Rather the project, which involves
In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion
8767 Firestone Blvd/11101 Lakewood Blvd
October16, 2013 – Page 14
expanding the parking and drive-through facilities of an existing In-N-Out Burger, is
designed to better accommodate onsite circulation and ultimately prevent project-
generated traffic from impacting the streets that provide access to the site.
Some of the more pertinent environmental areas that the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration studied included the project’s potential impacts on local air quality,
neighboring land uses, and traffic. In the end, however, staff concluded these areas will
not be impacted. For example, the air quality analysis found that both the project’s
construction and operational (long term) air impacts will not exceed the significance
thresholds that established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Similarly, the area of traffic is not expected be an issue because the project as noted
above, will not generate traffic, but rather accommodate In-N-Out’s existing volumes.
Lastly, the project’s activities are not expected to impact neighboring land uses given the
buffers the project will provide. Specifically, block walls will be constructed, or are
already erected, along the site’s northerly and westerly boundaries, together with heavily
landscaped planters. .
. .
EXHIBITS
.
LOCATION MAP
500-FOOT RADIUS MAP
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
8767 Firestone Blvd.
11101 Lakewood Blvd.
ZONING MAP
Zoning Legend
SP 91-2 Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan
SP 89-1 Stonewood Specific Plan
R-2 Two-Family Residential
C-3 Central Business District
C1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
C-P Professional Office
C-M Commercial Manufacturing
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES C-P
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF EXISTING PARKING LOT LAYOUT
SITE PLAN
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF PROJECT SITE
VACATION EASEMENT EXHIBIT
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION PLN – 13 – 00064 AND APPROVING SAID APPLICTION, A REQUEST
MODIFYING THE LAYOUT OF THE PARKING LOT AND DRIVE-THROUGH LANE OF THE
IN-N-OUT BURGER AT 8767 FIRESTONE BOULEVRD AND PERMITTING IN-N-OUT TO
ENLARGE ITS PARKING AREA AND LENGTHEN ITS DRIVE-THROUGH LANE BY
CONVERTING FOR ITS USE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, 11101 LAKEWOOD
BOULEVARD, INTO A PARKING LOT.
(APPLICANTS: IN-N-OUT BURGER AND PROGENY CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine
and declare that:
A. An application, Conditional Use Permit No. PLN No. 13 – 00064, was filed by Mr.
John Puente, Jr. on behalf of the project applicants, In-N-Out Burger and Progeny
Capital Partners, LP, to modify the parking layout and drive-through lane of the In-N-
Out Burger at 8767 Firestone Boulevard and permit In-N-Out Burger to enlarge its
parking area and lengthen its drive-through by converting for its use the adjacent
property, 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, into a parking lot. In conjunction with this
conditional use permit, Progeny Capital Partners filed an application to rezone the
property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard from Professional Office (CP) to
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan.
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on October 16, 2013,
and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and opinions
offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No._____, approving
PLN No. 13 – 00064.
SECTION 2. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at said
public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares:
A. That the requested conditional use permit, PLN No. 13 – 00064, will not adversely
affect the intent and purpose of this article or the City of Downey’s General Plan or
the public convenience or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood thereof. In regards to the General Plan, the requested conditional
use permit (CUP), a drive-through restaurant, is considered to be consistent with it.
According to Section I.A.C., of the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan, the land
uses permitted by Specific Plan SP-91-2, which includes drive-through restaurants,
are consistent with the affected property’s General Commercial General Plan
designation. Another way the requested CUP is consistent with the General Plan is
that project implementation will implement several General Plan programs and a
General Plan policy. Additionally, the requested CUP is not expected to adversely
impact people working or residing in the vicinity of the project site. The
development plan is designed so the activities typically associated with the
requested CUP will not carry over onto neighboring properties. Design measures
incorporated into the project include property line buffers composed of block walls
and landscaping featuring an uninterrupted screen of shrubs and trees.
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
2
B. That the requested use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. The
intent of the contemplated project is to improve traffic conditions at the project site,
which in turn will improve traffic flow on the streets that provide access to the
project
site, Firestone and Lakewood Boulevards. Given these potential benefits, project
implementation will have positive effect on growth and development in the area.
C. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the
full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular
area. The project site exceeds the minimum area requirement for new lots in the
zoning classification the applicant is seeking. The minimum area requirement for a
new lot in the requested zone is 32,670 square feet, whereas the project site
measures approximately 44,000 square feet, slightly more than an acre. As part of
the development plan, the project applicant filed a request to rezone the smaller of
the two lots comprising the project site to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan
(the other parcel already maintains the requested zone and the applicant intends to
merge the properties after the decision-makers consider the entitlements now
under consideration). The merged parcel should be more than adequate in size to
accommodate the subject use. The project consists of an existing fast-food
restaurant, with a drive-through lane, enlarging its parking area by taking over the
adjoining property. Features that make up the development plan satisfy all
development standards, and substantially exceed the minimum requirements for
two critical features: required parking and the capacity of the drive-through lane.
The minimum parking requirement for the restaurant is 30 spaces, compared to the
61 spaces that will be provided; the minimum vehicle stacking requirement for a
restaurant’s drive-through lane is 8 spaces, whereas the project’s aisle will
accommodate 15 spaces.
D. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways in the area. The project will not alter the traffic
volumes of the fast-food restaurant use that’s the subject of the development plan
under consideration. Instead, the project consists of enlarging the parking lot and
increasing the length of the drive-through lane of an existing restaurant. It does not
involve increasing the size of the restaurant; consequently, the restaurant will
generate the same amount of traffic regardless of the expanded parking facilities.
Rather the parking lot expansion contemplated is expected to benefit the streets
that provide access to the site. The expanded facilities will provide more onsite
parking and drive-through lane capacity so vehicles accessing the site during the
restaurant’ peak hours won’t queue as often into the adjoining streets.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that:
A. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for PLN No. 13 – 00064,
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), state CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Downey’s Procedures for
Implementing CEQA.
B. The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were made available to the
public for review and comment from September 18, 2013 to October 11, 2013.
C. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey on
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
3
October 16, 2013, at which time evidence was heard on the Initial Study and
proposed Negative Declaration. At the hearing, the Planning Commission fully
reviewed and carefully considered the environmental documents, together with the
comments received during the public review period.
D. In view of the foregoing, the Planning Commission adopts the Negative Declaration
prepared for PLN No. 13 – 00064, along with its findings and conclusions. .
SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this Resolution, the
Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby approve PLN No. 13 – 00064, subject to
attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 2013.
Louis Morales, Chairman
City Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of October, 2013,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Cavanagh, Secretary
City Planning Commission
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
4
EXHIBIT A—CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLN NO. 13 – 00064 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Planning Division
1. This approval is to modify the layout of the parking lot and drive-through lane of the In-N-Out
Burger at 8767 Firestone Boulevard and allow In-N-Out to enlarge its parking area and
lengthen its drive-through lane by converting the adjacent property for its use as a parking lot,
as shown on the approved plans dated, July 19, 2013. Deviations or exceptions from this plan
shall not be permitted without the approval of the City Planning Commission.
2. The Planning Commission shall retain jurisdiction to amend or add conditions with a public
notice and public hearing to assure compatibility with the purpose and intent of the
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan No. 91-2 and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and to
protect public health, safety and welfare.
3. If City approval is contingent upon any changes to the application’s plans as submitted, the
applicant shall submit three (3) copies of the revised plans, incorporating all approved
amendments, overlays, modifications, etc. to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permits.
4. All conditions of PLN No. 13 – 00064 (Conditional Use Permit) shall be complied with before
this application becomes valid, unless otherwise noted. .
5. All developments in excess of $500,000.00 valuation that involve the construction or
reconstruction of commercial uses shall be subject to the Public Arts Program. The Applicant
shall either install public art on the property or pay a cash payment, not to exceed one hundred
and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.000), equal to the public arts fee in accordance with the
City of Downey Manual for Art in Public Places.
6. The applicant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, at applicant’s expense, City and City
Agents, officers and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding commenced
within the time period in Government Code Section 66499.37 to attack, review, set aside, void
or annul the approval of this resolution, to challenge the determination made by the City under
the California Environmental Quality Act or to challenge the reasonableness, legality or validity
or any condition attached hereto. City shall promptly notify applicant of any such claim, action
or proceeding to which the City receives notice and City will cooperate fully with applicant in
defense thereof. Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court costs and attorney’s fees that
the City may be required to pay as a result of any such claim, action or proceeding, but such
participation shall not relieve the applicant of the obligations of this condition.
7. PLN No. 13 – 00064 (conditional use permit) shall not become effective until and unless the
City Council approves the rezone of the property located at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard from
Professional Office (C-P) to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan and any corresponding
amendment to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. The approval of PLN No. 13 – 00064
shall not be construed as an approval of the rezoning of 11101 Lakewood Boulevard or an
amendment to the Lakewood/Boulevard Specific Plan.
8. PLN No. 13 – 00064 (conditional use permit) shall not become valid and effective until or
unless the applicant, In-N-Out Burger, becomes the record owner of the property at 11101
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
5
Lakewood Boulevard.
9. PLN No. 13 – 00064 (conditional use permit) shall not become valid and effective until or
unless the applicant records a lot merger with the Los Angeles County Register Recorder’s
Office merging lots located at 8767 Firestone Boulevard (APN 6254-028-055) and 11101
Lakewood Boulevard (APN 6254-028-055) in the City of Downey.
10. PLN No. 13 – 00064 shall not become valid and effective until or unless the City Council
approves a summary vacation of the overlaying public alley and surplus Lakewood Boulevard
right-of-way and said vacation is recorded with the Los Angeles County Register Recorder’s
Office. The approval of PLN No. 13 – 0064 shall not be construed as an approval of the
summary vacation of the public alley and surplus Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way.
11. Applicant shall erect and permanently maintain a 7-foot decorative masonry wall above
finished grade along the northerly property line of the affected site’s northernmost property:
11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
12. For the required 10-foot wide planter along the westerly property line where it abuts
residentially-zoned properties, the applicant shall plant with trees and shrubs, forming an
uninterrupted screen foliage, not less than 10 feet no more than 15 feet in height at the time of
planting and which grow to be not less than 15 feet no more than 20 feet in height at full
growth.
13. For the required 5-foot wide planter along the project site’s northerly property line, the
applicant shall plant with trees and shrubs, forming an uninterrupted screen foliage, not less
than 10 feet nor more than 15 feet at the time of planting and which grow to be not less than
15 feet no more than 20 feet in height at full growth.
Public Works Conditions
14. The owner/applicant hereby consents to the annexation of the property into the Downey City
Lighting Maintenance District in accordance with Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code, and to incorporation or annexation into a new or existing Benefit Assessment or
Municipal Improvement District in accordance with division 10 and Division 12 of the Streets
and Highways code and/or Division 2 of the Government Code of the State of California.
15. The applicant shall dedicate seven feet (7’) for right-of-way purposes along the frontage of
11101 Lakewood Boulevard (to match the existing 15-foot parkway width of the In-N-Out
property at 8767 Firestone Boulevard) to the standards of the Engineering Division.
16. The owner/applicant shall be responsible for any costs associated with the alley way summary
vacation and proposed improvements.
17. The owner shall install all utilities underground.
18. The owner/applicant shall provide and use recycled water for all landscape irrigation and other
non-potable water needs (if approved by LA County DHS and Downey) in cases where a
recycled water main is located in the vicinity of the project site.
19. The owner/applicant shall be required to complete a construction & demolition (C&D) waste
management plan per Article V, Chapter 8 of the Downey Municipal Code.
.
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
6
Miscellaneous conditions:
a. Provide proof establishing that the parcel was created in accordance with subdivision
requirements for lot merger.
b. The owner/applicant shall submit an engineered grading plan and/or hydraulic calculations
and site drainage plan for the site (prepared and sealed by a registered civil engineer in the
State of California) for approval by the Engineering Division and Building and Safety Division.
Proposed parking lot shall not have less than one (1%) percent gradient on any asphalt or
non-paved surface, or less than one quarter (1/4%) percent gradient on any concrete surface.
Provide the following information on plans: topographic site information, including elevations,
dimensions/location of existing/proposed public improvements adjacent to project (i.e. street,
sidewalk, parkway and driveway widths, catch basins, pedestrian ramps), the width and
location of all existing and proposed easements. Broken, uneven, or sub-standard curb,
gutter,
sidewalk, driveway, disabled ramps and pavement, shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department. Contact the Public Works Inspection Office at (562) 904-7110 to
have these areas identified just prior to initiating a grading plan. The owner/applicant shall
obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits and shall provide that the standards of
improvements, construction materials, and methods of construction shall be in conformance
with the Standard Plans and Specification for Public Works Construction and as modified by
the City of Downey’s Standard Plans and Specifications.
c. All driveway approaches shall be as wide as the driveway or parking aisle they serve. All
unused driveways shall be removed and reconstructed with full-height curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
d. The owner/applicant shall install pavement, which consists of a minimum section of 4” thick
aggregate base, and a minimum 2-1/2” thick asphalt concrete pavement.
e. The owner/applicant shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act; the General Construction Activities
Stormwater Permit (GCASP) of the State Water Resources Control Board; the Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP); and Ordinance 1142 of the Downey Municipal Code
(DMC). Furthermore, the owner/applicant shall provide a design that conveys all onsite
drainage over a vegetative swale a minimum distance of 20 feet and retain the first 0.75
inches of drainage onsite using either surface detention basins or below grade facilities with
flow in excess of the first 0.75 inches allowed to overflow by underground drains to an existing
Los Angeles County Public Works storm drain so as to comply with the requirements of the
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Municipal Separate Storm Water
System; and is required to Certify and append Public Works standard “Attachment A” to all
construction and grading plans as required by the LACoDPW Stormwater Quality
Management Plan (SQMP).
f. The owner/applicant shall provide that all construction graffiti created as part of this project in
the public right of way to be removed.
Utility easements
g. The owner/applicant shall protect all existing utility easements in place.
Building & Safety Division
20 .Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit to raze the 2-story office building at 11101
Lakewood Boulevard.
21. Applicant shall obtain all necessary plan approvals and permits.
.
Resolution No.
Planning Commission
PLN -- 13 -- 00064 Conditional Use Permit – In-N-Out Burger
Planning Commission Meeting, 10/16/13
7
H:planning/msell/InNOut/cupreso
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY RECOMMENDING
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION PLN – 13 – 00064
AND APPROVE SAID APPLICATION, A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 11101
LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (C-P) TO LAKEWOOD/FIRESTONE
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP- 91- 2).
APPLICANT: PROGENY PARTNERS, LP
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 6254 – 028 - 055
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine
and declare that:
A. Mr. John N. Puente Jr., representing In-N-Out Burger, filed an application on behalf
of the Applicant, Progeny Partners, LP, on March 20, 2013 with the Planning
Commission, petitioning a recommendation to the City Council of the City of
Downey for a change of zone for the property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard,
Assessor Parcel No. 6254-028-055, from Professional Office (C-P) to
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (SP-91-2), as set forth in PLN -- 13 - 00064. In
conjunction with this rezone application, Mr. Puente filed a conditional use permit,
also known as PLN – 13 – 00064, to permit In-N-Out to enlarge its parking lot and
lengthen the drive-through lane by converting for its use the property at 11101
Lakewood Boulevard into a parking lot.
B. The Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on October 16,
2013, and after fully considering all oral and written testimony and facts and
opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No. _____,
recommending approval of the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (SP-91-2) to the
City Council.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey further finds, determines
and declares that:
A. That the zone change is necessary and desirable for the development of the
community In harmony with the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter and
is in the interests or furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare.
Project implementation will be desirable for the community, especially the site’s
neighboring properties, in that it will make the area a more attractive location
by improving traffic conditions at the project site, as well as the two highways
serving it. With respect to the General Plan, the requested zone change
and its accompanying project will implement several General Plan programs and
a General Plan policy. For General Plan programs, the zone change request and
its associated project will implement Program 1.3.2.7., “Encourage the grouping of
adjoining small or odd-shaped in order to create more viable developments”
and Program 2.1.2.3. “Reduce the number of driveway access points on
streets.” Other programs they’ll implement include, Program 2.5.1.5., “Minimize
parking demand spillover effects onto adjacent streets and properties”
and 2.5.1.8., “ Promote safe and efficient design for parking areas.” The
General Plan policy that will be implemented is Policy 2.5.1, “Provide for
adequate parking supply to meet parking demands.”
Resolution No.
PLN – 13 – 00064 (Zone Change)
Page 2
B. That the zone change will be compatible and complementary to existing conditions
and adjoining property in the surrounding area. The requested zone change and its
associated project will be compatible with the affected site’s adjoining properties.
Compatibility will be achieved by the buffers that will provided along the site’s
property lines. Specifically, buffers, as prescribed in the zoning ordinance, will be
installed along the site’s northerly and westerly property lines and consist of a
combination block wall and landscape planter with trees and shrubs, measuring at
least 10 feet high at the time of planting.
C. That the site is adequate in size to accommodate the uses permitted in the zone
requested and that all applicable property development standards can be complied
with. The project site consists of two properties. Under the development proposal,
the zone change parcel and the adjoining parcel will merge; further, the adjoining
parcel maintains the same zoning that the zone change property is seeking:
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. Combined, the two properties are more than
adequate in size to accommodate the kind of uses that are permitted in the
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan. Specifically, the minimum lot size in the
requested zone is 32, 670 square feet, whereas the merged parcel is
approximately 44,000 square feet. Moreover, the development plan that’s
proposed for the merged parcel does not include any variances from the requested
zone’s development standards.
D. That the site properly relates to streets and highways designed and fully improved
to carry the type and quantity of traffic that is expected to be generated in the area
and that utilities exist or are planned which will adequately serve the property as
rezoned. As noted above, the parcel that is the subject of zone change is slated to
merge with an adjoining parcel. Moreover, the project accompanying the zone
change consists of enlarging the parking lot of an existing drive-through restaurant
and does not propose adding floor area. Consequently, the project will not
generate traffic. In fact, it is intended to improve traffic conditions at the project site
and the streets serving it. To that end, the project will increase the restaurant’s
parking supply, along with increasing the capacity of its drive-through lane. By
implementing these improvements, the project will increase the capacity of the site
and in turn, avoid impacting adjoining streets. Utilities serving the project site are
fully improved and adequate in capacity to supply the demands of the site’s
improvements. .
E. That the proposed zone change is in general conformance with the General Plan
and General Plan land use designation for the parcel. The Lakewood/Firestone
Specific Plan is the requested zoning classification and it is consistent with the
affected property’s General Commercial General Plan designation. Furthermore,
both the land uses permitted by the Lakewood//Firestone Specific Plan and the
other specific plan provisions are consistent with the General Commercial
designation.
F. In taking this action, the Planning Commission has considered the effects of the
decision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is located and balanced
these needs against the public service needs of City residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission also further finds, determines and declares that:
Resolution No.
PLN – 13 – 00064 (Zone Change)
Page 3
A. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for PLN No. 13 – 00064, in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
state CEQA guidelines, and the City of Downey’s Procedures for Implementing
CEQA.
B. The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were made available to the
public for review and comment from September 18, 2013 to October 11, 2013.
C. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Downey on
October 16, 2013, at which time evidence was heard on the Initial Study and
proposed Negative Declaration. At the hearing, the Planning Commission fully
reviewed and carefully considered the environmental documents, together with
comments received during the public review period.
D. In view of the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City
Council of the City of Downey adopt the proposed Negative Declaration prepared
for PLN No. 13 – 00064, along with its findings and conclusions.
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission in view of the foregoing, hereby recommends the
City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Map, changing the zoning of
the property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard from Professional Office (C-P) to Lakewood/Firestone
Specific Plan (SP-91-2).
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 2013.
Louis Morales, Chairman
City Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Planning
Commission of the City of Downey at a meeting held on the 16th day of October, 2013.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Cavanagh, Secretary
City Planning Commission
h:\planning\msell\In-N-Out\ZCReso
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT/ AVAILABILITY
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PLN – 13 – 00064
(IN-N-OUT BURGER PARKING LOT EXPANSION)
This serves as the City of Downey’s Notice of Availability for the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration for PLN – 13 – 00064, the Project.. The City Planning Division will receive
comments on this draft environmental document from September 21, 2013 through October 11,
2013. The City’s Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration and PLN – 13 – 00064 at 6:30 p.m. on October 16, 2013, in
the Council Chambers of Downey City Hall, located at 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey,
California
Project Title: PLN – 13 – 00064
Project Location: 8767 Firestone Boulevard and 11101 Lakewood Boulevard,
Downey CA
Lead Agency: City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Project Description: Development proposal to enlarge the parking lot and increase the
length of the drive-through lane of the In-N-Out Burger at 8767
Firestone Boulevard by using the neighboring property, 11101
Lakewood Boulevard, to accommodate the proposed expansions.
Entitlement applications accompanying the proposal include: a
rezone application to change the zoning of 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard from Professional Office to the Lakewood/Firestone
Specific Plan to permit the development of In-N-Out’s proposed
improvements as a conditional use; a conditional use permit to
permit the development of the proposed improvements; and a
summary vacation to abandon the alley that traverses the affected
properties, plus a small portion of surplus Lakewood Boulevard
right-of-way that covers the front portion of 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard.
Project Applicants: In-N-Out Burger and Progeny Capital Partners, LP
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Downey has completed a review of the
Environmental Checklist for PLN – 13 – 00064, the “Project”, in accordance with the City of
Downey’s guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This was
undertaken for the purpose of determining whether the project would have a significant adverse
effect(s) on the environment. Both the Planning Commission and City Council will consider the
Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the above-cited project. Preparing a Negative Declaration
was based on the finding that PLN – 13 – 00064 will not create any significant adverse effects.
Reasons to support this finding are documented in the Initial Study. A copy of the Initial Study
and proposed Negative Declaration may be obtained at the address provided below.
FINDING: The City of Downey has determined that implementation of PLN – 13 – 00064 will
not degrade the quality of the environment. That said project will not impact long-term
environmental goals, that it will not have a cumulative effect on the environment; and that it will
not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly. Further, any potential impact
the project is anticipated to have will not have a direct of indirect impact on natural resources.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Any individual, group, or agency disagreeing with this determination or
wanting to comment on PLN -13 -00064 can submit written comments to the Planning
Division of the City of Downey to the name and address provided below. All comments received
by 5:30 p .m., Friday, October 11 , 2013 will be considered by the Planning Commission.
NAME: Mark Sellheim
TITLE: Principal Planner
ADDRESS: City of Downey Ci
11111 Brook ire
Date: September 11, 2013
M
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 1 September, 2013
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION PLN – 13 - 00064
(IN-N-OUT BURGER PARKING LOT EXPANSION)
(Applicants: IN-N-OUT Burger and Progeny Capital Partners, LP)
1. INTRODUCTION
Application PLN – 13 – 00064 involves the In-N-Out Burger, located at 8767 Firestone Boulevard
and the adjoining property to the north, 11101 Lakewood Boulevard (together the two properties
make up the project site). The proposal consists of lengthening the restaurant’s drive-through lane
and enlarging and re-configuring its parking area by using the adjoining property to accommodate
the proposed improvements. In-N-Out plans to enlarge its parking area by using the neighboring
property to accommodate its expansion plans, while the restaurant and its existing onsite
improvements remain intact.
A 2-story, 4,580 square foot office building and accompanying parking lot occupy the property next
to In-N-Out Burger. The applicant proposes to raze the building in order to provide space for the
longer drive-through lane and enlarged parking area. The expanded parking lot will increase the
restaurant’s parking supply from 42 to 61 spaces, while the drive-through lane will accommodate
five more vehicles than it does currently, increasing the number from 9 to 14.
The applicant filed the following entitlement requests to implement the development proposal,
formally known as PLN – 13 – 00064:
• Zone Change. Change the zoning of the property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard
from C-P (Professional Office) to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan 91-2 (SP-91-
2). Drive-through restaurants are unpermitted in the C-P zone, whereas they are a
conditional use in the Lakewood/Firestone specific plan. Akin to the request, the
property that In-N-Out Burger occupies is also zoned SP-91-2.
• Conditional Use Permit. Allow the In-N-Out Burger at 8767 Firestone Boulevard to
extend its drive-through lane and expand its parking area onto the adjoining property
at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
• Vacation. Vacate both the public alley that overlays 8767 Firestone Boulevard and
11101 Lakewood Boulevard, and a portion of excess Lakewood Boulevard right-of-
way that covers the front 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
This Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. The environmental
documents were prepared to determine whether In-N-Out Burger’s development plan will produce a
significant adverse impact(s) and if so, ssess the extent of the identified impact.
Organization and Content of Initial Study
The Initial Study contains analyses and other supportive evidence by which the Lead Agency, the
City of Downey, can determine whether PLN – 13 – 00064 will create a significant adverse
environmental effect(s). Its format and structure reflects the City’s Initial Study Checklist provided
herein (Section 3). The following discussion outlines the contents of the Initial Study.
Section 1., Introduction: provides the procedural context surrounding the preparation of the Initial
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 2 September, 2013
Study and insight into its composition.
Section 2., Project Location/Description: Describes the development proposal accompanying PLN
– 13 – 00064, its location and the surrounding setting.
Section 3., Initial Study Checklist: Summarizes the contents of the two sections that follow,
particularly with regard to the issue-by-issue determination of a significant impact. It also serves as
the document where the Lead Agency’s determination is formally declared and signed.
Section 4., Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: Describes the environmental effects that are
anticipated to result from implementing the development proposal.
Section 5., Mandatory Findings of Significance: Provides a discussion of how, or in what way, if
any, the application/project may adversely impact one of the Checklist’s environmental areas.
2. PROJECT LOCATION/DESCRIPTION
The City of Downey is a built-out, urbanized community in the southeastern portion of Los Angeles
County, located about 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Downey is one of the largest
suburban cities in the region with a population of over 110,000 and an employment base exceeding
55,000 jobs. It is bounded by Telegraph Road and the San Gabriel River on the north and east,
respectively, while the Rio Hondo River borders it on the west and Gardendale Street and Foster
Road define its southerly boundaries.
Cities bordering Downey include: Pico Rivera on the north, Santa Fe Springs on the northeast,
Norwalk on the east, Bellflower and Paramount on the south, South Gate on the southwest and the
City of Commerce on the northwest. In addition to these cities, Downey has access to four
freeways: the Glenn Anderson freeway (Interstate 105) and the Long Beach freeway (Interstate
710) serve as its southerly and westerly boundaries, respectively, while the Santa Ana freeway
(Interstate 5) borders it on the north and the San Gabriel River freeway (Interstate 605) roughly
defines its easterly boundary.
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The “Project” (Application Number PLN-13-00064) encompasses the contiguous properties at 8767
Firestone Boulevard and 11101 Lakewood Boulevard; together they make up the northwest corner
of the Firestone Boulevard/Lakewood Boulevard intersection (see Exhibit A). An In-N-Out Burger
drive-through restaurant has operated at 8767 Firestone Boulevard since 1996; the adjoining
property, 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, supports a 2-story, 4,580 square foot office building that was
constructed in 1978.
The applicant has a two-fold purpose for submitting the proposal: improve the restaurant’s on- and
off-site circulation and increase its parking supply. To that end, the applicant plans to merge the
properties and convert 11101 Lakewood Boulevard into a parking area to augment In-N-Out
Burger’s parking supply.
The applicant also intends to lengthen the drive-through lane by using a portion of the adjoining
property to accommodate the extension. The added length will provide room for five more vehicles,
thus increasing its capacity from 9 to 14 vehicle spaces.
Under the proposal, the In-N-Out Burger will remain intact, while the northerly part of the parking
area will be reconfigured and coordinated with the parking lot that’s proposed for the neighboring
lot. According to project plans, the restaurant’s parking inventory will undergo a net increase of 19
spaces. It currently has 42 spaces; nineteen of those will be lost with the expansion, while 38 new
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 3 September, 2013
spaces will added, resulting in a total of 61 stalls. The additional 19 stalls represents a 31%
increase.
In addition to parking spaces and drive-through lane, the applicant proposes to add 5,667 square
feet of landscaping to the new parking lot. The landscaping will take the form of 5- and 10-foot
wide planters framing the perimeter of the proposed parking area, plus the addition of an
exaggerated I-shaped planter in the center (see Exhibit B).
The project also includes a request to vacate the 20-foot wide alley that overlays the properties’
common east/west boundary (10 feet on each side of the property line) and the westernmost portion
of 11101 Lakewood Boulevard. The vacation also includes a request to abandon a small portion of
surplus Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way (about 2,000 square feet) that covers the front of 11101
Lakewood Boulevard (see Exhibit C).
This Negative Declaration will assess the potential consequences of demolishing the 2-story office
building at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard and replacing it with a small parking lot and extended drive-
through lane for the neighboring In-N-Out Burger. It will also assess the potential impacts of the
vacation, which will be processed as a Summary Vacation.
Lastly, the applicants intend to file a merger application to combine the properties after the Planning
Commission and City Council act on the above-described applications.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
City of Downey. Downey is a built-out community that was mostly developed in the 1950s and 60s
and is considered part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. The land area comprising the
city totals about 12.8 square miles and its topography is nearly level. Elevations range from
approximately 90 feet above sea level in the southern part of the community to about 140 feet in the
northernmost portion. Approximately 61% of the city is developed with residential uses, while the
commercial and manufacturing areas make up about 20%. Open space accounts for about 8%.
The balance of the City’s land area is devoted to schools and public uses (11%). In 2012, the
California Department of Finance estimated Downey’s population was 111,000.
Project Site. As noted above, two contiguous properties make up the project site, 8767 Firestone
Boulevard and 11101 Lakewood Boulevard. Each is described briefly below.
1. 8767 Firestone Boulevard occupies the northwest corner of the Firestone/Lakewood
intersection; the property totals about 34,175 square feet and it supports a 2,912 square
foot In-N-Out Burger. The restaurant was built in 1996 and features a drive-thru lane with
stacking space for nine (9) vehicles, along with a 42-space parking lot. The parcel is zoned
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (which was designed to encourage the establishment of
retail uses that complement neighboring Stonewood regional center) and maintains the
corresponding General Commercial General Plan designation.
2. 11101 Lakewood Boulevard is located immediately north of 8767 Firestone Boulevard.
The property measures about 7,900 square feet and maintains a little more than 77 feet of
frontage. Improvements occupying the parcel consist of a 2-story, 4,580 square foot office
building, constructed in 1978, along with its accompanying 15-space parking lot. For its
land use classifications, the property is zoned C-P (Professional Office), and it is designated
General Commercial on the General Plan.
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 4 September, 2013
2.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AUTHORITY
The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration will be used in consideration of the project,
PLN -13 – 00064, which consists of three applications: 1) a zone change, 2) a conditional use
permit and 3) a request to vacate an onsite alley and unused street right-of-way. The applications’
approval process involves both the Planning Commission and City Council and includes the
following steps:
• The Planning Commission will initially consider the applications and review them
concurrently. The Commission is the decision-making body for the conditional use permit,
while acting as an advisory body for the zone change. The Commission, subsequent to
considering the zone change will advance its recommendation to the City Council for the
Council’s consideration. For the alley vacation, the Planning Commission must determine
whether it conforms to the General Plan. Then, like the zone change, the Commission will
forward its recommendation to the City Council.
• The City Council is the decision-making body for both the zone change application and
vacation. For the vacation, the Council must also determine whether it is consistent with the
General Plan and if so, they adopt a Resolution of Vacation, which the City Clerk records
with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2.4.1. Background
2.4.2. Project Title: PLN -13 – 00064 (In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion)
2.4.3. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Downey
Community Development Department
11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA 90241
2.4.4. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner (562) 904-7154
2.4.5. Project Location:
8767 Firestone Boulevard and 11101 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey CA
2.4.6. Project Sponsors’ Name and Address:
In-N-Out BURGERS
13502 Hamburger Lane
Baldwin Park, CA 91706, and
Progeny Capital Partners LP
11101 Lakewood Boulevard
Downey, CA 90241
2.4.7. General Plan Designation: “General Commercial”.
2.4.8. Zoning Districts: 8767 Firestone Boulevard: Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan 91-2
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 5 September, 2013
11101 Lakewood Boulevard: Professional Office (C-P) zone
2.4.9 Description of Environmental Document and Project:
This Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15063.
Project Description: Development proposal to increase both the parking supply and length
of the drive-through lane of the In--N-Out Burger at 8767 Firestone Boulevard by using the
neighboring property to accommodate the proposed expansions. Entitlements the applicant
filed to implement the proposal include:
• A rezone application to change the zoning of the property at 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard from Professional Office (C-P) to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan
91-2. The requested zoning classification lists drive-through restaurants like In-N-
Out Burger as a conditional use;
• A conditional use permit (CUP) to modify the parking lot and drive-through lane of
the In-N-Out at 8767 Firestone Boulevard by allowing them to expand onto the
neighboring property at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard; and
• A summary vacation request to abandon the public alley that overlays both
properties and a small portion of excess Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way that
covers the front of 11101 Lakewood Boulevard.
2.5.0 Environmental Determination: The City of Downey has determined a Negative
Declaration will be prepared for PLN – 13 – 00064.
2.5.1 Disposition of Initial Study
As indicated previously, the City of Downey, serving as the Lead Agency, has
determined a Negative Declaration will be prepared for the development proposal, which
involves: enlarging the parking area and drive-through lane of the In-N-Out Burger at
8767 Firestone Boulevard by using the neighboring property at 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard. The proposal is considered to be a project, pursuant to the Guidelines of
CEQA. Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency may require oversight,
approvals, or permits from other public agencies. These agencies are referred to as
“Responsible” and “Trustee” Agencies; and are defined, pursuant to Sections 15381 and
15386 of the state CEQA Guidelines as follows:
“Responsible Agency is a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve
a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or
Negative Declaration. For purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible Agency”
includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary
approval over the project.”
“Trustee Agency is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the state
of California” (such as the California Department of Fish and Game).
3. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AREAS:
PLN -13 -00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Aesthetics Land Use and Planninq
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Mineral Resources
Air Quality Noise
Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Recreation
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Transportation/Traffic
Hydrology & Water Quality Utilities & Service Systems
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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, NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated " impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed .
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the project, nothing further is required.
Signature:_.!.4-...I£...,I----j--.J~~----,------,----------Date : yI~2
Printed Name =~=~F~~=~~~~------~t____"1<----{I
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 7 September, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Impact
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Unless
Mitigat
ed
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impa
ct
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. -- Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson act contract?
X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 8 September, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Impact
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Unless
Mitigat
ed
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impa
ct
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
III. 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 plan?
X
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
X
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable 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)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 9 September, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Impact
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Unless
Mitigat
ed
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impa
ct
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
VI. 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:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 10 September, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Impact
Potenti
ally
Signific
ant
Unless
Mitigat
ed
Less
Than
Signifi
cant
Impact
No
Impa
ct
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
4) Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
c. Be located on a geologic unit 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?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
VIII. 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?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 11 September, 2013
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., 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)?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 12 September, 2013
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?
X
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
X
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 13 September, 2013
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
X
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?
X
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?
X
XIII. 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)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
1) Fire protection?
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 14 September, 2013
2) Police protection?
X
3) Schools?
X
4) Parks?
X
5) Other public facilities?
X
XV. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
X
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 15 September, 2013
safety of such facilities?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
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?
X
c. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
XVIII. 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?
X
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
PLN – 13 – 00064
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
City of Downey Page 16 September, 2013
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
4. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed
project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section
3) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial
Study. They include:
1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project’s implementation will not have any
measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is
required.
2. Less Than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will
have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the
levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.
3. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to
generate impacts which will have a significant effect on the environment; however,
mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the impacts to levels that are less than
significant.
4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study Checklist.
Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan does not designate any adjoining or nearby
roadways as scenic highways. As a consequence, project implementation will not
impact a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project site is bounded by Lakewood and Firestone Boulevards and
neither highway within Downey is designated a state scenic highway. Moreover, no
scenic resources, including trees and rock outcroppings, or historic buildings are located
onsite. The project site to date is completely developed. Improvements consist of a
2,912 square foot In-N-Out drive-through restaurant, with its associated 42-space
parking lot, plus a 2-story, 4,580 square foot office building and its accompanying 15-
stall parking area. The drive-thru restaurant was built in 1996, while the office building
was constructed in 1978. As such, the site does not feature any scenic or historic
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 17 September, 2013
resources.
(Source: City of Downey, Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Cultural Resources
Element).
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact. Project Implementation will alter the character of the northerly portion of the
project site, but not degrade the quality of the site. Implementation, as discussed above,
consists of expanding the parking area of an existing In-N-Out, 8767 Firestone
Boulevard, and lengthening its drive-through lane by merging the restaurant property
with the adjoining lot, razing its existing improvements, a 2-story, 4,580 square foot
office building, to free up the site for the expanded parking area and drive-through lane.
The existing In-N-Out occupies the bulk of the project site, 34,175 square feet of 42, 075
square foot site, and it along with its existing improvements will remain intact. According
to the project site plan, the existing and proposed parking areas will be coordinated so
vehicle movement between lots is seamless. The development proposal also involves
adding 5,667 square feet of landscaping to the new parking lot. Moreover, Planning
Division staff and the Planning Commission will ensure the proposed parking lot
improvements are attractive and compatible with the neighboring properties through the
conditional use permit process.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The project’s long-term operations are not expected to produce light or
glare that would adversely impact daytime or nighttime views in the area. Development
as noted above involves redeveloping a 7,900 square foot site into a 38-space parking
lot, with an expanded drive-through lane, in order to augment the parking supply of an
adjoining fast-food restaurant. Light sources associated with the proposed project
include parking lot light standards and vehicle headlights. Neither source, however, will
produce negative impacts due to the development standards and design features that
will be incorporated into the project. Land use controls that apply to this project are
taken from both the Firestone/Lakewood Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Applicable provisions from the specific plan stipulate that: 1) parking areas shall be lit by
sharp cut-off fixtures directing light downward only; 2) particular attention is paid to
preventing light from spilling onto public rights-of-way; 3) lights shall be shielded,
diffused, or indirect to avoid glare for pedestrians and motorists; and 4) light standards
shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall have no more than three fixtures per
standard at a minimum of 30 feet on center. Applicable standards from the zoning
ordinance mandate: 1) parking lot lighting shall be low level and designed to eliminate
spillover to the street and directed, positioned and/or shielded so as not to direct light on
any street or abutting property. Project design features mitigating lighting impacts from
vehicle headlights include providing a combination of perimeter walls with paralleling
landscape planters. Specifically, the westerly and northerly boundaries of the expanded
parking lot abut single-family residences; six-foot walls are erected along both
boundaries, which will obstruct headlight spillover. In addition to the walls, the project
will provide a 10’-7” wide planter alongside the westerly boundary and a 5’-6” planter
paralleling the northerly boundary. They will be planted with trees and shrubs that form
an uninterrupted screen between 10 and 15 feet high at the time of planting, and
growing between 15 and 20 feet at full growth.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 18 September, 2013
(Source: City of Downey Zoning Ordinance Sections 9520.06 and 9406.08;
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan, page IV-8.
4.2 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 (1997) 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 Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. Project implementation does not involve converting farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Moreover, the project site is not identified on any state Agricultural
Preserve map and is not mapped as prime or unique farmland or farmland of local
importance. According to maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation,
it is designated as a urban and built-up land. The project as noted previously, involves
converting a 7,900 square foot lot,that is part of the city’s built-up environment, from one
commercial use to another. Specifically, converting a lot that supports a 2-story office
building into a parking lot for the benefit of a neighboring fast-food restaurant.
(Source: California Department of Conservation Website – Important Farmland Maps in
California 2010)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson act contract?
No Impact. The development proposal will not conflict with a zoning classification
intended for agricultural use; nor is the project site identified as land under a Williamson
Act contract. Instead, the bulk of the site is zoned Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan,
while the northerly part is zoned Professional Office (a request to rezone the
Professional Office portion to the Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan is part of the
development proposal). The primary intent of the specific plan is to ensure attractive,
revenue-producing commercial developments that complement Stonewood Center,
through the use of development standards and design guidelines, as properties within
the plan area recycle.
(Source: California Department of Conservation Website – Williamson Act Maps)
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code Section 51104(g)?
No Impact. Project implementation will not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or
timberland zoned Timberland Production. The project site, as noted above, does not
have any forest resources. It is developed with urban uses, a drive-through restaurant
and a 2-story office building, and maintains two commercial zoning classifications: most
of the site is zoned Lakewood/Firestone specific plan, while the smaller, northerly portion
is zoned Professional Office (C-P). A zone change application is pending to reclassify
the C-P portion to Lakewood/Firestone specific plan. According to the specific plan’s list
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 19 September, 2013
of uses, a drive-through restaurant is permitted with a conditional use permit, whereas
the C-P zone prohibits restaurants with drive through lanes.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land?
No Impact. Project implementation will not result in the loss of forest land or the
conversion of forest land to non-forest land. The project site, as described above, is part
of Downey’s built environment and supports two commercial uses: a combination sit
down (71 seats) and drive-through restaurant and a 2-story office building.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. As mentioned above, a commercially-developed site is the subject of the
development proposal under consideration. Moreover, the project under review
proposes to raze one of the site’s two commercial uses, the office building, to make way
for the expansion plans of the other use: enlarge a restaurant’s parking lot and lengthen
its drive-through lane. These proposed changes are limited to the project site and will
not result in conversion of farmland
4.3 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.
4.4 Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is a
geographic area designated by the state of California for the purpose of air quality
management. The SCAB encompasses the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County,
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and all of Orange County. And because the
SCAB does not comply with the ambient air quality standards for several criteria air
pollutants, the Federal Clean Air Act (i.e., 1977 amendments) requires the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the regional agency responsible for
maintaining air quality in the SCAB, to prepare an air quality management plan, or clean
air plan for the basin (air quality standards are established to safequard the public’s
health and welfare with specific emphasis on protecting those individuals who are
susceptible to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the young, the elderly, and those
with existing conditions which may be affected by increased pollutant concentrations).
The AQMP identifies the steps the SCAQMD will take to bring the basin into compliance
with ambient air quality standards. The SCAMD is also responsible for formulating the
rules and measures that will bring the basin into compliance with air quality standards.
In 1989, the SCAQMD adopted the first clean air plan for the SCAB and the district has
revised and amended the plan several times since. The current clean air plan is known
as the 2012 Final AQMP. It provides a detailed blueprint on how to achieve the health
standards for air pollutants by 2015. The AQMP also provides a scientific demonstration
that shows how by implementing emission control measures the basin will meet health
based standards. It also includes an update on the progress that’s been made towards
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 20 September, 2013
reducing ground-level ozone to meet the standard for ozone by 2024. Also provided is a
comprehensive analysis of strategies and challenges involved in meeting future air
quality goals.
To determine the project’s potential effects on local air quality, the applicant had a
consulting firm, Air Quality Dynamics, prepare a local significance threshold (LST)
analysis (see Exhibit D). The project’s potential localized air quality impacts were
assessed by examining the onsite generation of pollutants and their resulting downwind
concentrations; then comparing the estimated pollutant concentrations to the Air
District’s significance thresholds for the following air pollutants: fine particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The LST
concluded that the project’s potential impacts on air quality will not conflict with the
implementation of the Final 2012 AQMP because both its construction and operational
air impacts will not exceed the air district’s established significance thresholds. The
project’s air impacts from construction activities (e.g., building demolition, site
preparation/grading and asphalt paving) will not exceed the district’s significance
thresholds. Similarly, the impacts from the project’s operational or day-to-day long-term
activities (i.e., emissions from project-generated traffic) will not exceed the air district’s
significance thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5. Furthermore, the project’s operational
activities for will not cause an exceedance of NO2 or CO (see Exhibit D for a complete
analysis).
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
No Impact. As noted previously, estimated emissions generated by the project’s
construction and operational activities, i.e., vehicle emissions, will not violate the
SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, or contribute substantially to
an existing air quality standard. The air pollutants studied in the analysis included PM2.5,
PM10, CO (carbon monoxide) and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide). Emissions from project-
generated traffic will produce PM10 (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in width)
concentrations of 0.50461 ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) and 0.11501 ug/m3 for
the 24-hour and annual averaging times. These estimated values do not exceed the
district’s significance thresholds of 2.5 ug/m3 and 1.0 ug/m3, respectively.
For PM2.5 (fine particulate matter less than two and half microns in width), the analysis
estimated vehicle emissions from project-generated traffic will produce a maximum 24-
hour concentration of 0.46530 ug/m3, which is well below the significance threshold of
2.5 ug/m3.
The maximum modeled 1-hour concentration for CO is 0.65126 ppm (parts per million),
when added to the area’s existing background concentration of 2.7 ppm and will not
cause an exceedance of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) of 20
ppm. For the 8-hour averaging time for CO, the maximum predicted concentration of
0.31452 ppm, when added to an existing background level of 2.4 ppm, does not cause
an exceedance of the CAAQS of 9 ppm.
Lastly, for NO2, the project is forecast to emit a maximum 1-hour concentration of
0.02706 ppm; this concentration, when added to a background concentration of 0.091
ppm does not cause an exceedance of the standard of 0.18 ppm.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 21 September, 2013
(Source: Localized Significance Threshold Analysis – In-N-Out Burger Parking Lot
Expansion Project, July, 2013
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable 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)?
No Impact. Please refer to the response in Section 4.3 (b).
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. See the response for Section 4.3 (b).
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Objectionable odors are not associated with the kind of activities that
comprise the proposed project. More specifically, the intent of the proposal is to expand
the parking area of the existing In-N-Out Burger, located at 8767 Firestone Boulevard,
and lengthen its drive-through lane in an effort to improve both on- and off-site vehicular
circulation. The expanded facilities will increase the restaurant’s parking space supply
from 42 to 61 spaces and provide space for five more vehicles in the drive-through lane.
To that end, the applicant plans to acquire the adjoining parcel and merge it with the
restaurant property. The adjoining property supports a 2-story, 4,580 square foot office
building and a small parking lot; subsequent to obtaining the project’s entitlements, the
applicant intends to raze the office building, as well as the site’s other improvements,
and replace them with the expanded parking lot and drive-through lane. These activities
characteristically do not create objectionable odors.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No special status species or species identified as a candidate in a local or
regional plan or by the California Department of Fish and Game inhabit the project site.
It was cleared of its natural habitat many years ago to make way for its built
improvements, which are part of an urban area. As such, no candidate or special status
species inhabit the sites as their existing condition indicate.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect 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?
No Impact. The project site is part of the community’s built environment. Improvements
occupying the site, as noted above, consist, of a 2,912 square foot fast food restaurant,
with a drive-through lane, and a 4,580 square foot, 2-story office building. Both
improvements have associated parking lots. Given these improvements, the project site
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 22 September, 2013
does not feature riparian habitats, or other sensitive natural community, as identified on
any local, regional, state or federal plan. Therefore, project development will not impact
riparian habitats or natural communities and mitigation measures are unnecessary.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. There are not wetlands on the project site or its immediate vicinity.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is part of a developed, urban environment, i.e., City of
Downey, which is part of the larger Los Angeles metropolitan area, and it is not part of a
wildlife corridor or feature wildlife nursery sites. Instead, it supports a fast food
restaurant and a small office building. Thus, developing the project, expanding the
restaurant’s parking lot, will not interfere or block the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species. Nor will project implementation interfere with any kind
of established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites, since none exist on-site or nearby. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Downey to date does not have a Tree Preservation Ordinance.
However, in 2004, City Staff, with the assistance of interested residents, compiled a
“Significant Tree Survey” for the Conservation Chapter of the 2005 General Plan
Update. Trees included in the survey were added on the basis of age, size and historical
and cultural importance. The survey, however, does not identify a significant tree or
trees on the project site. In addition to the absence of any significant trees, the project
site is developed with commercial improvements and does not feature any kind of
biological resources.
(Source: Downey Vision 2025 Genera Plan Conservation Chapter, Pages 4-10 through
4-16.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not under the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, a natural community conservation plan or any other kind of habitat
conservation plan. In addition, a draft habitat conservation plan does not exist in regards
to the site nor is one proposed. Instead, the project site is part of the community’s
built environment and it supports two commercial activities.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 23 September, 2013
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or
determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a
local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is
considered to be historically significant if it meets one of the following criterion:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past;
iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
iv) Has yielded, or may likely to yield, information important to prehistory or
history.
Neither of the improvements occupying the project site is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historical Resources, nor are they eligible in the California Register
of Historic Resources. Likewise, neither improvement is recognized as a significant
historical resource in the City’s inventory of historical significant resources. The
Improvements occupying the project site consist of fast food restaurant and small office
building that were built in 1996 and 1978, respectively; and neither satisfies the above-
listed criteria to be considered historically significant.
(Source: Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Chapter Design Chapter, Pages 8 -12
through 8 – 16.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No Impact. Project implementation will not cause adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource, given the project site has supported several urban uses,
i.e., a 2-story office building and a single-family residence, contains extensive
subsurface infrastructure and is part of the built urban environment.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
No Impact. No paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to
exist on the project site. The site’s soils were disrupted previously (i.e., grading
activities) to prepare it for its existing improvements. In light of these events, it is unlikely
that any paleontological resources or geological features will be uncovered during
project implementation. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, it is not
anticipated that ground-disturbing activities, such as grading the site for the parking lot
expansion, would impact an as yet unidentified paleontological or geologic feature.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact. Implementation of the requested project is not expected to disturb any
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 24 September, 2013
human remains. The project site, as previously noted, has been graded several times
over the years as it has been converted from one urban use to another and no human
remains were uncovered during those activities. Therefore, project implementation,
expanding the restaurant’s parking lot and drive-through lane, is not expected to disturb
any human remains.
4.6 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:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to the Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known faults at the ground surface in
Downey, according to the Safety Chapter of the City’s General Plan. Likewise, the
project site is not located in a state-designated Alquist- Priola Earthquake Fault Zone.
The closest active or potentially active faults, include the Norwalk fault (five miles to the
northeast), the Whittier-Elsinore fault (10 miles to the northeast) and the Newport-
Inglewood fault (5 miles to the southeast). Given these distances, surface rupture is not
considered to be a potential problem in Downey. Furthermore, all buildings constructed
in Downey must meet current seismic safety and building code standards, which are
designed to reduce impacts related to seismic activity.
(Sources: Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Safety Chapter, Pages 5-17 through 5-18;
Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Geological Survey, Figure 4E.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the City of Downey does not have any
earthquake faults or fault traces traversing the city, it, like the rest of Southern California,
is located in a seismically-active region. Major active fault zones are located southwest
and northeast of the city. Active and potentially active faults located close to Downey,
include the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Compton-Los Alamitos Fault, the Whittier-
Elsinore Fault, the Elysian Park Seismic Zone, and the Palos Verdes Hills Fault. The
two faults with the greatest potential to impact the City are the Newport-Inglewood and
Compton-Los Alamitos Faults, located about six and ten miles southwest of the City,
respectively. Policies and programs in the General Plan will help ensure that adverse
effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards, such as strong seismic ground shaking
are minimized. For example, Policy 5.5.1 requires the City to minimize damage in the
event of a major earthquake. Programs affiliated with this policy, include public
education about earthquake safety and requiring the submission of geotechnical reports
for developments to address soil liquefaction hazards. Moreover, to minimize the effect
of ground shaking and help protect human life, the design and construction of
foundations and buildings must adhere to the seismic requirements of the latest edition
of the building code to withstand ground shaking. As a consequence, impacts from
potential ground shaking are expected to be less than significant.
(Source: Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Safety Chapter, Page 5-20.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 25 September, 2013
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to figure 5.5-2 (Liquefaction Hazard Zone
Map – State Division of Mines and Geology) in the General Plan Safety Chapter, the
entire city of Downey is located within a liquefaction zone. Therefore, the project site
has the potential to undergo soil liquefaction when a seismic event occurs. Soil
liquefaction is a seismically-induced form of ground failure by which water-saturated
minerals (including soil, sediment, and types of volcanic deposits) lose strength and fail
when the ground shakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular
materials situated at depths of less than 50 feet with fine silt and clay contents and
saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table, are most susceptible to liquefaction.
According to the City’s General Plan (Downey Vision 2025), liquefaction occurs when
certain soil types and high groundwater levels combine with intense ground shaking,
causing soil to react in a manner similar to the properties commonly associated with
liquids. Although such effects are temporary during an earthquake, the potential for
damage to structures is extreme. And Downey has the combination of silts and sands
soil types, coupled with a relatively high water table that are conducive to liquefaction
occurring during intense ground shaking.
However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code
and policies in the Safety Chapter of the General Plan will minimize risk to property
damage caused by an earthquake. Moreover, project implementation does not involve
exposing buildings to substantial adverse effects since it entails enlarging a parking lot.
Therefore, impacts to people and structures that would result from liquefaction are less
than significant.
(Source: Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Safety Chapter, Page 5-19 Figure 5.5-2,
Liquefaction Hazard Zone Map.
4) Landslides?
No Impact. The likelihood of landslides impacting the project site is negligible. The
topography of the affected property, as well as that of adjoining properties is nearly flat.
Furthermore, the site is not located near foothills or mountains so the possibility of
landslides from these sources is very minimal. Given the site’s nearly level topography
and that of surrounding properties, the project site is not subject to landslides or
mudflows. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in this regard and no mitigation
measures are required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. Project implementation, expanding the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant,
is not expected to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site
was graded to accommodate its current improvements: a small office building and its
associated parking lot. Developing the project will entail demolishing the building and
parking lot to prepare the site for a parking lot. During construction, the project site with
its exposed soils will be vulnerable to wind and water erosion. However, the applicant
will comply with Downey Municipal Code Section 8730 Grading Regulations, requiring
implementation of erosion-control measures during construction. Compliance with the
city regulations and the most recent NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) storm water regulations will control erosion impacts associated with
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 26 September, 2013
construction activities.
(Source: City of Downey Municipal Code Section 8730.
c) Be located on a geologic unit 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, as well as the rest of Downey, is
located in the south central portion of the Los Angeles Basin, between the San Gabriel
and Rio Hondo Rivers. This land area is typically characterized by alluvium and
associated deposits, which belong mainly to the Recent Alluvium, the Older Alluvium
and other formations of Recent to Pleistocene Age. This alluvium is characterized by
sedimentary deposits ranging in grain size from sand to silt to clay. According to Figure
5.5-2 in the Safety Chapter of the 2005 General Plan Update (Vision 2025), the entire
city is located within a liquefaction hazard zone, as designated by the State Division of
Mines and Geology. Therefore, the soil instability of the site is the same as the rest of
the community. In Downey, development projects are constructed to the standards of
the California Building Code. Moreover, compliance with General Plan goals and
policies, as well as the building code, will ensure that potential impacts from unstable
soils will be less than significant. Therefore, impacts involving soil instability and or
suitability related to project development would be less than significant. .
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact. Soil covering the project site is the expansive type, which shrinks and
swells, as the moisture content decreases or increases. Expansive soils are generally
clay based and found in low lying regions and flood plains. As noted previously, the
project site is situated in the south central portion of the Los Angeles Basin, between the
Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers. This area is typically characterized by alluvium and
associated deposits, which mainly belong to the Recent Alluvium, the Older Alluvium
and other formations of the Recent to Pleistocene age. This alluvium features
sedimentary deposits ranging in grain size from sand to silt and clay. More than likely,
the alluvium underlying the project site has a low to moderate expansion potential.
Project development will comply with the latest edition of the California Building Code,
thus reducing potential impacts to a negligible level. Further, all of the soil types in
Downey can be compacted, as part of the development process so as not to restrict site
development.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No Impact. Project development does not involve constructing a septic tank or
alternative waste water disposal system. Rather it consists of expanding a parking lot
for a restaurant from 42 to 61 spaces and increasing the length of its drive-through lane
by five spaces. Furthermore, new development in Downey is required to construct
sewer lines to dispose of waste water. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated in regards
to the project site supporting septic tanks and alternative waste disposal systems and no
mitigation measures are required.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 27 September, 2013
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Explanation:
a), b) No Impact. The following discussion addresses Sections 4.7 a) and 4.7 b) for the
greenhouse gases discussion.
The project is not expected to emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). As a consequence, it
will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, nor will it conflict with any
applicable plan that’s intended to reduce GHGs. The project’s negligible GHG effects
can be attributed to its limited size. Project development does not involve constructing
building, but rather increasing the size of the parking lot, by 19 spaces, for an existing In-
N-Out Burger fast food restaurant. It also involves increasing the capacity of the
restaurant’s drive-through lane by five vehicles. In short, it does not involve adding floor
area, but expanding an existing parking area for the purpose of better accommodating
on- and off-site circulation. As such, the project it not expected to generate GHGs that
exceed the SCAQMD’s GHG screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year. In fact,
with the parking area’s increased capacity, the project is expected to have a beneficial
impact on air quality for both on- and off-site circulation: there will be shorter queues and
thus vehicles will idle less.
Since the proposed project is not anticipated to generate GHGs, it will not conflict with
the implementation of the programs and regulations to achieve the statewide GHG
emission reduction goal established under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). Under AB 32, the
state goal is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
4.7 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?
No Impact. Project implementation will not involve the transportation, use or disposal
of hazardous materials. As discussed in the Project Description part of this document,
the project consists of expanding the parking lot and drive-through lane of an existing In-
N-Out Burger for the purpose of improving onsite circulation. Therefore, there will be no
impacts in regards to expanding these facilities to hazardous materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
No Impact. The project is a request to expand a restaurant’s parking lot and drive-
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 28 September, 2013
through facilities. Expanding the facilities does not present a hazard to the public or the
environment in regards to the accidental release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The project, as noted above, is a request to allow an existing drive-through
restaurant to use the neighboring property to expand its drive-through and parking
facilities; specifically, increasing the restaurant’s parking inventory from 42 to 61 spaces
and increasing the length of the drive-through lane by five spaces. Expanding these
facilities does not involve handling hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials.
Therefore, project implementation does not involve emitting hazardous emissions or
handling hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The City of Downey does not have any records involving hazardous
materials or underground storage tanks associated with the project site. In addition,
there is no record of any current outstanding violations for the property. Also, the project
site is not on the Hazardous Waste Control and Substances Site List (i.e., Cortese List).
The list is updated yearly by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control and
identifies the hazardous waste facilities in the state that are subject to corrective action,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are no airports located within two miles of the project site. The
nearest one is Compton/Woodley Airport, a 77-acre general aviation airport, located
about 7 miles southwest of the affected site. In addition to the absence of an airport
within two miles, the City of Downey is not located within the boundaries of an Airport
Environs Land Use Plan.
(Source: Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Website, Airport Maps.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 4.7 e), the Compton/Woodley Airport is the
closest airport to the project site and is located about 7 miles southwest of it. The
project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip so approving and
implementing the project will not result in any airport-related hazards for people residing
or working in the area. Therefore, no impacts will occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 29 September, 2013
No Impact. Project implementation will not physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The city’s Emergency Operations Plan
(EOP) establishes objectives and safety procedures in the event of a disaster or
emergency. During a disaster, the City will implement the EOP, which includes setting
up the Emergency Operations Center. The city also maintains mutual aid agreements
with surrounding cities to augment emergency response. Should evacuation of parts of
the city be necessary, the Police Department would coordinate evacuation activities,
based on possible evacuation routes. Because the project and its activities are
restricted to the boundaries of a single site, its implementation will not result in the
closure of a public or private street, nor impede access of emergency vehicles to the site
in the event of a disaster or emergency. In addition, the project would provide, through
the Fire Department’s plan check review process, all required emergency access, in
accordance with the requirements of the Downey Fire Department. Therefore, no
impacts would occur.
(Source: Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Safety Chapter, Page 5-2 through 5-5
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. Brush fires are a rare occurrence in Downey due to the lack of vacant,
undeveloped areas overgrown with shrubbery. The project site is part of the built
environment and is surrounded by commercially- and residentially-developed properties
and is not in the vicinity of wildlands. Therefore, no impacts will occur.
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. Project construction and its long-term operation will not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. The City’s Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was developed with the goal of reducing the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable from new development. The SUSMP
contains a list of the minimum required best management practices (BMPs) that
applicants must implement. Additional BMPs may also be required, which the city’s
Engineering Division determines through the project approval process. The project
applicant is required to incorporate the appropriate SUSMP requirements into the
project’s grading plans and implement them during construction. Runoff from the project
site will be managed by implementing the selected BMPs, as directed by the city’s
stormwater protection requirements to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from
entering stormwater drains.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby well would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted?)
No Impact. The project site, which measures about 42,000 square feet, is part of the
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 30 September, 2013
built environment and is not used by the Water Replenishment District of Southern
California (WRD) as a source for groundwater recharge. The WRD is the regional
groundwater management agency for the central basin, which underlies the city, and
maintains a spreading ground in the San Gabriel River Channel to recharge it, next to
Rio San Gabriel Park. The affected site is covered over with two buildings (a fast food
restaurant and 2-story office building), their accompanying parking lots and other
impervious surfaces, such as the restaurant’s drive-through lane, walkways and a dining
patio. The proposed project, by contrast, is expected to increase the amount of
permeable area onsite: a project feature consists of framing the parking lot expansion
with about 5,600 square feet of landscaping, which is slightly more landscaping than
exists today. Moreover, the project will not deplete groundwater supplies since project
development does not involve withdrawing groundwater from beneath the site.
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?
No Impact. No stream or river courses the project site; therefore, project development
will not affect the course of a river or stream. Project implementation, however, will
involve grading and disturbing the soil to prepare the site for the project, which will alter
its existing drainage pattern. Yet grading activities will not increase the site’s runoff
volumes since the project will feature more landscaping, i.e., permeable area, than
currently exists, resulting in slightly less runoff. Moreover, the project’s stormwater
management program will control erosion during construction by implementing best
management practices for stormwater erosion control.
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?
No Impact. As noted above, project implementation will modify the site’s existing
drainage, but the alteration will not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. In fact,
project implementation should result in slightly less surface runoff than produced
currently because it will feature more permeable surfaces than exists currently.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant
runoff?
No Impact. The stormwater drainage network that serves the site should accommodate
surface runoff from the project since the expanded parking lot with its accompanying
planter areas is expected to produce less runoff than the site currently generates.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact. See the response to Item 4.8 a).
g) Place housing within a l00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 31 September, 2013
No Impact. Project implementation does not involve development of dwelling units. In
addition to not developing housing, the project site is outside of the 100-year flood
hazard area, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
(Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06037C1820F, dated September
26, 2008.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No Impact. As the above section indicates, Section 4.8 g), the project site is outside a
100-year flood hazard area.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. Please refer to Item 4.8 g).
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The City of Downey is not adjacent to a coastline or hillside so inundation
resulting from seiches, tsunamis and mudflows is not expected. Therefore, no impacts
would occur.
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project contemplates expanding the parking area and drive-
through facility of an existing In-N-Out Burger; specifically, increasing both its parking
supply from 42 to 61 spaces and the stacking space capacity of its drive-through lane
from 9 to 14 vehicles. The project site occupies the northwest corner of the
Firestone/Lakewood intersection and is made up of two parcels. In-N-Out Burger
occupies the southerly parcel, while the other supports a 2-story, 4,580 square foot
office building. Surrounding land uses include a variety of activities. Single-family
residences occupy the properties north and northwest of the site; and they maintain
frontage on either Lakewood Boulevard or Marbel Avenue. The property west of the
project site supports a small, 20-room motel, while small commercial businesses occupy
the properties west of it. A CitiBank branch office occupies the property south of the
project site, at the southwest corner of Lakewood/Firestone intersection; the
intersection’s southeast corner supports a Carl’s Jr., a Walgreens and a Big Lots store.
A Starbucks coffeehouse and a 45-room motel occupy the properties east of the project
site, at the northeast corner of the intersection. The proposed project, augmenting the
restaurant’s parking facility and lengthening its drive-through lane, will replace the 2-
story office building and will not physically divide a residential neighborhood. No impacts
would occur.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 32 September, 2013
No Impact. The development proposal to date is inconsistent with the zoning
classification of the project’s northerly parcel. As discussed above, two properties
comprise the project site: an In-N-Out Burger occupies the southerly parcel and the
Lakewood/Firestone Specific Plan (also known as SP-91-2) serves as its zoning
ordinance, while the other is zoned Professional Office (C-P). The inconsistency
surfaces with the C-P zone and drive-through restaurants. Restaurants with a drive-
through component are prohibited in the C-P zone, whereas they’re a conditional use in
SP-91-2. In fact, the Planning Commission in 1995 granted In-N-Out Burger a
conditional use permit to establish a drive-through restaurant at its present location. To
reconcile the conflict between the proposed drive-through lane/parking lot expansion with
the C-P zone, the applicant filed a zone change application, as part of the development
proposal, to rezone the northerly parcel from C-P to SP-91-2. Finally, in terms of
General Plan/Zoning Ordinance consistency, the northerly parcel maintains the General
Commercial General Plan, and the requested specific plan zoning conforms with that
designation.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No Impact. The City of Downy is not subject to any habitat or natural community
conservation plans. Therefore, the development proposal will not conflict with any
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, so no impacts
regarding this topic will occur.
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and residents of the state?
No Impact. Two parcels makeup the project site and each supports a building along
with asphalt parking lots and concrete walkways. No classified or designated mineral
deposits of statewide or regional significance are known to exist on the project site or in
the vicinity of the project. Furthermore, the City is not designated as an area of mineral
potential or production. Therefore, project implementation is not expected to result in the
loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state, and no impacts would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The project site is not delineated on the City’s General Plan or on any
specific plan or land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site;
therefore, no impacts would occur in regards to this matter.
4.11 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?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 33 September, 2013
Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related construction would result in short-term
increases in noise levels. Project construction would consist of demolishing the 2-story
office building that occupies the northernmost portion of the site, its parking lot, re-
grading the area, then paving it for the expanded parking lot and drive-through lane. The
nearest noise-sensitive receptors are the neighboring residents that reside in the single-
family dwellings north and west of the project site; three residences abut the site’s
northerly and westerly boundaries. The project site is also adjacent to a small, 20-room
hotel, which is also a noise-sensitive receptor. Construction-generated noise impacts
should not exceed the City’s permissible construction noise threshold for transmitting
construction-related noise across property lines: 85 decibels (see Municipal Code
Section 4606.5). In addition, the city’s Noise Ordinance exempts construction-related
noise impacts, provided the applicant has obtained a valid construction permit and the
activity does not transmit noise across a property line that 85 (decibels) dBA. Moreover,
the impacts would be temporary, given the nature of construction, and cease when
construction ends (the project is expected to be completed in two months, according to
the applicant).
Following construction, the project will generate long-term, day-to-day noise impacts.
Noise generated by activities associated with the expanded parking lot and extended
drive-through lane will be identical to the noise events that occur at the In-N-Out Burger
next door. Sources of noise include vehicles entering/exiting the site, vehicle doors
opening and closing, car engines starting and cars idling in the drive-through lane. Yet
as is currently with the case of In-N-Out Burger, the potential impacts are not expected
to expose neighboring sensitive receptors to noise that exceeds the city standard.
Downey’s standard for a maximum permissible noise impact prohibits a noise event that
exceeds 5 decibels above the ambient noise level (any time during the course of a 24-
hour period) to cross an adjoining boundary [see Municipal Code Section 4606.3(a)].
The project is not expected to cause an exceedance of the City’s noise standard, nor
would the increase be audible. Clearly the most dominant noise source in the vicinity of
the project site, overshadowing all others, is Firestone and Lakewood Boulevard-
generated traffic. In the vicinity of the project site, Firestone carries about 48,000
vehicles daily, while Lakewood carries approximately 42,000.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
No Impact. The vibration environment in the vicinity of the project is generated by
traffic. In particular, heavy trucks using Lakewood and Firestone Boulevard generate
groundborne vibration of varying magnitude, depending on vehicle type and weight.
However, those impacts are generated offsite. Activities associated with the project will
not generate groundborne vibration during its day-to-day operations. The proposed
project involves enlarging both the parking lot of an existing In-N-Out Burger and
lengthening its drive-through lane. Specifically, increasing its parking supply from 42 to
61 spaces and stacking space of the drive-through lane from 9 to 14 vehicles.
Construction activities could also result in a temporary increase in vibration levels in the
project area. However, this should not be the case with the project; project construction
consists of expanding a parking lot, which does not involve the use of pile driving and
other high impact construction equipment.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 34 September, 2013
levels without the project?
No Impact. As discussed in 4.11a), the project’s day-to-day operations will not have a
significant impact on nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. See the responses in Section 4.11 a).
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?
No Impact. The project site or City of Downey is not located within an airport land use
plan nor is there a public airport within two miles of the site. As such, people affiliated
with the project will not be subject to excessive noise levels in this regard.
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?
No Impact. The project site or City of Downey is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
4.12 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)?
No Impact. Implementing the proposed project, increasing the size of the parking area
of an In-N-Out Burger by 19 stalls and lengthening the stacking space of its drive-
through by five spaces, will not directly or indirectly increase the area’s population.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Project implementation, which as noted above involves expanding the
parking lot and drive-through lane of an existing parking lot, will not displace housing
units. According to the development proposal, a 2-story, 4,580 square foot office
building will be razed to make way for the expanded parking lot, not housing.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Implementing the project does not involve the displacement of a substantial
number of people. Rather it consists of razing a small office building to make room for
an existing In-N-Out Burger to expand its parking lot.
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES.
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 35 September, 2013
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire Protection
No Impact. Project implementation in terms of its effects on the city’s fire fighting
resources is expected to be negligible. Implementing the project, as noted previously,
will take the form of increasing the size of the parking area of an existing restaurant by
19 stalls and adding stacking space to its drive-through lane for five more vehicles. The
project as described is not expected to increase the demand for fire services and the
impacts in this area will be negligible.
2) Police Protection?
No Impact. Police protection for the project site is provided by the City of Downey
Police Department. Expanding its parking facilities as described above will not result in
an increase in the number of service calls to the department. Therefore, the project’s
impacts on Police resources will be negligible.
3) Schools?
No Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Downey Unified
School District. Yet the development proposal (i.e., enlarging an existing restaurant’s
parking and drive-through facilities), will not affect student enrollment, and thus it will not
impact the school district.
4) Parks?
No Impact. Project implementation does not involve developing residential uses. Thus,
it will not impact existing park facilities, nor will it generate additional demand for new
park facilities.
5) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Due to the nature of the development proposal, project implementation will
not impact other public facilities within the city, such that the need would arise for new or
physically altered facilities.
4.14 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 36 September, 2013
a-b) No Impact. The project, as discussed in previous sections, consists of expanding
the parking lot and drive-thru lane of an existing fast-food restaurant; it does not involve
the development of residential uses, or the construction of commercial or institutional
uses. In short, the proposal does not involve the development of additional building
square footage, which attracts people. Consequently, project development and its long-
term operation will not produce the kind of impacts that result in the increased use of the
city’s parks or recreational facilities.
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance or the circulation system, taking into account all
modes
of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
No Impact. Because the project does not involve the construction of building floor area
and won’t generate traffic, project implementation will not affect the level of service, or
operating condition of intersections or roadway sections in the vicinity of the site (the
project as noted above involves expanding the parking lot and drive-through lane of an
existing drive-through restaurant). In fact, the purpose of the project is just the opposite
with respect to traffic conditions. Its goal is to improve onsite traffic circulation for In-N-
Out Burger, which in turn, should improve traffic flow on Lakewood Boulevard. Due to
the popularity of In-N-Out, coupled with the layout of its drive-through lane, vehicles
queuing in the drive-through lane occasionally back out onto Lakewood Boulevard. To
avert this, the applicant plans to increase the capacity of the drive-through lane by
adding stacking space for five more vehicles (from 9 vehicles to 15 vehicles); plus
reconfigure the lane so it parallels the boundaries of the project site. Reconfiguring it as
proposed will increase the distance between the entrance to the drive-through lane and
Lakewood Boulevard, and thus decrease the possibility queues conflicting with
Lakewood Boulevard traffic (see attached site plan). Increasing the number of onsite
parking spaces, the other part of the proposal, will also improve onsite circulation by
reducing the amount of time customers search for parking spaces, which should clear
the aisles quicker.
A component of the city’s circulation network the project would impact is the public alley
that traverses the two lots that make up the project site. As indicated in the Project
Description section, the development proposal includes an application to vacate the 20-
foot wide alley that overlays the properties’ common east/west boundary (10 feet on
each side of the property line); it also parallels the westernmost portion of the site’s
northerly lot: 11101 Lakewood Boulevard. The applicant is requesting the city abandon
the public alley so the easement does not conflict with the development proposal (the
site’s former property owners granted the alley easement when the properties recycled
to commercial uses). The city is supporting the vacation because the alley only serves
the affected properties (the office building on northerly lot uses it for parking). That is,
the alley does not extend beyond the boundaries of the affected site, like originally
intended. In the late 1970s, the city planned to extend a 20-foot wide alley along the
backside of the lots that front on the west side of Lakewood Boulevard, between
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 37 September, 2013
Firestone Boulevard and 5th Street. And purpose of the alley corresponded with the
development trend, which at the time focused on those properties: a couple of the lots
had been converted to commercial uses from single-family residences, plus the city had
rezoned them to Professional Office, from R1, to support the trend. According to the
plan, as properties recycled from residential to commercial uses, they would dedicate an
easement in the rear for the alley purposes; and the purpose in developing it was to
reduce number of driveway approaches on Lakewood and divert onsite traffic to the rear
of the properties, which would smooth traffic flow on Lakewood Boulevard. However,
most of the properties between Firestone and 5th Street are still residential, primarily due
to the constraints posed by their reduced size, and the alley has not been implemented.
In addition to abandoning the alley, the vacation also includes vacating a portion of
excess Lakewood Boulevard right-of-way that covers the front of 11101 Lakewood
Boulevard. The approved and developed right-of-way for this section of Lakewood
Boulevard, pursuant to the approved Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Plan is 114
feet, while the actual right-of-way width there is 116 feet. The additional two feet is
therefore considered excess and is not required for street and highway purposes.
.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. The adjacent Lakewood/Firestone intersection is one of the intersection’s
that makes up the Congestion Management Program (CMP); the CMP network is
administered by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The
project, however, will not impact the intersection’s level of service since the proposed
improvements will not generate traffic. Moreover, since it will not generate traffic, a CMP
analysis is not required; a CMP traffic analysis is required when a project directs 50 or
more trips to a CMP intersection during either the AM or PM peak hour.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. Implementing the contemplated project will not impact air traffic patterns.
The scope and magnitude of the project is site specific, and as such, it will not change
existing air traffic flights.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. Developing the project will not increase hazards related to the design and
layout of the various components that make up the project’s onsite circulation network.
The city’s Traffic Engineer has approved the location of project’s drive approach, its new
parking lot layout, the alignment of the drive-through lane, and the interface of In-N-Out’s
existing and proposed parking areas. In addition to reviewing the onsite network, it will
be designed and constructed in accordance with the city’s engineering standards.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 38 September, 2013
No Impact. The project will be designed in accordance with the provisions of the Fire
Department to ensure that all on-site project components are accessible to Fire
Department personnel, fire-fighting equipment and emergency medical vehicles.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact. The proposed improvements will be confined to the project site. Moreover,
the scope of the project is limited to expanding an existing parking lot and drive-through
lane, and is not expected to conflict with a plan, policy or program that supports
alternative transportation modes.
4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project will not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The proposed project involves demolishing a 2-level, 4,580 square foot
office building and replacing it with a parking lot and drive-through lane to augment the
parking area of the neighboring In-N-Out Burger. And soil will be disturbed during the
project’s grading phase. Nevertheless, the city’s Engineering and Building & Safety
Divisions will issue a grading permit which will includes requirements to control erosion.
Project development will comply with the applicable provisions in Article VIII, Chapter 8
of the Municipal Code which addresses grading. In addition to the municipal code
provisions, the applicant will prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP), for the Engineering Division’s approval, which guides post construction best
management practices (BMPs) for new development for the purpose of maintaining
water quality. The proposed project will incorporate BMPs into the project design to
insure it meets the water quality requirements of the RWQCB. Therefore, any impacts
will be negligible.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The contemplated project includes expanding a parking lot and increasing
the stacking space of an existing drive-through lane. As such, it will not produce
wastewater thus it will not require the construction or expansion of a wastewater
treatment facility.
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact. Improvements occupying the site to date consist of a small, 2-story office
building, a parking area and accompanying driveway, plus turf lawn in the front setback.
The project contemplated to replace the existing improvements consists of a parking lot,
a drive-through lane extension for a fast food restaurant and landscape planters. By
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 39 September, 2013
comparison, the amount of impervious surface that covers the site currently and the
amount the project is considering will not change. Since there is little difference in the
amount of impervious surface between the two conditions, the volume of stormwater
generated by the project should be the same. Moreover, the existing stormdrain network
serving the site can accommodate the volume of runoff that the existing improvements
produce; therefore, the network can handle the volume the project will produce.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The project is expected to have a negligible impact on available water
supplies, given the nature and characteristics of the proposed parking lot expansion.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. The project will not produce wastewater, hence it will not impact the
facilities (sewer mains; treatment plant) of the wastewater treatment provider (Sanitation
Districts of Los Angles County, District No. 2) that serves the project site.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
No Impact. The project will not generate solid waste therefore it will not impact the
Puente Hills Landfill, which is the landfill that serves the project site.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
No Impact. See response to 4.16 f).
5.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following findings have been made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set
forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, based on the results of this environmental
assessment.
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 rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No Impact. The project site is urban in character and part of the City’ of Downey’s
builtout environment; it does not contain any biological resources that would be affected
by the implementation of the contemplated project. Improvements that cover the project
site to date consist of small office building, a parking lot and its accompanying driveway.
The project that would replace these improvements consists of a 38-space parking lot,
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PLN – 13 – 00064/IN-OUT-BURGER EXPANSION
City of Downey Page 40 September, 2013
that will serve an adjacent drive-through restaurant, along with a drive-through lane and
landscape planters. Therefore, developing the proposal does not 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 proceeds of California History or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
No Impact. Project implementation would not produce impacts that would be
cumulatively considerable. The project does not involve constructing building square
footage which generates traffic, along with its accompanying impacts; instead it is
intended to accommodate the parking and drive-through demand of an existing fast-food
restaurant. The project involves developing a parking lot that augments the restaurant’s
parking supply and increases the capacity of the drive-through lane so it is better able to
serve its customers. This environmental document provides a determination of whether
a cumulative analysis exists and whether the proposed project would contribute to a
significant cumulative impacts to a considerable degree. Only project impacts that are
deemed cumulatively considerable are considered potentially significant impacts in the
context of this analysis. As concluded throughout this document, project implementation
would result in no impacts or less-than-significant environmental impacts. Additionally,
the impacts from the proposed project when combined with cumulative development
projects would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Thus, the
impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. Project implementation is not anticipated to have any direct or indirect
adverse effects on humans working or residing in the vicinity of the project site.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHALL BE PREPARED FOR PLN – 13 – 00064 (In-N-
Out Burger Parking Lot Expansion).
H:msell/In-N-Out/initialstudy
Lakewood Blvd.
Firestone Blvd. N
Exhibit “A”
Aerial Photograph
Project Site
Exhibit “B”
Site Plan
N
Exhibit “C”
Vacation Easement
Exhibit “D”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Site Description 1
3.0 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis 2
3.1 Estimation of Emissions - Construction
3.2 Estimation of Emissions - Operation
3.3 Estimation of Pollutant Concentrations - Operation
4.0 Pollutant Impact Analysis 7
5.0 Findings 9
6.0 Conclusion 9
References 10
Appendices
Appendix A Emission Calculation Worksheets
Appendix B Emission Rate Summary/Source Data Worksheets
Appendix C Dispersion Model Input/Output Files (Electronic Format)
List of Figure(s)
Figure 1 Site Location /Vicinity Aerial Photograph
Figure 2 Source Grid Network
Figure 3 Receptor Grid Network
List of Table(s)
Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Table 2 Vehicle Fleet Mix Profile
Table 3 Composite Vehicle Emission Rates
Table 4 Construction Significance Thresholds
Table 5 California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table 6 East San Gabriel Valley/Pico Rivera Monitoring Summary
Table 7 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) provides voluntary
guidance on the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to public agencies conducting
environmental review of projects located within its jurisdiction. Localized air quality
impacts are evaluated by examining the on-site generation of pollutants and their resulting
downwind concentrations. Pollutant concentrations are compared to significance thresholds
for particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). For
construction, significance thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 represent compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). For operational impacts, PM10 and PM2.5 significance
thresholds are based upon the allowable change criteria listed in Table A-2 of Rule 1303.
Thresholds for CO and NO2 represent the allowable increase in concentrations above
background levels that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of their respective
ambient air quality standards.
Based upon a preliminary review of the proposed In-N-Out Burger parking lot expansion
project, the City of Downey Planning Division (City) determined that additional analysis is
required to determine the project’s potential environment effects on local air quality. In
consideration of the City’s request and available guidance from the SCAQMD, a Localized
Significance Threshold (LST) analysis was prepared. The technical approach and dispersion
modeling methodologies used in the preparation of the LST analysis were composed of all
relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency and SCAQMD. The methodologies
and assumptions offered under this regulatory guidance were used to ensure that the analysis
effectively quantified exposures to sensitive receptors associated with the generation of
pollutant emissions from on-site construction and operational activities.
Results of the LST analysis reveal that maximum pollutant concentrations associated with
construction and operation are within acceptable limits and not anticipated to exceed
established significance thresholds at any receptor location.
This report summarizes the protocol used to evaluate pollutant exposures and presents the
results of the LST analysis.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project entails the acquisition of an adjoining 0.32 acre commercial parcel
located at 11101 Lakewood Boulevard in the City of Downey consisting of a two story office
building with surface parking. The project involves the demolition of the existing building
structure and associated site improvements to extend and redesign an existing parking lot
located at 8767 Firestone Boulevard. Once completed, 20 additional on-site parking stalls
will be added, increasing current capacity from 42 to 61. The drive-thru service lane will also
be extended to accommodate additional vehicles eliminating the potential for vehicles to
queue onto Lakewood Boulevard.
The site is bound by residential housing to the north, Firestone Boulevard to the south,
Lakewood Boulevard to the east and mixed commercial/residential to the west. The current
Downey General Plan land use designation for the project site is general commercial. Figure
1 presents an aerial photograph of the proposed project location and adjoining community.
Figure 1
Site Location /Vicinity Aerial Photograph
Project
Site
3.0 LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD ANALYSIS
Based upon a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City identified air quality as one
area subject to further analysis whereby emissions associated with project construction and
operation may result in the generation of pollutant concentrations that exceed significance
thresholds for PM10, PM2.5, CO and NO2 established by the SCAQMD. Specifically, the City
expressed concern that by extending the parking lot, on-site vehicles and their subsequent
emissions would immediately adjoin residential occupancies and expose sensitive receptors to
elevated pollutant concentrations. To determine if these incremental emissions create a
significant impact, an LST analysis was prepared.
The SCAQMD provides two discrete methodologies to conduct an LST analysis. For small
construction projects that are less than or equal to five acres, a screening procedure is
recommended which includes use of calculation worksheets and mass emission rate look up
tables to compare predicted emissions to significance thresholds. Should more precise results
be desired or the calculation worksheets not address site conditions, available emission and air
dispersion models should be used to conduct the analysis. In consideration of SCAQMD
2
guidance, the screening procedure was used to assess construction related impacts. For
operational impacts, site conditions do not meet SCAQMD criteria to allow use of the
screening procedure (e.g., emissions are not steady-state nor limited to 8 hours per day). As
such, operational impacts were assessed utilizing a refined modeling approach. The following
section outlines the LST methodology utilized for each project phase.
3.1 Estimation of Emissions - Construction
The localized impacts from construction activities were evaluated based on the maximum
daily emissions generated during each construction phase. To determine maximum daily
emissions, the one acre sample construction scenario spreadsheet developed by the SCAQMD
was used as the basis to estimate project specific emissions. Due to the limited scope of the
project, emissions associated with demolition, site preparation/grading and asphalt paving
were assessed. Minor adjustments were made to the SCAQMD construction scenarios to
accommodate unique characteristics of the proposed project. These revisions addressed
building size, site dimensions and wind speed.
Table 1 provides a summary of estimated maximum daily emissions for each construction
phase. Appendix A presents the emission calculation worksheets used to quantify pollutant
source strength.
Table 1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Pollutant
PM10 PM2.5 CO NOx Construction Phase
(Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day)
Demolition 1.107 1.004 10.500 15.630
Site Preparation/Grading 1.303 1.178 13.383 26.199
Asphalt Paving 1.815 1.671 16.544 26.200
3.2 Estimation of Emissions - Operation
In urban communities, vehicle emissions contribute significantly to localized concentrations
of air pollutants. Typically, emissions generated from these sources are characterized by
vehicle mix, the rate pollutants are generated during the course of travel and the number of
vehicles traversing the roadway network.
Currently, emission factors are generated from a series of computer based programs to
produce a composite emission rate for vehicles traveling at various speeds within a defined
geographical area or along a discrete roadway segment. To account for the emission
standards imposed on the California fleet, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
developed the EMFAC2011 emission factor model. EMFAC2011 was utilized to identify
pollutant emission rates for PM10, PM2.5, CO and nitrogen oxide (NOx) compounds. To
produce a representative vehicle fleet distribution, the assessment relied upon CARB’s Los
3
Angeles County population estimates for the 2014 calendar year for vehicle classes
anticipated to access the drive-thru and/or parking facilities. This approach provides an
estimate of vehicle mix associated with operational profiles at the link or intersection level.
Table 2 lists the identified fleet mix and corresponding vehicle percentages considered in the
analysis.
Table 2
Vehicle Fleet Mix Profile
Vehicle Class Fuel Percent
LDA Diesel 0.20
LDA Gas 56.64
LDT1 Diesel 0.01
LDT1 Gas 6.28
LDT2 Diesel 0.01
LDT2 Gas 17.88
LHD1 Diesel 0.57
LHD1 Gas 2.44
LHD2 Diesel 0.22
LHD2 Gas 0.27
MCY Gas 1.93
MDV Diesel 0.01
MDV Gas 13.53
Note: Vehicle category descriptions can be found on the California Air
Resources Board website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm.
Idle and 5 mile per hour (mph) emission rates were assumed for the drive-thru lane and
transient vehicles accessing the parking lot, respectively.
Based upon the fleet mix and vehicular activity profiles, composite emission rates for each
pollutant were developed. Table 3 provides a summary of the emission rates utilized in the
analysis. Appendix A presents the EMFAC2011 calculation worksheets.
Table 3
Composite Vehicle Emission Rates
Pollutant
Activity
PM10 PM2.5 CO NOx
Drive-Thru (idle) 0.0715 0.0655 22.9360 2.1120
Transient (parking) 0.0143 0.0131 4.5870 0.4220
Note: Idle emission rates are expressed in grams per hour (gr/hr)). Transient emission rates assume a 5 mph lot speed and
are expressed in grams per mile (gr/mi).
4
3.3 Estimation of Pollutant Concentrations - Operation
In order to assess the impact of PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions on the adjoining residents, air
quality modeling utilizing the Industrial Source Complex-Short Term (ISCST3) model was
performed. This model is a steady state Gaussian plume model used by the SCAQMD to
develop the LST Methodology. For NO2, the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD was
used to assess the downwind extent of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and determine their
subsequent conversion to ambient NO2 concentrations. AERMOD offers a refinement over
the conversion rate ratios presented in the LST Methodology as adapted from the work of
Arellano et al. The model incorporates two methodologies to perform the NOx to NO2
conversion. In a recent clarification memorandum (U.S. EPA, 2011), the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards provides guidance on the use and performance of the two
algorithms referred to as the ozone limiting (OLM) and plume volume molar ratio (PVMRM)
methods. Based upon this guidance, the OLM algorithm with the OLMGROUP ALL option
was identified as the preferred method to perform the analysis.
Source treatment outlined in the LST methodology was assumed whereby exhaust emissions
were treated as a set of side-by-side volume sources. The release height was set to zero with
an initial vertical dimension of one meter.
For PM10 and PM2.5, plume depletion due to dry removal mechanisms was assumed (i.e.,
DRYDPLT). PM10 emissions were assigned particle size bins of 2.5 and 10 microns with
corresponding weight fractions of 0.92 and 0.08. PM2.5 emissions were limited to an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m. A particle density of 2.3 grams per cubic centimeter was
assigned to all size bins.
Air dispersion models require additional input parameters including pollutant emission data
and local meteorology. Due to the their sensitivity to individual meteorological parameters
such as wind speed and direction, the U.S. EPA recommends that meteorological data used as
input into dispersion models be selected on the basis of relative spatial and temporal
conditions that exist in the area of concern. In response to this recommendation,
meteorological data from the SCAQMD Pico Rivera monitoring station (Source Receptor
Area 5) was used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds. For ISCST3, a
preprocessed 1981 data set was utilized. Four years (2006-2009) of available AERMOD
meteorological data were reviewed to identify the calendar year which produced the highest
pollutant concentrations. Based on this review, the 2009 data set was identified as producing
the highest pollutant concentrations and was used for the analysis of NO2.
Model scalar options were programmed into the dispersion model to address hourly traffic
counts for vehicles utilizing the drive-thru and/or parking facilities.
To accommodate a Cartesian grid format, direction dependent calculations were obtained by
identifying the universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates for each source location.
Off-site receptors were uniformly placed to provide discrete coverage throughout the
adjoining community. A flagpole receptor height of two meters was also assumed and
assigned to each receptor location. A graphical representation of the source and receptor grid
networks is presented in Figures 2 and 3.
5
Figure 2
Source Grid Network
Legend:
● Drive-Thru Source Locations
● Transient Source Locations
Figure 3
Receptor Grid Network
Legend:
● Receptor Locations
6
Pollutant emission rate and source data used to complete the dispersion analysis are provided
in Appendix B. A complete listing of model input/output files are provided in electronic
format in Appendix C.
4.0 POLLUTANT IMPACT ANALYSIS
For construction, the on-site emission estimates identified in Section 3.1 were compared to
significance threshold reported by the SCAQMD for Source Receptor Area 5. In
consideration of SCAQMD guidance, the identified thresholds for the one acre scenario were
scaled by linear regression to accommodate a smaller construction area footprint (i.e.,
approximately 0.42 acres). Table 4 presents the adjusted LST thresholds.
Table 4
Construction Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Activity
PM10 PM2.5 CO NOx
Construction 2.3 2.4 402.8 60.3
Note: Units are expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day).
To assess operational impacts, thresholds are based upon the State of California’s ambient air
quality standards. These standards were established to safeguard the public’s health and
welfare with specific emphasis on protecting those individuals susceptible to respiratory
distress, such as asthmatics, the young, the elderly and those with existing conditions which
may be affected by increased pollutant concentrations. However, recent research has shown
that unhealthful respiratory responses occur with exposures to pollutants at levels that only
marginally exceed clean air standards. Table 3 presents the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) and averaging times for the criteria pollutants considered in the
assessment.
Table 5
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Standard Health Effects
Particulates (PM10) >50 g/m3 (24 hr avg.)
>20 g/m3 (Annual)
1) Excess deaths from short-term exposures and the exacerbation of
symptoms in sensitive individuals with respiratory disease.
2) Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function especially in
children.
Particulates (PM2.5) >12 g/m3 (Annual)
1) Excess deaths and illness from long-term exposures and the
exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive individuals with respiratory
and cardio pulmonary disease.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
>9.0 ppm (8 hr avg.)
>20.0 ppm (1 hr avg.)
1) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary
heart disease.
2) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular
disease and lung disease.
3) Impairment of central nervous system functions.
4) Possible increased risk to fetuses.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) >0.18 ppm (1 hr avg.)
1) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory
symptoms in sensitive groups.
2) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary
biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes.
Abbreviations: ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 70200.
7
Pollutant emissions are considered to have a significant effect on the environment if they
result in concentrations that create either a violation of an ambient air quality standard,
contribute to an existing air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantive
pollutant concentrations. Should ambient air quality already exceed existing standards, the
SCAQMD has established significance criteria for selected compounds to account for the
continued degradation of local air quality. Background concentrations are based upon the
highest observed value for the most recent three year period.
For PM10, background concentrations representative of the project area exceed the CAAQS
for the 24-hour and annual averaging times. As a result, a significant impact is achieved
when pollutant concentrations produce a measurable change over existing background levels.
Although background concentrations exceed the CAAQS annual averaging time for fine
particulates, no measurable change criteria currently exists. As a result, the SCAQMD
significance threshold of 2.5 g/m3 for the 24-hour averaging time is used to assess PM2.5
impacts.
For the CO 1 and 8-hour averaging times and NO2 1-hour averaging time, background
concentrations are below the current air quality standards. As such, significance is achieved
when pollutant concentrations add to existing levels and create an exceedance of the CAAQS.
Table 6 shows the pollutant concentrations collected at the South San Gabriel Valley/Pico
Rivera Monitoring Station for the last three years of available data. Table 7 outlines the
relevant significance thresholds considered to affect local air quality.
Table 6
East San Gabriel Valley/Pico Rivera Monitoring Summary
Year Pollutant/
Averaging Time 2010 2011 2012 Maximum
Particulates (PM10)
24-Hour ND ND ND >50
Particulates (PM2.5)
24-Hour 34.9 41.2 45.3 45.3
Particulates (PM10)
Annual ND ND ND >20
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-Hour
8-Hour
2.0
1.9
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.7
2.4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-Hour 0.079 0.091 0.081 0.091
Note: Particulate concentrations are expressed in micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). All others are expressed in parts per million (ppm).
ND denotes no data collected.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District and U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
8
Table 7
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Averaging Time Pollutant Concentration
Particulates (PM10)
Particulates (PM2.5) 24-Hours 2.5 g/m3 (operation)
Particulates (PM10) Annual 1.0 g/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1/8-Hours
SCAQMD is in attainment; impacts are
significant if they cause or contribute to
an exceedance of the following
attainment standards 20 ppm (1-hour)
and 9 ppm (8-hour).
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour
SCAQMD is in attainment; impacts are
significant if they cause or contribute to
an exceedance of the following
attainment standard 0.18 ppm.
Abbreviations: ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
5.0 FINDINGS
For construction, maximum daily emissions predicted for each construction phase and
pollutant do not exceed SCAQMD’s mass rate significance thresholds.
For the maximum exposed receptor, results of the operational analysis predicted vehicular
emissions will produce PM10 concentrations of 0.50461 g/m3 and 0.11501 g/m3 for the 24-
hour and annual averaging times. These values do not exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds of 2.5 g/m3 and 1.0 g/m3, respectively. For PM2.5, a maximum 24-hour average
concentration of 0.46530 g/m3 was predicted. This value is well below the identified
significance threshold of 2.5 g/m3.
The maximum modeled 1-hour average concentration for CO of 0.65126 ppm when added to
an existing background concentration of 2.7 ppm, will not cause an exceedance of the
CAAQS of 20 ppm. For the 8-hour averaging time, the maximum predicted concentration of
0.31452 ppm, when added to an existing background level of 2.4 ppm, does not cause an
exceedance of the CAAQS of 9 ppm.
For NO2, a maximum one hour concentration of 0.02706 ppm (50.91263 g/m3) was
predicted. This concentration, when added to a background concentration of 0.091 ppm, will
not cause an exceedance of the CAAQS of 0.18 ppm.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Results of the LST analysis indicate that maximum pollutant concentrations are predicted to
be within acceptable limits for both construction and operational scenarios and are not
anticipated to exceed identified significance thresholds at any receptor location.
9
REFERENCES
1. Arellano et al, 1990. A Chemically Reactive Plume Model for the NO-NO2-O3 System.
2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 1987. Toxic Air
Pollutant Source Assessment Manual for California Air Pollution Control Districts and
Applicants for Air Pollution Control District Permits, prepared by Interagency Workshop
Group, (Revised) December 1989.
3. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 1993. Air Toxics “Hot
Spots” Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.
4. California Air Resources Board, 1997. Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions in
California: Volume III (Revised).
5. California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective.
6. California Air Resources Board, 2013. Emfac2011-PL.
7. California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 70200.
8. City of Downey, 2013. Phone conversation between Mark Sellheim, Principal Planner,
and Bill Piazza, Air Quality Dynamics, April 26, 2013.
9. City of Downey, 2005. Vision 2025 General Plan, Downey, California.
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. AirData Data Mart. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.
11. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, 2011. Additional Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W
Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
12. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model - AERMOD. EPA-454/B-03-001.
13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition. AP-42.
14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R.
15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, 1995. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion
Models, Volumes I and II. EPA-454/B-95-003a and b.
10
16. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2013. Historical Data by Year. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm.
17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2011. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance
Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf.
18. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2011. Air Quality Significance
Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf.
19. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2011. AQMD Modeling Guidance for
AERMOD. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_Modeling
Guidance.html.
20. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2009. CEIDARS PM Profile Database.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/PM2_5/finalAppA.doc.
21. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2006-2009. Meteorological Data Set for
Pico Rivera, California.
22. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology.
23. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2006. Final – Methodology to Calculate
Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds.
24. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2005. Sample Construction Scenarios for
Projects Less than Five Acres in Size.
25. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1981. Meteorological Data Set for Pico
Rivera, California.
11