Eric Sunada

805 East Pine Street, Alhambra, CA 91801

January 7, 2017


Planning Division
City of Alhambra
Development Services Department
111 South First Street
Alhambra, California 91801

Subject: Invalid Zoning Interpretation

Dear Sirs/Mmes,

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed development at 875 and 1111 South Fremont Avenue,
Alhambra, California. The issue being raised in this written input is being submitted in accordance with the public
review period of said project.

The land use for the proposed project is currently dictated by the citys Zoning Ordinance, which shows it to be in the
Industrial Planned Development (IPD) zone. Specifically, Chapter 23.32 of the citys municipal code details the
permitted uses and is enclosed here for reference as Enclosure #1.

The Zoning Ordinance leaves little room for interpretation. Per 23.32.020, permitted uses are limited to the
following:

The following uses shall be permitted in the IPD zone, conducted wholly within a building;
(A) Uses involving the manufacture, processing or treatment of products which are not obnoxious or
offensive by reason of omission of odor, dust, smoke, noxious gases, noise, vibration, glare, heat or
other impacts, nor hazardous by way of materials, process, product, waste or other methods;
(B) Professional, medical, financial, public service and general business offices, and similar office uses;
(C) Warehousing and distribution facilities;
(D) Wholesale trade;
(E) Research, development and testing facilities which involve laboratories or large-scale electronic data
processing systems;
(F) Outdoor storage of fleet vehicles;
(G) Lumberyards, with accessory hardware sales;
(H) Contractor's storage yards;
(I) Plant nurseries;
(J) Adult businesses;
(K) Fitness centers, health clubs and gymnasiums.

On a conditional basis, some retail is permitted per 23.32.020 Conditionally Permitted Uses:

The following uses may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 23.66 of this title:
(A) Commercial uses, such as restaurants, which are intended primarily to serve employees within the
industrial district;
(B) Self-storage facilities, which may include one dwelling unit for a resident manager or caretaker;
(C) Service stations and motor vehicle repair facilities when conducted wholly within an enclosed building;
(D) Public service and utility structures and facilities;

805 East Pine Street, Alhambra, California 91801 l (626) 589-0440 l email: esunada@gmail.com

Eric Sunada

(E) Uses involving the manufacture, processing or treatment, of products which, by virtue of size, number of
employees or the nature of the operation, have the potential to be obnoxious or offensive by reason of
emission of odor, dust, smoke, noxious gases, noise, vibration, glare, heat or other impacts, or hazardous
by way of materials, process, product, wastes or other methods;
(F) Retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises, provided that the floor space devoted to such use
does not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the primary permitted use;
(G) Retail sales as an accessory use to warehousing and/or wholesale sales provided that the floor space
devoted to such use does not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the primary permitted use;
(H) Kennels and animal hospitals;
(I) Commercial antennae and broadcast production facilities;
(J) Professional, technical and vocational schools;
(K) Educational, instructional and tutoring services.


This project for a big-box retail store, Lowes home improvement, is being allowed contrary to the above regulations,
and as a result cannot be allowed to move forward. It clearly does not fall within any of the permitted nor
conditionally permitted uses. Moreover, it is being proposed without any application for any sort of waiver.

In response to inquiries made with the city, it was revealed that former Development Services Director, James Funk,
proposed an interpretation of this Zoning Code in June 2010 that permits Home Improvement Retail. This
interpretation has no basis and is clearly in violation of the Code, which leaves no room for such an interpretation. Yet
it was put before the city council on June 28, 2010 and was unanimously approved without discussion.
Documentation on this action is enclosed (Enclosure #2). A group of us met with city management and staff on
January 6, 2017 to ask if there was any other supporting reason for how this interpretation was made and approved.
We received no additional information. Consequently, the interpretation allowing big-box retail in the IPD zone is not
valid because it does not provide adequate justification and violates the Zoning Code.

The zoning of a city is done with careful planning for the benefit of those who live and work in the city while also
promoting economic development. Zoning must weigh many factors, and among the most important are incompatible
uses. The site of the proposed project is in one of the most heavily congested zones of the city along Fremont Avenue.
One of the reasons why large retail is not permitted is due to the traffic generated. Big-box home improvement retail
generates on the order of 4,000 trips per day and nearly doubles on weekends.1 At peak times, the problem is even
more dire.

In terms of economic development, a city must have a mix of available jobs. The type of jobs associated with
permitted industrial uses are higher paying and can generate more jobs with less traffic. Giving away a major portion
of the citys IPD zone to retail uses, which are notorious for unlivable wages, would perpetuate a city practice that is
clearly not working for its people (Figure 1 below).

Sincerely,

Eric Sunada

Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.

Eric Sunada

Figure1. Shaded areas indicate census blocks where 51% or more of the households are in the lower income bracket as
of 2007 (left) and 2014 (right).

Eric Sunada

Enclosure 1: Zoning Code chapter that specifies permitted uses in the IPD Zone

Eric Sunada

Enclosure 1 page 2 of 3

Eric Sunada

Enclosure 1 page 3 of 3

Eric Sunada

Enclosure #2: IPD Zoning Interpretation by the citys Development Services Department:

Eric Sunada

Enclosure #2 page 2 of 3

Eric Sunada

Enclosure #2 page 3 of 3