HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-13-11ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — 5 minute time limit per person.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or
testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are
hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning
Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising
only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the
Public Hearing.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
Charles Yi
Continued from August 23, 2011
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit with a Parking Modification for a wine
bar and specialty retail store selling wine, cheese and related items. Wine will be sold for
of site and on -site for wine tasting.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 1842
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 -11 with a parking modification to allow a wine bar and
specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue.
There will be a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution.
Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Teusday, September 20, 2011.
2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 11 -02 AND
ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 11 -01
650 W. Huntington Drive
Hank Jong
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240
W. Huntington Dr., P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 - (626) 574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
9 -13 -11
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
from Commercial to Residential and a Zone Change to change the Zone from Commercial -
Office (C -O) to High Density Multi - Family Residential (R -3).
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Approval
The Planning Commission's recommendation and comments will be forwarded to the City
Council.
CONSENT ITEMS
3. MINUTES OF August 23, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240
W. Huntington Dr., P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 - (626) 574-5423.
PC AGENDA
9 -13-11
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related
modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services,
may request such modification or accommodation from the Planning Services Department at (626) 574-
5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to assure accessibility to the meeting.
Public Hearing Procedure
1. The public hearing item is introduced by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
2. The staff report is presented by staff.
3. Commissioners' questions relating to the staff report may be asked and answered at this time.
4. The Public Hearing is opened by the Chairman and the applicant is afforded the first opportunity to
address the Commission.
5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission.
(LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES)
6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission.
(LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES)
7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal.
(LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES)
8. The Commission closes the public hearing.
9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time.
10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with
conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date.
11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution
reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission.
This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day
appeal period after the adoption of the resolution.
12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five (5) working
day appeal period.
13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan
Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City
Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing.
14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps
(subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will
be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Division offices at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr.,
P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 - (626) 574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
9 -13 -11
MEMORANDUM
Development Services Department
DATE: September 13, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
off°
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Additional Information — Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a
parking modification to allow a wine bar and specialty retail sales at 16 N.
First Avenue.
BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting on August 23, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the
proposed project at a public hearing. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted
2 -2 to deny the Conditional Use Permit. In the absence of a majority vote, the
Commission voted to continue this item to the September 13 meeting when all the
Commissioners are expected to be present. An excerpt of the Planning Commission
draft minutes is attached.
Subsequent to the August 23, 2011 meeting, the applicant's designer, Mr. Jeng,
submitted the attached email on behalf of the applicant in response to letter of
opposition received on August 23, 2011 by Ms. Janelle Williams.
DISCUSSION
In response to concerns raised by the Commission and Ms. Williams regarding the
types of alcoholic beverage license necessary for a wine bar, wine tasting, and retail
wine sales, according to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control two
types of licenses could be issued:
Type 42 — On -Sale Beer and Wine for Public Premises; and
Type 20 — Off -Sale Beer and Wine
The difference between the two types of license is Type 42 allows the applicant to serve
alcohol and conduct retail sales, but anyone under the age of 21 years old cannot enter
onto the premises. Type 20, which is issued to retail stores, liquor stores, or grocery
stores, and can be issued in conjunction with a type 42 license, allows minors to enter
the premises with an adult while shopping to make a purchase. Since the City envisions
Downtown Arcadia as a destination for visitors to shop and the Downtown Mixed Use
land use designation allows for retail and commercial service, the applicant could apply
for both licenses. However, his rights to exercise his full privilege with the licenses shall
be restricted to only wine through the conditions of approval imposed through this
Conditional Use Permit. Finally, the ABC does not allow the applicant to apply for a
Type 42 and /or Type 20 license and another license to be a distributor, manufacturer,
producer, or vendor from the same premises. The current status of his ABC license is
"pending" upon the City's decision on this application.
Since the approved floor plan is an integral part of the decision approving this
Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends that the following condition be added to the
list of conditions in the August 23, 2011 staff report to ensure the proposed use does
not expand and intensify overtime without further review by the Planning Commission.
New condition
The approved floor plan is an integral part of the decision approving this
Conditional Use Permit. There shall be no change in the design of the
floor plan without the approval of the Development Services Director or
designee. Any change in the approved plan which has the effect of
expanding or intensifying the present use shall require an amendment to
the Conditional Use Permit.
Below are the existing conditions of approval from the August 23, 2011 Planning
Commission staff report.
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily.
2. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit, and
any live music or entertainment shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit.
3. The sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages other than wine is prohibited.
4. The parking spaces inside the 4 -car garage shall be made available to any of the
tenants for parking. The garage is not to be used for storage, or for any use other
than tenant and /or customer parking.
5. In the event of security or policing problems, this Conditional Use Permit shall be
subject to review by the Arcadia Police Chief, and a professional, uniformed
security guard may be required.
6. For safety, Tight fixtures shall be added to the exteriors of the northerly and easterly
building walls to illuminate the alley and rear parking lot area to the satisfaction of
the Arcadia Police Chief and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
7. Signs shall be placed on the premises directing people to the City's public parking
lots. The number and locations of the signs shall be subject to approval by the
Development Services Director or designee prior to the issuance of a building
permit, and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
8. The use approved by CUP 11 -11 is limited to a wine bar with specialty retail sales,
which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the
proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -11, and shall be subject to
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
September 13, 2011 —page 2
periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may
be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent rights -
of -way and neighboring businesses or properties observed during these
inspections.
9. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community
Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
10. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 11 -11
shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which
could result in the dosing of the wine bar.
11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and
agents in the defense of the matter.
12. Approval of CUP 11 -11 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant(s),
and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance
Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness
and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a parking modification,
state the supporting findings and environmental determination, and adopt Resolution
No. 1842.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this application, the Commission should
move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11, state the finding(s)
that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to
prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for
adoption at the next meeting.
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
September 13, 2011 —page 3
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the September 13, 2011 public hearing, please contact
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445, or by email at Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Jim Kasa
Communit Development Administrator
Attachments: Resolution No. 1842
Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 23, 2011
Email from Mr. Jeng, dated September 2, 2011
Letter from Ms. Williams, dated August 23, 2011
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 23, 2011 and Attachments
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
September 13, 2011 —page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1842
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CUP 11 -11 WITH A PARKING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A WINE
BAR WITH SPECIALTY RETAIL SALES AT 16 N. FIRST AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency Board approved a
waiver to Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. ARA -231 to permit a wine bar
at 16 N. First Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011, Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11
with a parking modification was filed by the applicant, Mr. Charles Yi on behalf of the
property owner, Mr. William Chenoweth, to allow a wine bar and specialty retail sales at
16 N. First Avenue; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August
23, 2011, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence. In the absence of a majority vote, the Commission moved to
continue this item to the September 13, 2011 meeting when all Commissioners are
expected to be present.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the staff report dated August 23, 2011 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity. The proposed wine bar and specialty retail sales will not have any adverse
impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties, and will be required to comply with
all County Health Code and State Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Retail sales are allowed by -right in the Central
Business District (CBD) zone and bars are allowed with an approved Conditional Use
Permit per Section 9275.1.40.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading,
landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood. The proposed change in use from retail to a wine bar with specialty
retail sales will increase the parking deficiency by 7 parking spaces, but this is
insignificant based on the parking analysis, which indicates that there is adequate
nearby, off -site parking.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. First Avenue to the
west, Wheeler Avenue to the north, and the alley between the subject site and Wheeler
Avenue are adequate to serve the site and to provide access to the nearby public
parking areas.
5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 will not
adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed wine bar with
specialty retail sales is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the
subject property.
2 1842
6. That the project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11
qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a parking modification to permit a wine bar
with specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily.
2. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit,
and any live music or entertainment shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit.
3. The sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages other than wine is prohibited.
4. The approved floor plan is an integral part of the decision approving this
Conditional Use Permit. There shall be no change in the design of the floor plan without
the approval of the Development Services Director or designee. Any change in the
approved plan which has the effect of expanding or intensifying the present use shall
require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
5. The parking spaces inside the 4 -car garage shall be made available to any of
the tenants for parking. The garage is not to be used for storage, or for any use other
than tenant and /or customer parking.
6. In the event security or policing problems, this Conditional Use Permit shall
be subject to review by the Arcadia Police Chief, and a professional, uniformed security
guard may be required.
3
1842
7. For safety, light fixtures shall be provided on the exteriors of the northerly and
easterly building walls to illuminate the alley and rear parking lot area to the satisfaction
of the Arcadia Police Chief and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
8. Signs shall be placed on the premises directing people to the City's public
parking lots. The number and locations of the signs shall be subject to approval by the
Development Services Director or designee prior to the issuance of a building permit,
and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
9. The use approved by CUP 11 -11 is limited to a wine bar with specialty retail
sales, which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the
proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -11, and shall be subject to
periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be
adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent rights -of -way
and neighboring businesses or properties observed during these inspections.
10. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy
limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community
Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
11. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
11 -11 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which
could result in the closing of the wine bar.
12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia
and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set
4 1842
aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The
City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning
the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to
represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
13. Approval of CUP 11 -11 shall not take effect until the property owner(s),
applicant(s), and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an
Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate
awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 13th day of September, 2011.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
Chairman, Planning Commission
5 1842
DRAFT MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11
16 North First Avenue — Charles Yi
A Conditional Use Permit with a Parking Modification to permit a wine bar and specialty
retail sales.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 1842
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, Approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 -11 with a parking modification to allow a wine bar and
specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kasama directed the Commissioners' attention to a letter of opposition relating to item 2.
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Baderian asked for the Redevelopment Board's definition of a wine bar. Ms.
Flores explained that a wine bar would include a bar area, wine tasting room and retail sales
of bottled wine.
Commissioner Beranek asked about the comments provided by Ms. Janelle Williams in a
letter of opposition regarding the State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Ms.
Flores said that after a permit is approved, the applicant can apply for their ABC license and
it can take up to three months for ABC to process the application. But, the applicant has
opted to apply in advance to expedite the process. As a result, the status of the application
is listed as "pending ". She also mentioned that the applicant wished to respond to the letter
himself.
Commissioner Beranek asked what the connection was between Ms. Williams, the writer of
the letter of opposition, and the applicant. Ms. Flores said that according to the applicant,
Ms. Williams is a friend of Mr. Starkey, the owner of the Wine Cave, another wine bar in
Montrose.
The public hearing was opened.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Mr. Clint Melchor, a wine broker, said he has been acquainted with the applicant, Mr. Yi, for
a couple of years. He said he felt the wine bar would be a perfect fit for the redevelopment
area and explained that the objective would be to expose local residents to boutique wines
from small family wineries in Napa /Somona. In response to a question from Chairman
Baerg, Mr. Melchor explained that he is not a co -owner of the business.
Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant would respond to the allegations in Ms.
Williams' letter. Mr. Charles Yi, the applicant, offered to answer any questions arising from
Ms. Williams letter.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi if, as stated in Ms. Williams' letter, he has no
experience as a retailer. Mr. Yi said that is true. Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to
describe his association with the Wine Cave. Mr. Yi said that the owners of the Wine Cave
had asked him to work as a consultant and to be part of future expansion. However, after a
review of his options, Mr. Yi decided that he would prefer to invest in a business by himself.
Mr. Yi also stated that he was never part owner of the Wine Cave in Montrose.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to comment on Ms. Williams' allegations regarding his
application for an ABC license. Mr.Yi explained that he applied for the license which can
take up to three to four months to process, but if his Conditional Use Permit application is
denied, then he will withdraw his application for an ABC license. He added that he fully
intends to obtain all necessary licenses.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi about Ms. Williams' allegations that he was trying to
avoid providing his fingerprints for the required FBI criminal background check. Mr. Yi said
that he had been fingerprinted for the background check and displayed a copy of the live
scan submitted to the FBI dated July 25, 2011.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to reaffirm that all information presented in his
application is proper and truthful. Mr. Yi replied, "Of course ". Mr. Yi said that he originally
considered using Wine Cave II as the name for the wine bar, but later changed his mind.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr.Yi if he was planning any exporting or wholesaling of
wine at this location and Mr. Yi said no.
Commissioner Baderian asked if a taste of wine would not exceed two ounces and Mr. Yi
said that if the City doesn't allow more than two ounces, he will comply.
Commissioner Baderian asked if there would be separate areas for tasting and for
purchasing a glass of wine. Mr. Yi said both tasting and purchasing wine by the glass would
take place at bar side and at a few tables.
Commissioner Baderian asked about sales of food and Mr. Yi said no food will be sold but
crackers and cheese will be offered.
Commissioner Chiao asked Mr. Yi how he would be able to determine the busiest business
hours since he has no past experience in retailing. Mr. Yi said he expects the busiest hours
to be from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Chiao asked about parking during peak business hours and Mr. Yi explained
that parking is available across the street from the site.
Mr. Matt Jeng, a consultant and restaurant designer, said he is helping Mr. Yi to submit his
CUP application and to start his business. He explained that Mr. Yi was not sure what type
of ABC license was required so he decided to wait for CUP approval before applying for an
ABC license. In regards to the parking situation, Mr. Jeng noted that there are usually only
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES
8 -23 -11
Page 2
a few cars in the lot and that a parking study showed plenty of space. Mr. Jeng said that he
doesn't know why Ms. Williams wrote the opposition letter but he pointed out that she is not
at the meeting to answer questions but he and the applicant, Mr. Yi, are present.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Yi is he read the staff report and was aware of the
conditions of approval. Mr. Yi said that he reviewed the staff report and will comply with all
the conditions of approval including the last two additional conditions.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
Commissioner Beranek said that he had some reservations about this project and was
concerned that Mr. Yi may have overstated his position at times.
Commissioner Baderian also voiced reservations based on the information presented by the
applicant at tonight's meeting. He said he was concerned that this might not be the right
type of business for the redevelopment area.
Commissioner Chiao said that he was not concerned about the credibility of the applicant,
but about the lack of parking, and had some questions about the parking study. Ms. Flores
said that the public parking lot nearby should provide sufficient parking. She pointed out that
the parking study indicates that the peak demand for all the surrounding areas is currently
from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. while this use will experience peak parking from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.,
with only 38% of the spaces used. She explained that even though the wine bar will only
have seven parking spaces, with one serving as a handicapped space, the use of shared
parking provided in the city parking lot will more than make up for any deficiency.
Mr. Wray pointed out that the use of shared parking is typical in the city and that the city Tots
are intended to provide supplemental parking for businesses. Furthermore, he said, most of
the activity in the area is currently during the day time, so the night parking use for the wine
bar would complement the parking plan already in place.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to deny
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 subject to the revised conditions presented by staff.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek,
NOES: Commissioners Chiao & Baerg
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
Chairman Baerg asked if a continuance is possible, if the applicant is agreeable. Mr. Yi said
a continuance would be acceptable.
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES
8 -23 -11
Page 3
MOTION:
In the absence of a majority vote, Commissioner Beranek moved to continue this item to the
September 13 meeting when all Commissioners are expected to be present. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Baderian.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao and Baerg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES
8 -23 -11
Page 4
Lisa Flores
Subject: FW: Arc Wine Bar- Planning Commission Meeting Response
From: Matt Jeng @ Anokia Inc. (mailto :mjengCanokiainc.coml
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:46 AM
To: Lisa Flores
Subject: Arc Wine Bar- Planning Commission Meeting Response
Hi Lisa,
I met with Mr. Charles Yi and his agent Tony Chen yesterday afternoon, and this is a response letter for you.
We really appreciate your time and effort presenting our case. We apologize for not being well - prepared for
our presentation because of our lack of communication; but also the fact that we didn't receive that
opposition letter (which was the only opposition letter) till the very last hours.
In response to the several concerns which were brought up in the Planning Commission meeting on August 23,
2011, the followings are what we intend to present for the next meeting (right after you speak):
Background on my client (applicant) Mr. Charles Yi:
o Mr. Yi has been living in City of Arcadia since 1997, his children are currently attending schools
here in Arcadia, and he also has operated his businesses here since 2003. He does
have experience in food establishment as he had opened and operated a restaurant... also here
in Arcadia. With his great interest and extensive knowledge on various types of wines, he
would really love to open up a specialty wine store which will feature premium California wines
to the community. He believe his proposal would attract higher end customers and will
definitely be a positive vibe to Downtown district.
ABC Applications:
o Mr. Yi knows the approval of ABC application will be pending upon City's CUP approval.
However, since Mr. Yi is a very busy businessman who travels a lot, he likes to pre -plan all
aspects of this wine store. During the early stage of this CUP application, he asked his assistant
to gather the applications required for ABC license. Mr. Yi has already personally got his
fingerprints scanned and submitted ABC application in person. So far Mr. Yi has only applied
for On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 42) and he will apply for Off -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 20)
within these few days.
Wine Store Business Operations:
o The name of the store will be "N.16 Cellar ".
o The proposed hours will be from 1pm to 11 p.m.
o Mr. Yi intends to operate and manage this business in person from the early stages of this
business. He has already placed classified ads in newspaper in search of qualified people as
employees /sales. He has already received over 100 of resumes and is in the process of
narrowing down the list. It will take Mr. Yi about 1 to 2 months to train and setup the staff. Mr.
Yi also has found a well - qualified, prospective operating manager and is in the process of taking
him onboard.
The bottom line is that Mr. Yi is a successful and serious businessman who doesn't play games. It is his
number one priority to make all of his businesses successful, and that will include this wine store. Mr. Yi has
1
gone a great deal in: 1) finding a right planning consultant who he's comfortable with and who can also assist
him in obtaining building permit required for the build -out; 2) finding a traffic engineer to prepare the parking
study (to prove there are plenty of parking spaces to accommodate his business; 3) inquiring and applying for
all necessary ABC licenses; 4) finding right personnel to assist him in business operations; and 5) to his belief,
locating in the city in which he feels like home.
Please call me if you have anything else you would like us to address on.
Regards,
Matt Jeng
Anokia, Inc.
Commercial & Residential Design
T /F: (888) 765 -8982
Website: www.anokiainc.com
2
August 22, 2011
Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
Arcadia City Council Chambers
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, California 91066 -6021
CUP 11 -11
Dear Commissioners:
E
AUG 2 3 2011
P(aitnInv SEl° CGS
City of Arcadia
It has come to my attention that Charles Yi has applied for a conditional use permit to operate a wine
bar with retail sales. I have read his application and staff report, and though not surprised, I feel you
deserve the truth, and so 1 offer the following insight on this matter. Though I don't have any particular
animosity toward the applicant, I feel the City of Arcadia needs to move with extreme caution in
allowing this particular individual to operate a wine tasting bar in your city. He has absolutely tLo
experience.
For starters, on page 3 of the staff report, the applicant has indicated that he "has experience operating
a similar establishment, The Wine Cave in Montrose." For reference, 1 am the land use representative
for the Wine Cave in Montrose, and 1 can say unequivocally, that Mr. Li has never owned or operated
The Wine Cave, he has never worked at The Wine Cave, has never had any operational or business
interest in the establishment, nothing at all. The statement is on its face untrue, a deliberate and
calculated lie.
The applicant's establishment likely will not be operated at the same level of community consideration
and neighborhood good will as The Wine Cave. City Staff in Glendale have endorsed the Montrose
establishment because it Is well run by Scott Starkey, former owner of Milano's Restaurant in Glendale.
His many acts of charity are well documented, and the establishment itself is a comfortable
neighborhood fit. I am writing as an individual and also to protect my client, Mr. Starkey, and the
integrity of his business which is truly held in high regard within the City of Glendale. The business as
proposed here is neither likely to garner similar praise nor be operated at a high standard. As a note to
the applicant, "The Wine Cave 11" as suggested In the Staff report, is not an option for naming his new
business.
The applicant has lied about the operation of The Wine Cave, and this act alone warrants a closer look at
other parts of his application and the State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license
application.
The only license this applicant has pending with the ABC is for on -sale beer and wine, type 42 at this
location (see attachment). There Is no license pending for retail wine sales. I am concerned that this
applicant has both lied on the CUP application as well as on his ABC license application. It has also
recently come to my attention that the applicant had gone as far as soliciting various individuals to
provide fingerprints for his FBI criminal background check - instead of providing his own fingerprints.
This is something 1 intend to take up with ABC, as I have no idea why a person with nothing to hide
would want to do such a thing.
If the CUP is approved, there should be a condition prohibiting the applicant from operating more than
one business out of the location; as he has indicted his intent to also operate a secondary and separate
business office within this tenant space to export wines to China. Exporting wine requires different
licensing and cannot be combined with retail sales, if so, would be a violation of the State of California
tied -house restrictions prohibiting such uses together. In addition, wholesaling is not an approved use
at the location, nor is it disclosed on his application. A strongly worded condition prohibiting more than
one business would underscore your intentions in this regard.
It is also my understanding that a "taste" of wine is a pour from 1 to 2 ounces of wine, in order for a
patron to decide on a take -home bottle purchase. A condition limiting tastes to this maximum 2 oz.
amount would be appropriate, as it is according to the applicant, not a "bar' per se, but a tasting room.
The applicant's true intentions with his new establishment are not clear. Since the application is for
retail wine sales with tasting privilege, a maximum 2 ounce condition should not be a problem, unless he
intends to offer full glasses of wine for on -site consumption with no limits, which would be a much more
intensive use, certainly more intensive than a wine "tasting room ".
If it is your intention to approve, this being the first establishment of its kind in the redevelopment area,
I strongly suggest the use of uniformed security after 5:00 p.m. to ensure patron and community safety,
and to check patron IDs. All conditions of approval should be subject to verification and monitoring for
compliance at all times. Any Initial grant of a CUP should not be for more than two years, with
reapplication and full review by police, traffic and transportation, all City Departments and the Planning
Commission.
The granting of the subject conditional use permit has the potential of being harmful to the community
of Arcadia, injurious to the health, safety, the general welfare and to the environment, and if operated
as a "front" for another business, will be wholly inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the General
Plan, the intention of the City Council and the Planning Commission, a complete disregard for Staff time
and a disregard to the citizens of Arcadia. The applicant has not been candid in his application, and
therefore, the entire application and intent contained within, under penalty of oeriury is suspect and
should be handled with extreme caution.
I apologize for the lateness of this letter, but once I saw the staff report and the falsehoods regarding
The Wine Cave in Glendale, late or not I wanted you to know the truth.
Sincerely,
nelle P. Williams
2418 Honolulu, #B
Montrose, CA 91020
818 - 542 -4109
California ABC - License Query System - Data Summary http:// www. abc .ca.gov /datportJLQSData.asp7ID= 56988137
California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control
License Query System Sum aty
as of 8/18/2011
License Information
(License Number: 512923
'Primary Owner: OMART CORPORATION
'ABC Office of Application: 02 - MONROVIA
Business Name
Doing Business As: N16 CELLAR
Business Address
Address: 16 N 1ST AVE Census Tract: 4308.01
'City: ARCADIA County: LOS ANGELES
'State: CA Zip Code: 91006
icensee Information
'Licensee: OMART CORPORATION
Company Information
Officer: YI, CHARLES QIANG (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
Officer: YI, CHARLES QIANG (DIRECTOR)
Officer: YI, CHARLES QIANG (PRESIDENT /SECRETARY)
Stock Holder: YI, CHARLES QIANG
License Types
1) License Type: 42 - ON -SALE BEER AND WINE - PUBLIC PREMISES
License IS'pe Status: PENDING
Status Date: 25-JUL-
5 -JUL -2011 Term: 12 Month(s)
Original Issue Date: Expiration Date:
Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: P40
License Type was Transferred On: FROM:
'Current Disciplinary Action . .. .......
. No Active Disciplinary Action found .. .
Disciplinary History
.. No Disciplinary History found .. .
fffold Information
'Hold Date: 25 -JUL -2011 Type: FORM 220
Escrow
1.10. OxIty
8119/2011 8:13 PM
STAFF REPORT
August 23, 2011
Development Services Department
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a parking modification to
allow a wine bar and specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue.
SUMMARY
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11 was filed by Mr. Charles Yi on behalf
of the property owner, Mr. William Chenoweth, to operate a wine bar with specialty retail
sales at 16 N. First Avenue. Wine will be sold for off -site consumption and for on -site
tasting. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this
application and the related parking modification, subject to the conditions listed in this
staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Charles Yi on behalf of the property owner, Mr. William Chenoweth
LOCATION: 16 N. First Avenue
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a wine bar, specialty retail sales, and
a parking modification of 6 on -site parking spaces in lieu of 24 spaces
required for the existing multi- tenant building and proposed wine bar.
The hours of operation for the wine bar will be 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
daily.
SITE AREA: 7,425 square feet (0.17 acre)
FRONTAGE: 55' -0" along N. First Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The subject property is located on the east side of First Avenue between
Huntington Drive and Wheeler Avenue, in the Central Redevelopment
Project Area. The site is improved with a 4,900 square foot, two -story
building 'comprised of 3,900 square feet of commercial space on the first
floor and a 1,000 square -foot residential unit on the second floor. There
is also a 4 -car garage at the rear of the site and 3 open, on -site parking
spaces. The property is zoned CBD, Central Business District with a
Downtown Overlay.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Commercial — zoned DMU
South: Commercial — zoned CBD
East: General Office Building — zoned CBD
West: Commercial — zoned CBD
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial with Downtown Overlay — This designation is intended to
permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood
and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of
commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food
stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor
recreational facilities, and entertainment uses.
Adjacent to Downtown, the Commercial designation is intended to
encourage small -scale office and neighborhood- serving commercial
uses that complement development in the Downtown Mixed Use areas.
While the land use designation provides the general parameters within
which development must take place, the Zoning Code or other land use
regulatory document specifies the type and intensity of uses that will be
permitted in a given area. In the Downtown area, for example, where
properties are designated Commercial, land use regulations might
specify that restaurants and cafes are permitted, but secondhand stores
are not. The Zoning Code and other regulatory documents also indicate
permitted building height limits for specific properties.
The maximum floor- area -ratio (FAR) for Commercial areas is 0.50, but
the Downtown Overlay, which is a higher intensity overlay, allows an
FAR of 1.0 for non - residential uses.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of CUP 11 -11 were mailed on August 10, 2011 to the property
owners and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property
(see the attached radius map). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a conversion of existing small structures from one use to another is
Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore the
public hearing notice was not published in a local newspaper.
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 2
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency Board approved a waiver to Arcadia
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. ARA -231 to permit a wine bar. The waiver was
necessary because the Resolution lists "Stores selling liquor for off - premise
consumption," as an "Inappropriate Use." The Board determined that a wine bar would
not be a detriment to North First Avenue and could add some vitality to the area.
Additionally, the Board felt that it is a use that is compatible with the Land Use Element
of the new General Plan and consistent with the goal of introducing more active uses
into the downtown area.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant, Mr. Charles Yi, plans to lease 1,700 square feet on the first floor of the
two -story building to operate a wine bar that will offer wine tastings and retail sales. The
location will not be a restaurant as no kitchen is to be included, and the specialty retail
items are wines, cheeses, and related items. Wine will be sold for off -site consumption
and for on -site tastings. The proposed hours of operation will be limited to 1:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m., daily.
The applicant has indicated that he has experience operating a similar establishment,
the Wine Cave located in the Montrose area of Glendale. The Glendale location has
been in operation since August of 2009, and is considered by the City of Glendale staff
to have been a significant improvement to the area. If approved, this new location may
be named, Wine Cave II. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use will be an
enhancement to the downtown area.
This proposal also requires a parking modification since there will be only 6 on -site
parking spaces and under the current zoning regulations the site needs 24 parking
spaces with the proposed wine bar. The following table lists the parking requirements
for the project site, which is located within a '/ -mile of the future Gold Line station, and
is thereby entitled to a 25% reduction of the parking requirements for commercial uses.
Use
Retail (The Frame House)
Apartment
Area (S.F.)
Required Parking
Ratio
Required Parking
Per Use
2,200 S.F.
1/200 S.F. - 25%
8.25 spaces
Proposed Wine Bar
1,000 S.F.
1.5 per unit + 1
guest per 2 units
3 spaces
1,700 S.F.
1/100 S.F. - 25%
12.75 spaces
Total On -Site Parking Spaces Required: 24
21 commercial spaces plus 3 spaces for the apartment
Total On -Site Parking Spaces to be Provided: 6
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 3
Of the 7 existing on -site parking spaces, 3 are open and available for any tenant or
customer, and 4 spaces are in the garage. Two of the garage spaces are designated
for the apartment, and one each is available for the two commercial units. Presently,
the subject property has a legal- nonconforming parking deficiency of 11 spaces.
To comply with accessibility requirements, a van - accessible, handicap parking space
must be provided. The 8 -foot wide loading area for this handicap space will result in the
Toss of 1 open, on -site parking space. When combined with the increased parking
requirement for the wine bar, the proposed 6 on -site parking spaces results in an 18-
space on -site parking deficiency for an overall parking modification of 6 on -site parking
spaces in lieu of 24 required.
The applicant had the attached shared parking study prepared by a traffic engineer to
evaluate the availability of the on -site and off-site parking for the proposed wine bar.
The study included an analysis of the City's parking requirement, the parking demand of
the proposed wine bar, and the availability of nearby public parking spaces. The
consultant counted the parked vehicles every 30 minutes between 1:00 p.m. to 11:00
p.m. for 7 consecutive days in May of this year. The consultant determined that the use
of the closest public parking areas peaked between 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays
with 33% to 66% of the 66 nearby parking spaces occupied. On weekends, the parking
usage peaked between 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. with 21% to 26% of the spaces occupied.
Based on the results of the study, the consultant determined that there will be adequate
parking for the proposed wine bar, which is anticipated to have its greatest parking
demand during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. when at most, 38% of
the nearby parking spaces were occupied. The City Engineer has reviewed the parking
study and agrees with its conclusion that there is enough available off -site public
parking for the applicant's proposal.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building
safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design are required to be complied
with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development
Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
CEQA
Proposed projects that are not approved, are by virtue of being denied, exempt from
any further environmental assessment. If approved, however, and if it is determined
that no significant physical alterations to the site or to the exterior of the building are
necessary, then this project, as a conversion of an existing facility of less than 2,500
square feet and not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances is
categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary
Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report.
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 4
FINDINGS
Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions
can be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone
or vicinity. The proposed wine bar and specialty retail sales will not have any
adverse impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties, and will be required to
comply with all County Health Code and State Alcoholic. Beverage Control
requirements.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Retail sales are allowed by -right in the
Central Business District (CBD) zone and bars are allowed with an approved
Conditional Use Permit per Section 9275.1.40.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and
other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood. The proposed change in use from retail to a wine bar with specialty
retail sales will increase the parking deficiency by 7 parking spaces, but this is
insignificant based on the parking analysis, which indicates that there is adequate
nearby, off -site parking.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. First Avenue to the west,
Wheeler Avenue to the north, and the alley between the subject site and Wheeler
Avenue are adequate to serve the site and to provide access to the nearby public
parking areas.
5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 will not adversely affect
the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed wine bar with specialty retail sales
is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the subject property.
6. That the project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 qualifies as
a Class 3 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed wine bar satisfies each prerequisite condition.
RECOMMENDATION
eve opment Services Department
Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11, subject
1.. The hours of operation shall be limited
recommends approval of Conditional Use
to the following conditions:
to 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily.
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 5
2. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit, and
any live music or entertainment shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit.
3. The sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages other than wine is prohibited.
4. The parking spaces inside the 4 -car garage shall be made available to any of the
tenants for parking. The garage is not to be used for storage, or for any use other
than tenant and/or customer parking.
5. In the event of security or policing problems, this Conditional Use Permit shall be
subject to review by the Arcadia Police Chief, and a professional, uniformed
security guard may be required.
6. For safety, light fixtures shall be added to the exteriors of the northerly and easterly
building walls to illuminate the alley and rear parking lot area to the satisfaction of
the Arcadia Police Chief and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
7. Signs shall be placed on the premises directing people to the City's public parking
lots. The number and locations of the signs shall be subject to approval by the
Development Services Director or designee prior to the issuance of a building
permit, and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
8. The use approved by CUP 11 -11 is limited to a wine bar with specialty retail sales,
which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the
proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -11, and shall be subject to
periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may
be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent rights -
of -way and neighboring businesses or properties observed during these
inspections.
9. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community
Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
10. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 11 -11
shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which
could result in the closing of the wine bar.
11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside,
void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 6
proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and
agents in the defense of the matter.
12. Approval of CUP 11 -11 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant(s),
and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance
Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness
and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a parking modification,
state the supporting findings and environmental determination, and adopt Resolution
No. 1842.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this application, the Commission should
move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11, state the finding(s)
that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to
prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for
adoption at the next meeting.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the August 23, 2011 public hearing, please contact Senior
Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445, or by email at Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Jim ama
munity Development Administrator
Attachments: Resolution No. 1842
Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map with Zoning Information
300 -foot Radius Map
Photos
Shared Parking Study
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Floor Plan and Plot Plan
CUP 11 -11
16 N. First Avenue
August 23, 2011 — page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 1842
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CUP 11 -11 WITH A PARKING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A WINE
BAR WITH SPECIALTY RETAIL SALES AT 16 N. FIRST AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency Board approved a
waiver to Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. ARA -231 to permit a wine bar
at 16 N. First Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011, Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 11 -11
with a parking modification was filed by the applicant, Mr. Charles Yi on behalf of the
property owner, Mr. William Chenoweth, to allow a wine bar and specialty retail sales at
16 N. First Avenue; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August
23, 2011, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the staff report dated August 23, 2011 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity. The proposed wine bar and specialty retail sales will not have any adverse
impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties, and will be required to comply with
all County Health Code and State Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements.
2. That the use :applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Retail sales are allowed by- right in the Central
Business District (CBD) zone and bars are allowed with an approved Conditional Use
Permit per Section 9275.1.40.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading,
landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood. The proposed change in use from retail to a wine bar with specialty
retail sales will increase the parking deficiency by 7 parking spaces, but this is
insignificant based on the parking analysis, which indicates that there is adequate
nearby, off -site parking.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. First Avenue to the
west, Wheeler Avenue to the north, and the alley between the subject site and Wheeler
Avenue are adequate to serve the site and to provide access to the nearby public
parking areas.
5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 will not
adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed wine bar with
specialty retail sales is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the
subject property.
6. That the project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11
qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per Section 15303(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2 1842
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 with a parking modification to permit a wine bar
with specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily.
2. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit,
and any live music or entertainment shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit.
3. The sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages other than wine is prohibited.
4. The parking spaces inside the 4 -car garage shall be made available to any of
the tenants for parking. The garage is not to be used for storage, or for any use other
than tenant and /or customer parking.
5. In the event security or policing problems, this Conditional Use Permit shall
be subject to review by the Arcadia Police Chief, and a professional, uniformed security
guard may be required.
6. For safety, light fixtures shall be provided on the exteriors of the northerly and
easterly building walls to illuminate the alley and rear parking lot area to the satisfaction
of the Arcadia Police Chief and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
7. Signs shall be placed on the premises directing people to the City's public
parking lots. The number and locations of the signs shall be subject to approval by the
Development Services Director or designee prior to the issuance of a building permit,
and shall be installed prior to the opening of the wine bar.
8. The use approved by CUP 11 -11 is limited to a wine bar with specialty retail
sales, which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the
proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 11 -11, and shall be subject to
3
1842
periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this Conditional Use Permit may be
adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent rights -of -way
and neighboring businesses or properties observed during these inspections.
9. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy
limits, building safety, emergency equipment, and parking and site design shall be
complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community
Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
10. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
11 -11 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which
could result in the closing of the wine bar.
11. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia
and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set
aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia
concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any
approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City
Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The
City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning
the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of
the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to
represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
4 1842
12. Approval of .CUP 11 -11 shall not take effect until the property owner(s),
applicant(s), and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an
Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate
awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 23rd day of August, 2011.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
Chairman, Planning Commission
5 1842
• hotos of the interior s e ac.�
6 N.. First Avenu
16 N. First Avenue
Photos of the rear parking lot and 4 -car garage
-
TRAflc ENEROVIZEMNE, [nt
Tragic Co iitol.;Vol. Syndtto014 Wn.. Pc-king Study
July 6, 2011 (Revised)
Charles Yi
Omart Corp
150 N. Santa Anita Ave, #500
Arcadia, CA 91006
Re: Shared Parking Study
Retail Wine and Cheese Store with Wine Tasting
At 16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Dear Charles Yi,
RECEIVED
JUL - 8 2011
Planning Services
City of Arcadia
Per your request, we have conducted a shared parking study for the proposed
business at 16 N. First Street in the City of Arcadia. This letter presents our
methodology, findings, and recommendations in regards to the sufficiency of
parking for the proposed business.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The project is seeking conditional use permit (CUP) for the proposed retail wine and
cheese store that offers wine tasting (1,700 sq. ft.) at 16 N. First Street in the City of
Arcadia. The economic development department of the City of Arcadia has
requested a parking demand study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer to
evaluate parking conditions.
The proposed business share the site with two other existing uses: The Frame House
(2,200 sq. ft.) at 12 N. First Street and a residential unit (1,000 sq. ft) at 16 '/2 N.
First Street. There are seven parking spaces provided on -site including four inside
garage. The subject site is situated in downtown area where public parking is
conveniently provided for local businesses. Site plan and nearby parking spaces are
shown in Exhibit 1.
The proposed business is a retail wine and cheese shop that offers wine tasting
accompanied by cheese and crackers. It has no plan to serve other food, beer, or
1(2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 235, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714- 832 -2116 F.949- 266 -5875 Email: k2traffic@gmail.com
Shared Parking Study
Retail Wine and Cheese Store with Wine Tasting
At 16 N. First Street, Arcadia
alcoholic drinks in the premise. The proposed business plans to employ two work
shifts with up to three employees in each shift.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The Municipal Codes of the City of Arcadia does not specify the use of wine tasting
and retail facility. The functions of this proposed business apparently fall between a
bar and retail store. According to the Municipal Codes, the parking requirement for
"retail" is five spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The parking
requirement for "bar" is ten space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
As a conservative approach, the study chooses to apply "bar" use as a worst case
scenario. Since the site is located within a 1/4 mile from the Gold Line station, the
project's commercial use is entitled to a 25% credit toward the required parking. As
shown in Table 1, the proposed project requires thirteen (13) parking spaces.
Judy 6, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Table 1. Parking Requirements
Parking Requirements
Project
Land Use .
Bar and similar uses
Parking Ratio Per Municipal Codes
Ten spaces for every 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area
Size
1,700 sq. ft.
Parking reduction for any commercial
use within 1/4 mile of a Gold Line
Station
25%
Parking Demand
12.75 spaces (say 13 spaces)
Based on the characteristics of the proposed business, its peak parking demand
normally occurs during evening hours between 7 pm and 9 pm. The hourly
variations of parking demand are shown in Table 2.
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714- 832 -2116 F.949- 266 -5875 Email: k2traffic@gmail.com
Shared Parking Study
Retail Wine and Cheese Store with Wine Tasting
At 16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Table 2. Project Parking Demand by Time-of-Day
July 6, 2011
Page 3 of 4
Time -of -Day
12 pm -3pm 4 pm- 6pm 7 pm- 9 pm 10 pm -12 am
Usage Factor
Parking Demand
0
0 /0 80% 100% 70%
7 10 13 9
PARKING ANALYSIS
For this study, K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. conducted field surveys to observe
actual parking usage of the project vicinity in order to determine the adequacy of
public parking. Parked vehicles were counted every 30 minutes between 1:00 P.M.
and 11:00 P.M. for seven consecutive days in May 2011. Complete survey data can
be found in Appendix A.
Exhibit 1 shows five parking areas within walking distance of 300 feet from the site.
Excluding Area A (for having to cross N. First Street) and Area E (for being further
away), there are 66 parking spaces immediately adjacent to the site. Exhibit 2
illustrates parking availability at these immediate impact areas. Peak parking
demand occurred at 1:30 PM on Friday when 43 parking spaces were occupied by
existing tenants while project demand is seven (7) parking spaces. A combined
demand of 50 parking spaces can be sufficiently accommodated by the capacity of
66 parking spaces.
SUMMARY
Based on the minimum required parking per Municipal Codes, the project would
require 13 parking spaces. The site consisting of an existing retail store, a mixed -
use residential unit, and the proposed business would require 22 parking spaces
combined, as shown in Appendix B.
Based on the characteristics of the proposed business, its peak parking demand
normally occurs during evening hours when many other retail stores are closed and
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714- 832 -2116 F.949- 266 -5875 Email: k2traffic ®gmail.com
Shared Parking Study
Retail Wine and Cheese Store with Wine Tasting
At 16 N. First Street, Arcadia
July 6, 2011
Page 4 of 4
parking demand diminished. The shared parking study surveyed adjacent parking
areas that offer 66 parking capacity. Peak parking demand occurred at 1:30 PM on
Friday when 43 parking spaces were occupied and 23 parking spaces were available
for the project. The project demands seven (7) parking spaces during this period of
time. Project demands at other time -of -day periods can all be accommodated by the
study parking areas. Therefore, the study concludes that parking demand for the
proposed business should be sufficiently accommodated by the project site and
public parking facilities in the vicinity.
Regards,
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Jende "Kay" Hsu, T.E.
California Licensed TR2285
(Exhibit 1, 2, Appendix A & B)
No. 1.2285
Exp 6/30/12
1.RAFFtC'
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714- 832 -2116 F.949- 266 -5875 Email: k2traffic ®gmail.com
K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 2. Parkin
Arcadia Wine Cave
U
N
O
L
a
Q
0 Existing Tenant
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Date
Day
By
Weather
Thursday
5/19/2011
YW
Sunny
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
Available space during peak usage 27 40
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Date
Day
By
Weather
Friday
5/20/2011
YW
Sunny
Area
B
D
E
Impact Zone**
2
1
Zone 1
(=B+C+D)
Total
(A thru E)
121
CAPACITY
10
55
45
3:OOPM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
4
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
0;00 PM
11:00 PM
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
3.3
28
30
26
'1
19
17
14
9
6
32
27
27
6,6..
37
31
34
29
38
35
39
28
13
8
Peak Usage
24
20
16
12
7
43
84
Available space during peak usage
23
37
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Area
Impact Zone'"*
CAPACITY
Date
Day
By
Weather
Saturday
5/21/2011
YW
Cloudy
Zone 1 Total
(- B +C +D) (A thru E)
66 121
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
* Peak usage
" Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
Available space during peak usage 49 66
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Date
Day
By
Weather
Sunday
5/22/2011
YW
Cloudy
Area
A
B
C
0
E
Impact Zone**
2
Zone 1
( =B +C +D)
Total
(A thru E)
121
CAPACITY
10
3:00 PM
3:30 PM
4:00 PM
4:30 PM
2
2
1
1
1
2
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
55
7
7
7
45
66
4
6
7
7
11:00 PM
0
0
1
21, .
8
4
4
10
10
10
9
25
24
32
34
17
13
7
8
9
9
6
Peak Usage
14
Available space during peak usage
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
52
19
43
78
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Date
Day
By
Weather
Monday
5/23/2011
YW
Sunny
Area A B C D E Zone 1 Total
Impact Zone'** 2 1 1 1 2 ( =B +C +D) (A thru E)
CAPACITY 10 8
3 55 45 66 121
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
+1;7
1
11:00 PM 0 0 1 7 13 8 21
Peak Usage 23 55
Available space during peak usage 43 66
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Area
A B
Date
Day
By
Weather
D
E
Impact Zone** 2
CAPACITY.
2
Zone 1
(_B +C +D)
Tuesday,
5/24/2011
YW
Sunny
10
55
45
66.
Total
(A thru E)
1.21
3:00 PM
1
3
1
17
21
3:30 PM
0 2
1
15
33
18
4:00 PM
1 2
13
35
16
4:30 PM
2
1
16
33
19
6:30pM 2 0
2 2
7:00 PM.
1
17
25
20
7:30 PM 0 1
8:00 PM
1
19
27
21
2
1
16
25
19
8:30 PM
1
1
1
13
28
15
0.
:00P
101 0 PM
5
15
4 14
11:00 PM
0
0
1
4
12
5
Peak Usage
23
60
Available space during peak usage
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
43
61
APPENDIX A. PARKING SURVEY
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Cave Parking Study
16 N. First Street, Arcadia
Area
Impact Zone**
CAPACITY
i
A
2
10
B
1
8
C I D
1
PM
3:30 PM
4 :00 PM
4 :30 PM
7:00 PM
7:30 PM
8:00 PM
8:30 PM
3
2
2
4
2
0
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
55
19
16
18
17
18
14,
16;
E
2
45
Date Wednesday
Day 5/25/2011
By YW
Weather Sunny
Zone 1
(= B +C +D)
66
Total
(A thru E)
121
32
31
30
30
3
2
1
0
1
1
1
14
15;
17
16
16
16
11::.
-31
28
23
25
25
1;0:0 PM
1010 PM.
11:00 PM
1
0
1
0.
5
1.7 .
19
19
19
20
1
21,:
1.7
19
19
20
17
12
12
Peak Usage
Available space during peak usage
* Peak usage
** Impact Zone 1: Immediate Impact Areas
Impact Zone 2: Extended Impact Areas
6
22
44
Appendix B. Tenant Information & Parking per Code
P6084 - Arcadia Wine Tasting Parking
7/5/2011
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
Address
Name
Land Use
Sq. Ft
Parking Code
Parking
Reduction
Parking
Req't
The Frame House
Retail
2,200
5 space per 1000 sf
25%
8
12 N. First Street
16 1/2 N. First Street
Apartment (1 -unit)
Mixed -Use
Residential
1,000
1.5 spaces per unit
N/A
1
16 N. First Street
Proposed Retail Wine and Cheese
Shop with Wine Tasting
Retail /Bar
1,700
10 spacesper 1000 sf ,
25%
13
Total
4,900
22
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach
a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15'.or 7 1/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
CUP 11 -11, a wine tasting bar with 1,700 square feet of floor area.
16 N. First Avenue
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name
Matt Jeng
(2) Address
713 W. Duarte Road #G303,
Arcadia, CA 91007
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment
because:
a. p
The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b.
The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. ❑
The project is an Emergency Project.
d.
The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e.
The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class:
15303 - a restaurant or similar structure not exceeding
2,500 square feet in floor area.
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g• ❑
The project is otherwise exempt
on the following basis:
h.
The project involves another pubic agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: June 14, 2011
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2010
Staff: Tom Li, Associate Planner
FORM "A"
STAFF REPORT
September 13, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Development Services Department
Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner
Consideration and Recommendation to the City Council of General Plan
Amendment No. GPA 11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01 at 650 W.
Huntington Drive.
SUMMARY
The applicant, Mr. Hank Jong, on behalf of the property owner, Jeff Lee, requests to
change the land use designation from Commercial to High- Density Residential and re-
zone the property from Commercial -Office to High Density Multiple - Family Residential.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
SITE AREA:
FRONTAGE:
Mr. Hank Jong, representative of the behalf of the property owner, Mr.
Jeff Lee
650 W. Huntington Drive
A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from
Commercial to High Density Residential and to re -zone the property
Commercial -Office (C -O) to High Density Multi- family Residential (R-
3).
1.7 acres (74,052 square -feet)
134' -9" feet along Huntington Drive
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The lot is currently developed with an existing 17,920 square -foot, two -
story professional office building that was built in 1989. The property is
zoned C -O D (Commercial Office with an Architectural Design
Overlay).
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
N o rt h : Westfield Santa Anita Shopping Mall — zoned C -2
South: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3
East: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3
West: Realty office, restaurant, and retail — zoned C -2
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial (0.5 FAR) -- The Commercial designation is intended to permit a
wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide
markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises,
including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional
offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and
entertainment uses.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices for GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01 were mailed on September 2, 2011
to the owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the
subject property — see the attached radius map. Pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in a
local newspaper on August 22, 2011.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The office building was built in 1989 with 140 parking spaces and was originally
occupied by an automobile insurance claims facility. The three bays that were used for
vehicle inspection are currently used for storage. The building currently has 24 office
suites.
In 2006, a 76 -unit senior housing project was approved through a Conditional Use
Permit, but due to recession the applicant abandoned the project. In April 2011, the
applicant received approval to expand the existing office building with a parking
modification and to subdivide the space into medical and office condominiums.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from Commercial to High Density Residential (30 du /acre) and re -zone the
property from Commercial Office (C -O) to High Density Multiple - Family Residential (R-
3). It has always been the property owners desire to redevelop the property with
residential units since the existing zone limits the uses to professional office and office
uses. With adequate access to all the local supporting services, the applicant has
asserted that he feels that residential would be an appropriate use for this site given the
lot size, location, and surrounding uses.
The key issues in analyzing the proposed General Plan amendment are: 1) consistency
with the 2010 Arcadia General Plan; and 2) land use compatibility.
GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01
650 W. Huntington Dr.
September 13, 2011 — page 2
Consistency with the 2010 Arcadia General Plan
The Arcadia General Plan has established goals and policies that establish the basic
framework for planning in Arcadia and together provide the "vision" for the City,
particularly related to its future growth and development.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Housing and the Land
Use and Community Design Element goals and policies to provide a diverse mix of
housing, encourage housing on underutilized land, and to provide sufficient land to
accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community. General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Policy LU 1.2
states the City should promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social,
and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that made Arcadia a
desirable place to live. These goals and policies also support residential uses in infill
locations. Below are the applicable policies from the General Plan.
Housing Element
Policy H -2.1:
Policy H -2.3:
Provide for a range of residential densities and products, including
low- density single - family uses, moderate - density townhomes,
higher density apartments/ condominiums, and units in mixed -use
developments.
Encourage compatible residential development in areas with
recyclable or underutilized land.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU -1.1:
Policy LU -1.2:
Policy LU -1.4:
Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent
with the City's land use and compatible with surrounding existing
uses.
Promote new uses of land that provide diverse economic, social,
and cultural opportunities, and that reinforce the characteristics that
make Arcadia a desirable place to live.
Encourage the gradual redevelopment of incompatible, ineffective,
and /or undesirable land uses.
The proposed General Plan Amendment, if approved, would change the allowed future
land use to residential, but would not affect the current use of the property by the
existing or future businesses utilizing the present building on the site. Such businesses
may continue on the site until such future time when the property owner decides to
terminate the current uses of the property.
GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01
650 W. Huntington Dr.
September 13, 2011 — page 3
Land Use Compatibility
If the high density multiple - family residential (12 -30 du /acre) designation is approved the
site could yield up to approximately 51 residential units based on the site's net acreage.
A key issue with the proposed amendment is that high density multiple - family residential
is already in place on the adjacent properties to the east and south, and along
Huntington Drive. As a result, the proposed change would provide a natural extension
of the existing residential uses in the area, and it would be more compatible with the
existing surrounding neighborhood as compared to the existing office use on the site.
According to the City Engineer and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data, the
maximum residential density at 30 dwellings per acre will create Tess traffic impacts than
the a commercial office use and fewer units could be proposed when compared to the
previous senior housing project and medical /office condominiums that were approved
under previous Conditional Use Permits. Although the General Plan allows up to 30
units per acre, physical conditions and zoning requirements for on -site improvement will
limit the ability to achieve the maximum density on this property. Below is a breakdown
analysis that shows the vehicle trips per hour during late afternoon to evening hours
(generally between 4 -6 p.m.).
Uses
Vehicle Trips in the PM Peak
Hour
Office (0.5 FAR)
56
Multi - Family Residential
Minimum 33 Units
Maximum 51 Units
34
52
Office /Medical Office
(Approved CUP 10 -19 and
Tract Map No. 71478)
69
By rezoning the property to high density multiple - family residential it will be consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Policy LU 1 -6, which is to establish consistency
between the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. The positive impact of this
recommendation will allow buildings to be within the scale and character with the
existing high residential multiple - family residential developments and the recommended
amendments completes the land use patterns and trends in the immediate area for
multi - family residential uses, and furthers the intent, purposes and objectives of the
Housing and Land Use Plan. Moreover, zoning consistency will be achieved for the
subject property, thereby, satisfying the state mandated requirements that local
jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region's projected housing needs (Regional
Housing Needs Allocation).
GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01
650 W. Huntington Dr.
September 13, 2011 — page 4
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial
Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic
significance. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration was prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of General Plan
Amendment No. GPA 11 -02, Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01 and adoption of the Negative
Declaration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Regardless of staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission should direct staff to
convey the Commission's recommendations and comments on General Plan
Amendment No. 11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01 and the Negative Declaration to
the City Council for their consideration at a public hearing.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the September 13, 2011 public Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin at (626) 574 -5444 hearing, g' by email at
nbaldwin@ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Jim Kasa
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo and Zoning
General Plan Land Use Map
Initial Study - Negative Declaration
Photos of Site and Neighborhood
Radius Map
Site Plan
GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01
650 W. Huntington Dr.
September 13, 2011 — page 5
3 a &
Hull§Mo/ OFD
{ Humb /on Dr2
�.�:...,..�
%lr.8ula /o6 Di
Ton Or2<
eeG >
Subject
Property
, Geofy .
G q% %c Ituwey, I /a% £2 g
A(
Project Site
650 W. Huntington Dr.
Zones
Residential Mountainous Single Family (R M)
First One.Family (R.0)
Minimum Lot Size
139,003 ST 1 115,453 SFt
1229'3 SF! 112.5D0SF)
Vhf
Second One Family (R 1)
Atinim um Lot Size
11SA33 SF}
}12,55,7 SI I
RIM
(
(
113,DJ35F
I.03SF/
Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (R 2)
got High Density Multiple.Family Residential (R 3)
Restricted Multiple Family Residential (R 3 -R)
Commercial Office (GO)
Limited Commercial (C.1)
General Commercial (C -2)
an Central Business District (CBD)
Nig Commercial Planned Development (CPD 1)
® Special Uses (S -1)
� Mixed Use (MU)
/f%44 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU)
Commercial Manufacturing (C -M)
ming Planned Industrial District (M.•1)
Public Purpose (S•2)
Open Space (OS)
soi Rail Right•ofWay (R.R)
Overlay Zones
H•.• 1
0
I P
Special Height Overlay (H)
The number adecentto the "H indicates
the maximum nu mbe r of stories al lowed.
Architectural Design Overlay (D)
Automobile Parking Overlay (P)
r ///'4 Downtown Overlay
Base Map Features
Arcadia City Boundary
[ 53iE I Assessor Map Book Grid
The G rid identifies detailed zomrn map sheets
a t T Park/School /Golf Course
Other public facilities are identified on the rr ap with a label.
Abbreviations are as follow: ElemeMnry Sc hoof IESI.
Middla School (MS.I, High Shool [H.S 1, and
F ire Stat ion (LS. - followed by the station number/.
650 W. Huntington Dr.
GPA 11 -02 and ZC 11 -01
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
General Plan Amendment No. GP 11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive — Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Name: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
Phone: (626) 574 -5447 / Fax — (626) 447-9173
Email: tli@cLarcadia.ca.us
4. Project Location:
650 W. Huntington Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc.
11819 Goldring Road, Unit A,
Arcadia, CA 91006
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C -O
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if
necessary.)
A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use and zoning
designation from Commercial to High Density Residential (12 -30 du /ac), and from C -O to
R -3, respectively.
CEQA Checklist
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
N o r t h : Westfield Santa Anita Shopping Mall — zoned C -2
South: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3
E a s t: Multiple - Family Residences — zoned R -3
We s t : Realty office, restaurant, and retail — zoned C -2
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology / Water Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" 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.
CEQA Checklist
-2-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
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 proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Thomas Li, Associate Planner
Printed Name & Title
Date
For:
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a
fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
CEQA Checklist -3-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold; if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
CEQA Checklist -4-
1. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
❑
El ❑
The subject site is bordered by a regional shopping center to the north, realty office to the west, and multiple- family
residences to the east and south. There are no adjacent properties where a potential scenic vista would be obstructed.
Furthermore, the project will be consistent with the existing developments to the east and south. Therefore, there will be
no impacts to any scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the
Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or
scenic roadway corridors.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is to change the land use designation and zoning from commercial to allow a multiple- family development.
Future development will be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes
complement the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is to change the land use designation and zoning from commercial to allow a multiple- family development.
Any future development must comply with all applicable light and glare restrictions as set forth by the Arcadia Municipal
Code and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
2. 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 Dept. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency to non - agricultural use?
CEQA Checklist
-5-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use.
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have the above impacts.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non - forest use?
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 or conversion of forest land to non - forest
use?
There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non - agricultural use.
3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria ❑ ❑ ❑
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality plan?
The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan.
In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in
the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in
the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation
Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions
Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recycling.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality
measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia,
local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The project will change the land use
designation and zoning of the subject property to allow for a multiple - family development, and would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
-6-
❑ ❑ ❑
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
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)?
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,5), Respirable
Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The
project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as changing the land use
designation and zoning from commercial to allow multiple- family uses would not increase pollutants.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ El
concentrations?
The uses on the subject property is not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance
Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will
not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The subject property do not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality
Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ El
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?
In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and
infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been
preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The subject property is located within a
fully - developed area that is not within close proximity to these biological resources, and is known to not contain any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, the project would change the land use
and zoning designation from commercial to allow a multiple- family development, replacing an existing office building.
Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject
property is located within a fully - developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the
project will not have the above impacts.
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?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
CEQA Checklist
-7-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject property is located within a fully -
developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above
impacts.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites?
There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The project will allow the
development of a multiple - family project on the subject site, replacing the existing commercial building at a fully- developed
site. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. The project will not conflict with that ordinance as
it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat
conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
There are no known historical resources on or adjacent to the site. If previously unknown cultural resources are
discovered during construction on the subject property, all work in the area would cease, and a qualified historian,
archaeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make
recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The subject property is within a fully - developed area and is not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should
any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a
qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make
recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
The subject property is within a fully - developed area and is not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological
resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area
would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the
significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
-8-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑
formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
0 El
There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that
development be halted should any remain be encountered; the County Coroner shall be contacted whose responsibility is
to make the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project would not result in unacceptable impacts to
human remains.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
►�1
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick
alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking
associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different
degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building
design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm.
The subject property is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor
are they located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject property is located in a fully - developed area,
the project will not have a significant impact or expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects
involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to any construction, soil studies are
required to evaluate the potential impacts of the construction upon the soil.
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?
The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The proposed structures
will be constructed on a pad where there are existing structures. Furthermore, these structures will be built to current
building and safety standards.
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ El
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
CEQA Checklist -9-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
property?
The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in Table 18-
1 -B of the Uniform Building Code. The project will not have the above impact.
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?
The subject site is in a fully - developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable to this project.
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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for a
multiple - family development. This residential project would not generate more greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, than a commercial building that this property is zoned for and /or is allowed to build.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for a
multiple - family development. The subject site is within close proximity of services (community center, library, hospital,
county park, fire station, bus stops), thus reducing the number of vehicles miles traveled. This type of development is
consistent with the applicable plan, policy or regulation for the region.
8. 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?
The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above
impact.
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?
The project does not involve hazardous materials and will not create a significant hazard to the public or release
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?
The project does not involve hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
CEQA Checklist
-10-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
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?
The subject property is not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment.
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?
The nearest airport to the subject site is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles away. The
proposal would not contribute to any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working at the subject property.
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?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑ El
There are no known private airstrips in the area. Since the uses on the subject property will not be changed, the project
will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The proposed plans are subject to review by the emergency response units, and will not interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
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?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
The subject property is not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard and will not have the above impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑
that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate
stormwater sewer system permit?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ El
water that would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit?
CEQA Checklist
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from
delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are
stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is
handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other
outdoor work areas; or other sources?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are
impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing;
shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland,
marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non - contact
recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply;
and groundwater recharge.
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project will not discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or
areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired.
e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the
biological integrity of waterways or water bodies?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure that stormwater
discharge causes no significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies.
f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
The proposal is subject to all NPDES requirements and will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
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)?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would replace an existing commercial building. The proposal will not deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no substantial increase in the intensity of the
uses on the subject property with a commercial land use designation.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
g)
❑ ❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
-12-
h) 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not
to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
i) 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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not
to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site?
❑ ❑ ❑
The subject property is located in a fully - developed area and will not increase erosion.
k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ El
in a manner that results in environmental harm?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not
to cause significant alteration of the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm.
m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
n) 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?
A series of flood control channels within the city convey storm water to regional facilities to the south. Due to this system,
there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. The City of Arcadia was located within
flood Zone X as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map Community Number 065014.
Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood and protected by levee from 100 -year flood. Under this
zone, no floodplain management regulations have been required. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact.
o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ El
CEQA Checklist
-13-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
impede or redirect flood flows?
As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, the
project will not have the above impact.
p)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the proposal will not expose people to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.
q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
The City of Arcadia is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be
inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject property is on a relatively flat alluvial plain that is highly porous and is
unlikely to generate mudflow.
El
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The subject site is within a fully - developed area and a multiple- family development would be
consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and would not be physically dividing an
establish community.
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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. This type of development will be consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south of the
subject site. It will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject property. Therefore, the
project could not conflict with such plans.
❑ ❑ ❑
11. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ El
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
CEQA Checklist
-14-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
There are no known mineral resources on the subject property that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
The subject property is not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal
would not have the above impact.
12. 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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. not increase noise levels as the uses are to remain the same. The development of the site could
create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, and does not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction
phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current
limitation on construction hours is from 7 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place
on Sunday.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. Any future development would replace an existing commercial building. Therefore, there is no
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Furthermore, any future development would be subject to the City's noise regulations.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development and will not increase noise levels beyond those permitted by code requirements. Therefore, there is
no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of
the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation
on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7 :00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on
Sunday.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ El
CEQA Checklist -15-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
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?
The project is located approximately three miles from the El Monte Airport. Therefore, the proposal would not have the
above impact.
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?
There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, there will not be any impact on the noise
levels for people residing or working in the project area.
13. 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)?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. It would facilitate new housing units. However, it is within a fully developed area, and the use is
consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south. The increase in housing units is limited to the units on the
subject site and will not induce substantial population growth.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
❑ ❑ ❑ El
14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
a) 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:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® El
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
CEQA Checklist -16-
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, replacing the existing commercial building and will not significantly impact the above public services.
Each of these City departments has reviewed the subject proposal and has concluded that it will not result in substantial
adverse impacts.
15. RECREATION — Would the project:
a) 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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The additional housing units will potentially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities. However, the existing facilities are far below capacity, and the proposed project will
not have significant adverse impacts on these facilities to cause substantial physical deterioration.
❑ Z ❑
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, and will potentially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities. However, the existing facilities are far below capacity and the proposed project will not have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
❑ ❑ ❑ El
16. 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?
Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (I -210), regional arterial roadways,
collectors and local streets. The subject property is on a Major Arterial with 4 lanes in each direction. Based on the
Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a given street and the amount of traffic each street actually carries is expressed
in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from level A (Free Flowing) to F (`Jammed'). Arcadia Engineering Services
have reviewed the subject proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an
acceptable level after the completion of the project.
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
CEQA Checklist
-17-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management
Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases
traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C z 0.02), causing LOS F (V /C > 1.00). If the facility is already at
LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity
(V /C z 0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. The City Engineer has reviewed the subject
proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the
completion of the project.
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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project does not change any air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project does not include new design features or incompatible uses.
❑ ❑ ❑ El
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and found that this project will not obstruct or reduce
access to emergency services.
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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project does not significantly intensify the use of the site, and will be consistent with the adjacent
uses to the east and south of the subject property. Therefore, the proposal will not conflict with alternative transportation
opportunities.
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
CEQA Checklist
-18-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia.
This board has established the Basin Plan which (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets
narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and
conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and NO describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the
region.
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements, and it is also subject to the
requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan.
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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the
proposal will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ EI
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility,
while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). The City
municipal storm drain facilities will be maintained and improved in conformance with the City of Arcadia Drainage System
Technical Memorandum.
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the
proposal will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ El
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
CEQA Checklist
-19-
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, the subject proposal does not qualify as a
"project ". A "project" means any of the following:
1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
500,000 square feet of floor space.
3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square
feet of floor space.
4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000
persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a
500 dwelling unit project.
If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential,
business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more
in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an
amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would
represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The
project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development on the subject property, and does not qualify as a "project" under the applicable Codes.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The wastewater flow originating from the subject site will discharge to a local sewer line. The
proposal was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not
increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth
in the Basin Plan. The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has also reviewed the subject proposal, and they
expect an increase in average wastewater flow from the subject site based on the Districts' average wastewater generation
factors. Therefore, they are collecting a connection fee to mitigate the impact of this project on the current sewage system
for the incremental increase in wastewater processing.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. It will not increase the need for landfill capacity.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. It will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. This
project is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan.
CEQA Checklist
-20-
18. 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?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development, and does not degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species since it is located in a fully - developed area.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of Tong -term
environmental goals?
File Nos.: GP 11 -02 & ZC 11 -01
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑ El
The project is consistent with the use of the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and would not
achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
The project is consistent with the use of the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and will not have
negative impacts on the environment; neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully -
developed area.
❑ ❑ ❑ El
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ El
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple -
family development. The use is consistent with the adjacent use to the east and south of the subject site and will not have
environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. It is located in a fully- developed area
and no physical changes are proposed by the project.
CEQA Checklist
-21-
City of Arcadia
Environmental Checklist Form
Information Sources for Evaluation of Potential Impacts
1. City of Arcadia General Plan
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan
3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code
4. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA." 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California
Seismic Hazards Zone Map — Mt. Wilson Quadrangle — Preliminary Map —
Released: March 25, 1999.
5. South Coast Air Quality Management District:
www.agmd. gov / prdas /agquide /doc /chapter02.pdf
6. www.water.ca.gov /pubs /use /sb 610 sb 221 guidebook/guidebook.pdf
7. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan
8. Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
List: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov /public
9. www.calepa.ca. gov /SiteCleanup /CorteseList/defau It.htm
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name or description of project:
General Plan Amendment No. GP 11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01
2. Project Location — Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably
a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
650 W. Huntington Drive
3. Entity or Person undertaking project:
A.
B. Other (Private) 1 Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc.
(1) Name: . 11819 Goldrng Road, Unit A
(2) Address: 1 Arcadia, CA 91006
The Lead Agency, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments
received prior to the public meeting of the Lead Agency, including the recommendation of the Lead Agency's Staff, does
hereby fmd and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement
of the reasons supporting the Lead Agency's findings are as follows:
The Lead Agency hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial
Study may be obtained at:
City of Arcadia, Planning Services, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007
Phone No.: 1 626 -574 -5423
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the Lead Agency based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows:
City of Arcadia, Planning Services, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007
Phone No.: 1 626 -574 -5423
Date Received
for Filing:
Gr'
Thomas Li, Associate Planner
Staff
Negative Declaration\2011
FORM "E"
State of California -The Natural Resources Aciencv
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 9th Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.dfg.ca.gov
EDMUND G. BROWN. JR, Govemor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form
Applicant Name: Hank Jong
Date Submitted: September 7, 2011
Applicant Address: EGL Associate, Inc., 11819 Goidring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA
91006
Project Name: General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC
11 -01
CEQA Lead Agency: City of Arcadia
CEQA Document Type: (ND, MND, EIR) Negative Declaration
SCH Number and /or local agency ID number: General Plan Amendment No. GPA
11 -02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11 -01
Project Location: 650 West Huntington Drive
Brief Project Description: A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change
the land use and zoning designation from Commercial to High Density Residential (12-
30 du /ac), and from C -O to R -S, respectively.
Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish
and Game has determined that for purposes of the :assessment of CEQA filing fees
[F &G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and
the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This
determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and
does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant
to CEQA.
Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy
of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time
of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a
copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the
appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable.
Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will
not be operative, vested, or final and any local permits issued for the project will be
invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3).
DFG Approval By: % tale,. Aitohli- Date: . '1 -8 Zoli
Title: nvi;- r,-m. j . SU eh -11Si-
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OFFISH AND GAME
SOUTH COAST REGION
3883 RUFFIN ROAD Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
WATER
RECLAMATION
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COUNTY SANITATION C1STR1CT9
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 -1400
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607 -4998
Telephone: (562) 699 -7411, FAX: (562) 699 -5422
www.lacsd.org
Mr. Nick Baldwin
Planning Services
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021
Dear Mr. Baldwin:
STEPHEN R. MAGUIN
Chief Engineer and General Manager
August 17, 2011
File No: 15- 00.00 -00
.Cr [ \[ rl
AUG 1C 2011
Planning Services
City of Arcadia
Proposed General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11 -02� n M eh
This is in reply to your notice, which was received by the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County (Districts) on July 25, 2011. The proposed development is located within the
jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 15. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line,
which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Santa Anita Outfall
Trunk Sewer, located in Campus Drive east of Holly Avenue. This 21 -inch diameter trunk sewer
has a design capacity of 2.9 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.7 mgd
when last measured in 2009.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant (WRP) located adjacent to the City of Industry, which has a design capacity of
100 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 75.3 mgd, or the Whittier Narrows WRP
located near the City of South El Monte, which has a design capacity of 15 mgd and currently
processes an average flow of 7.6 mgd.
3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site is 13,260 gallons per day.
For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org,
Information Center, Wastewater Services, Obtain Will Serve Letter, and click on the appropriate
link on page 2.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the
privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the
existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation
already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the
Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project, which will mitigate the impact of this
project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a
permit to connect to the sewer is issued. A copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet is
Doc #: 2007560.1
Recycled Paper €c<<
Mr. Nick Baldwin
-2- August 17, 2011
enclosed for your convenience. For more specific information regarding the connection fee
application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727.
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the
design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth
forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific
policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into
clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air
Basins as mandated by the CAA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service
phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The
available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels
associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute
a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this
service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing
capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908 -4288, extension 2717.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Maguin
Adriana Raza
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
AR:ar
c: M. Tremblay
A. Howard
Doc #: 2007560.1
PROJECT ADDRESS:
650 HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA
PHOTO 1: PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING SOUTH FROM HUNTINGTON
DRIVE
PHOTO 2:EXISTING A 2 -STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED WEST OF THE
PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING SOUTHWEST FROM HUNTINGTON DR.)
PHOTO 3: EXISTING A FIRE STATION LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE PROJECT
SITE. (VIEWING NORTHWEST FROM
HUNTINGTON DR.)
PHOTO 4:EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH ITS ASSOCIATED PARKING
LOT LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING NORTH FROM
HUNTINGTON DR.)
PHOTO 5: EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH ITS ASSOCIATED PARKING
LOT LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING NORTHEAST
FROM HUNTINGTON DR.)
PHOTO 6: EXISTING A 2 -STORY APARTMENT LOCATED EAST OF THE PROJECT
SITE. (VIEWING SOUTHEAST FROM HUNTINGTON DR.)
', ,re SUE MORENO
(626) 350 -5944
OWNERSHIP / OCCUPANTS UST
RADIUS MAPS . LAND USE . PLANS
MUNICIPALCOMPLWdCE CONSULTING
2106 LAMBERTAVE.& MONTE, CA 01732 fAX(626)350.1
PROJECT INFORMATION
650 W. HUNTINGTON DR.
ARCADIA
11 -142
SCALE 1" = 200'
100 M
188.37
3
288.38
Sis
C\`%. 4271.85
38.93
.a:.IOMO+ywn or tr Pali
PM
71.73 Rs11 31 0152899.
R =3929.75
30.88
MO WI MI
MS i16 ■m MX ..I
C-TRACT
A
n4++
P M 90 . 65 . 88
s�or
®
NO
MEETS 324
1
416110
M B 842
a
SHEET 2
1
83
45
LfItofe
31
AVE. ,
IRVIEW
XNN.YY.
4244116
M/,
SHEET 2
8
SHE
A:
„Z L 91s.9
' a.
7777°,
1 1! q:
aaaa _ -
''” J !!!
;
5,
010NILN(1H a
1 EGL Associates, Inc.
.1 0- SuD F(e x pnAp n.N,u.m7e t IA F=,
Fp
Te1:(S{11911.B6S9 ' 6!,4)
Cm 156119154.%1
7777
PREPARED FOR
MR. JEFF LEE
650 HUNTINGTON, LLC
650 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE, SUITE 201
ARCADIA, CA 91007
B
! IT
6 1! O
!
1 1'
6
CO
00 z
HI 41 i
O
o
z
dVW JWNI3IA
IltD 1
1.w' pri
qr.1.
it
PROJECT LOCATION:
”0-,OZ = ■I : 31VDS
H180N
79 UNIT SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING
650 W HUNTINGTON DR.
ARCADIA, CA
MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 23,
2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive
with Chairman Baerg presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Baerg led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao, and Baerg
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Chiao to excuse
Commissioner Parrille from the meeting. Without objection the motion was approved.
OTHERS ATTENDING
Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores
Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr
Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kasama directed the Commissioners' attention to a letter of opposition relating to item 2.
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON - PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS — Five - minute time limit
per person
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 11-05
232 Genoa Street — Leo Wu
A Tentative Parcel Map for a two -unit, residential condominium subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
Associate Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
There were none.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Chiao to approve
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -05 subject to the revised conditions presented by staff.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao, and Baerg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parriile
There is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period after the approval /denial of the subdivision.
Appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 2, 2011.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -11
16 North First Avenue — Charles Yi
A Conditional Use Permit with a Parking Modification to permit a wine bar and specialty
retail sales.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
RESOLUTION NO. 1842
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, Approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 11 -11 with a parking modification to allow a wine bar and
specialty retail sales at 16 N. First Avenue.
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Baderian asked for the Redevelopment Board's definition of a wine bar. Ms.
Flores explained that a wine bar would include a bar area, wine tasting room and retail sales
of bottled wine.
Commissioner Beranek asked about the comments provided by Ms. Janelle Williams in a
letter of opposition regarding the State Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. Ms.
Flores said that after a permit is approved, the applicant can apply for their ABC license and
PC MINUTES
8-23-11
Page 2
it can take up to three months for ABC to process the application. But, the applicant has
opted to apply in advance to expedite the process. As a result, the status of the application
is listed as "pending ". She also mentioned that the applicant wished to respond to the fetter
himself.
Commissioner Beranek asked what the connection was between Ms. Williams, the writer of
the letter of opposition, and the applicant. Ms. Flores said that according to the applicant,
Ms. Williams is a friend of Mr. Starkey, the owner of the Wine Cave, another wine bar in
Montrose.
The public hearing was opened.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project.
Mr. Clint Melchor, a wine broker, said he has been acquainted with the applicant, Mr. Yi, for
a couple of years. He said he felt the wine bar would be a perfect fit for the redevelopment
area and explained that the objective would be to expose local residents to boutique wines
from small family wineries in Napa/Somona. In response to a question from Chairman
Baerg, Mr. Melchor explained that he is not a co-owner of the business.
Commissioner Baderian asked if the applicant would respond to the allegations in Ms.
Williams' letter. Mr. Charles Yi, the applicant, offered to answer any questions arising from
Ms. Williams letter.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi if, as stated in Ms. Williams' letter, he has no
experience as a retailer. Mr. Yi said that is true. Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to
describe his association with the Wine Cave. Mr. Yi said that the owners of the Wine Cave
had asked him to work as a consultant and to be part of future expansion. However, after a
review of his options, Mr. Yi decided that he would prefer to invest in a business by himself.
Mr. Yi also stated that he was never part owner of the Wine Cave in Montrose.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to comment on Ms. Williams' allegations regarding his
application for an ABC license. Mr.Yi explained that he applied for the license which can
take up to three to four months to process, but if his Conditional Use Permit application is
denied, then he will withdraw his application for an ABC license. He added that he fully
intends to obtain all necessary licenses.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi about Ms. Williams' allegations that he was trying to
avoid providing his fingerprints for the required FBI criminal background check. Mr. Yi said
that he had been fingerprinted for the background check and displayed a copy of the live
scan submitted to the FBI dated July 25, 2011.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Yi to reaffirm that all information presented in his
application is proper and truthful. Mr. Yi replied, "Of course ". Mr. Yi said that he originally
considered using Wine Cave II as the name for the wine bar, but later changed his mind.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr.Yi if he was planning any exporting or wholesaling of
wine at this location and Mr. Yi said no.
Commissioner Baderian asked if a taste of wine would not exceed two ounces and Mr. Yi
said that if the City doesn't allow more than two ounces, he will comply.
PC MINUTES
8-23-11
Page 3
Commissioner Baderian asked if there would be separate areas for tasting and for
purchasing a glass of wine. Mr. Yi said both tasting and purchasing wine by the glass would
take place at bar side and at a few tables.
Commissioner Baderian asked about sales of food and Mr. Yi said no food will be sold but
crackers and cheese will be offered.
Commissioner Chiao asked Mr. Yi how he would be able to determine the busiest business
hours since he has no past experience in retailing. Mr. Yi said he expects the busiest hours
to be from 6:00 to 11 :00 p.m.
Commissioner Chiao asked about parking during peak business hours and Mr. Yi explained
that parking is available across the street from the site.
Mr. Matt Jeng, a consultant and restaurant designer, said he is helping Mr. Yi to submit his
CUP application and to start his business. He explained that Mr. Yi was not sure what type
of ABC license was required so he decided to wait for CUP approval before applying for an
ABC license. In regards to the parking situation, Mr. Jeng noted that there are usually only
a few cars in the lot and that a parking study showed plenty of space. Mr. Jeng said that he
doesn't know why Ms. Williams wrote the opposition letter but he pointed out that she is not
at the meeting to answer questions but he and the applicant, Mr. Yi, are present.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Yi is he read the staff report and was aware of the
conditions of approval. Mr. Yi said that he reviewed the staff report and will comply with all
the conditions of approval including the last two additional conditions.
Chairman Baerg asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to close the
Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
Commissioner Beranek said that he had some reservations about this project and was
concerned that Mr. Yi may have overstated his position at times.
Commissioner Baderian also voiced reservations based on the information presented by the
applicant at tonight's meeting. He said he was concerned that this might not be the right
type of business for the redevelopment area.
Commissioner Chiao said that he was not concemed about the credibility of the applicant,
but about the lack of parking, and had some questions about the parking study. Ms. Flores
said that the public parking lot nearby should provide sufficient parking. She pointed out that
the parking study indicates that the peak demand for all the surrounding areas is currently
from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. while this use will experience peak parking from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.,
with only 38% of the spaces used. She explained that even though the wine bar will only
PC MINUTES
8-23-11
Page 4
have seven parking spaces, with one serving as a handicapped space, the use of shared
parking provided in the city parking lot will more than make up for any deficiency.
Mr. Wray pointed out that the use of shared parking is typical in the city and that the city Tots
are intended to provide supplemental parking for businesses. Furthermore, he said, most of
the activity in the area is currently during the day time, so the night parking use for the wine
bar would complement the parking plan already in place.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to deny
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -11 subject to the revised conditions presented by staff.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek,
NOES: Commissioners Chiao & Baerg
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
Chairman Baerg asked if a continuance is possible, if the applicant is agreeable. Mr. Yi said
a continuance would be acceptable.
MOTION:
In the absence of a majority vote, Commissioner Beranek moved to continue this item to the
September 13 meeting when all Commissioners are expected to be present. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Baderian.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao and Baerg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
CONSENT ITEM
3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to approve the
minutes of August 9, 2011, as submitted.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao, and Baerg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille
PC MINUTES
8-23-11
Page 5
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
Mayor Pro Tem Harbicht reported that contracts have been approved with all employee
bargaining units and he briefly described the major updates to the contracts. He also
announced that Santa Anita Race Track will be hosting the Breeder's Cup again, which will
provide significant revenue to the City.
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
Chairman Baerg reported that the Modification Committee approved an application to remove a
healthy oak tree, trim another oak tree and encroach on a third oak tree to accommodate a new
retaining wall.
MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kasama reported that the next agenda will include the Conditional Use Permit for the wine
bar that was continued at this meeting as well as a General Plan Amendment for 650 W.
Huntington Drive changing the use from residential to commercial, and a Conditional Use Permit
application for the Presbyterian Church on S. First Avenue to amend the use of some of their
facilities.
ADJOURNED
ATTEST:
7.55 D.m.
Chairman, Planning Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission
PC MINUTES
8 -23-11
Page 6