HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: September 25, 2012
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP 12 -08 WITH A
PARKING MODIFICATION FOR A NEW SEAFOOD RESTAURANT IN
AN EXISTING 15,000 SQUARE -FOOT COMMERCIAL UNIT AT 1271 S.
BALDWIN AVENUE.
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
SUMMARY
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 12 -08 is for a new seafood restaurant in an
existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit at 1271 S. Baldwin Avenue that is part of
an existing commercial center often referred to as, The Arcadia Hub — see the attached
aerial photo and site plan. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve
this application, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report.
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Mr. Twen Ma, Architect
LOCATION: 1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification for a new seafood
restaurant in an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit.
SITE AREA: 772,134 square feet (17.73 acres)
FRONTAGE: The subject unit has approximately 52 feet of frontage on Baldwin
Avenue and the same amount of frontage facing the parking lot.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The 15,000 square -foot, two -level subject unit (formerly Waltrip's Music) is
located in a shopping center that is commonly referred to as The Arcadia Hub
that was originally constructed in 1957. Major tenants include the Burlington
Coat Factory/Baby Depot, L.A. Fitness, Joann Fabrics, and Vons Pavilions. The
center has 1,139 parking spaces. The westerly portion of the center is zoned
C -2, General Commercial, and the portion located along Baldwin Avenue is
zoned C -2 with an H4 Height Overlay.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: General Offices and Commercial Uses, zoned C -2 and C -2 & H4
South: CVS Shopping Center, zoned C -2; & Multi- Family Residences, zoned R -3
East: Commercial Uses, zoned C -2
West: President Square Shopping Center, zoned C -1
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.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing a seafood restaurant in an existing 15,000 square -foot, two -
level commercial unit. The ground -floor has 7,468 square feet, and there is a 7,532
square -foot basement. The proposed restaurant will be full - service with alcoholic
beverage service. The proposed plans include an approximately 350 square -foot bar
area with ten (10) bar stools. There will not be a cocktail lounge area. The kitchen will
be located in the basement along with banquet room space for approximately 64 diners.
There is also a large room in the basement labeled, "Future Space" (see the attached
floor plans) that may be used for dining purposes for approximately 30 more diners.
The main dining area on the ground level will have 11 small banquet rooms and will
accommodate approximately 218 diners. Any other activities, including entertainment,
karaoke, etc. are not included in this application. There will be approximately 25
employees during each shift. The proposed business hours are:
Monday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. & 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Friday through Sunday 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. & 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 2of8
Parking and Traffic
There are 1,139 parking spaces at The Arcadia Hub. Over the years, as many as 30
parking spaces have been lost due to disabled access parking requirements, the
seismic upgrading of the parking structure, and the establishment of a recycling facility
(required by State law) behind the Vons Pavilions supermarket.
A restaurant requires 10 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
The requirement for a 15,000 square -foot restaurant is 150 spaces, which is double the
requirement for this space as a retail use. In regards to the overall parking requirement
for the entire center, the existing 1,139 parking spaces is currently deficient by 651
spaces from a total requirement of 1,790 parking spaces. With the proposed restaurant,
the deficiency increases to 726 parking spaces; 1,139 spaces in lieu of 1,865 required.
Because the site is deficient per Code, and the new restaurant will generate more traffic
than the music store that previously occupied the subject space, a parking and traffic
study was required. Attached is the Executive Summary of the study prepared by K2
Traffic Engineering, Inc. for this proposal. The study includes a traffic generation
analysis and a comparison of the City's parking requirements with the projected parking
demand for the proposed project.
According to the study, this center with the proposed restaurant will not fully utilize the
existing parking supply of 1,139 spaces. During the peak period (6:00 p.m.) when most
of the uses are in full operation, the parking will only be about 50% utilized, with
approximately 570 spaces available. The study includes an adjusted analysis of the
projected parking demand to account for the year -end holiday shopping season and
potential changes in tenancy. This analysis indicates that with the adjustments, the
maximum anticipated usage during the year -end shopping season would be 87% with
approximately 150 spaces remaining available.
The existing parking supply will sufficiently accommodate the parking demand for this
center with the proposed restaurant. K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., however,
recommends that additional signage be installed to promote awareness of, and
directions to the upper level of the parking structure, which is the least utilized parking
area at this center. It is also recommended that to make more of the conveniently -
located parking spaces available for customers that the designated short -term spaces
be strictly enforced, and that employees be required to park in the areas indicated on
Exhibit 10 (Employee Parking Map) of the study — see the attached Executive
Summary. There are two (2) security guards (required by the CUP for L.A. Fitness) that
patrol the area around L.A. Fitness and enforce the 45- minute parking spaces in that
area. According to the property manager, there have not been any problems or
complaints in regards to the parking at the easterly portion of the center.
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 3 of 8
The report by K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. also addressed the projected traffic impacts
that the proposed restaurant could have on the four (4) major intersections in the area,
and found that the proposed restaurant will not impact these intersections:
• Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road,
• Baldwin Avenue and Naomi Avenue,
• Naomi Avenue and Golden West Avenue, and
• Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road.
The City Engineer has reviewed the report and agrees with the findings that the
proposed restaurant will not impact the parking situation at this center or any of the
nearby major intersections.
All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building
safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation
compliance, 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. The proposed changes to the existing commercial
unit will be subject to building permits after having fully detailed plans submitted for plan
check review and approval.
The kitchen facilities and operation must comply with the Best Management Practices
for restaurants prescribed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program of the Clean Water Act. And, if there are certain types of equipment
that discharge or exhaust into the atmosphere, the facility may be subject to rules
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The restaurant is required to be in full compliance with disabled accessibility
requirements, and while the center is in compliance, any additional requirements made
necessary by the restaurant will be satisfied.
The trash enclosure for this unit will be doubled in size to accommodate the additional
waste generated by the restaurant, and will comply with all NPDES requirements. And,
except for new signage, the applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior
facades.
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. A restaurant is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 4 of 8
Designations of the site and will not conflict with the other existing uses at the site,
or in the neighborhood.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized. In the C -2, General Commercial Zones, a
restaurant is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section
9275.1.55.1 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. Based on the proposal, the existing parking availability, and the on-
site circulation, the site is adequate for the proposed restaurant.
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. The proposed restaurant
will not increase the traffic that is expected at this location, which fronts on Baldwin
Avenue. This street and the other streets around this center (Naomi Avenue,
Duarte Road, and Golden West Avenue) are adequate for the type of traffic that is
to be generated by this use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan. The proposed restaurant is a commercial use that is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site.
The proposed restaurant satisfies each prerequisite condition.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study for the proposed
project. The Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant 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.
Also, the State Department of Fish and Game determined that there is no evidence that
the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends — see the attached CEQA Filing Fee No
Effect Determination. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration has been prepared
for this project.
PUBLIC NOTICE /COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for CUP 12 -08 were mailed on August 31, 2012 to the property
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
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 5of8
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in the Arcadia
Weekly on September 3, 2012, including a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration, which was mailed to the L.A. County Recorder's Office for the required 20-
day posting on August 31, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit
Application No. CUP 12 -08 with a parking modification, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Business hours shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily.
2. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit, and
any live music, entertainment, karaoke, etc. shall require a separate Conditional
Use Permit.
3. The approximately 350 square -foot bar area with ten (10) bar stools shall not be
expanded, and there shall not be a lounge area.
4. Any rooftop equipment must be screened properly to the satisfaction of the
Development Services Director, or designee.
5. This approval of CUP 12 -08 includes a parking modification for the center of 1,139
spaces in lieu of 1,865 spaces required.
6. Signs shall be placed on the premises informing and directing people to the upper
level parking area of the parking structure. The locations, design, and copy of the
signs shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer or designee, and shall be
installed prior to the opening of the restaurant.
7. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) required of restaurants shall be complied
with to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director, or designee. Any
changes to the facility may be subject to permits and having fully detailed plans
submitted for plan check review and approval by all City, County, regional, State,
and federal agencies having jurisdiction for compliance with any and all applicable
regulations.
8. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental
regulation compliance, 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. Any changes to
the facility may be subject to permits and having fully detailed plans submitted for
plan check review and approval.
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 6 of 8
9. The use approved by CUP 12 -08 is limited to a restaurant, which shall be operated
and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans
submitted and approved for CUP 12 -08, 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 streets,
rights -of -way, and /or the neighboring businesses or properties.
10. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 12 -08
shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which
could result in the closing of the restaurant.
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 and 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 and 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 12 -08 shall not be of effect unless the property owner(s),
applicant(s), and /or 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 proposal, the Commission should move
to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08; state the supporting findings and
environmental determination; and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next
meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings,
and the conditions of approval.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move
to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 12 -08; 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 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 7 of 8
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the September 25, 2012 public hearing, please contact
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445, or by email to Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved:
Ji , yasama
mmunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information
Site Plan and Proposed Floor Plans
Executive Summary of the Focused Traffic Impact Study
Initial Study
CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination
Negative Declaration
300 -foot Radius Map
CUP 12 -08
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
September 25, 2012
Page 8 of 8
P�:'lali;l'st ;
=i a i`t:3i
t;';�1i rie'y to (� tt
YI XIANG SPRING BAMBOO SEAFOOD HOUSE
1271 S. BALDWIN AVE. ARCADIA, CA
woolpew6 (]o ZOEjsaR'11v
3489-8SE9Z9:XV3 SZl9-BSE09 "731
vsn 0101.6 VINHOI1VO'Atln90VN9
'3A11710 3A11O 1Nf7OIN 561.
LI I LUCKON V 1N tNiMRNGf
vO b10V3W'3 W NIMO1VS'S 461
3snoH OOO1IV3s
008101V9 ONRIdS ONVIX IA
SS30OW / 31171103fOBd
SOiOHd / SNOIlVA313 ONIISIX3
NVld 3JJS /ONDIJJVd
133HS 31111
o C
C
0
VICINITY MAP
3�!
>r�
�BIIi11Cl €� IIIICII�C;. , b�.
—L $
— I I`r 211 "
FMC991I1IH itiiiiiillift del
SIC' €C19C111 €kil11IlE6:1111'��,
(I!IIIlII!IIt1' 1.191I1I1 €`C °� El)
UIt111IIIIIII,ILI'cIt11lIII;,� �ji ���
ri111i1111IIe ?1111€IIICII— 2i'� Ntk
JIII ?CIIiI C €€':!I'i€I911 iris j 7, ;
E
ll!A9L11 1911111 :1 €1114 ?1'l li
\.*:JH1 tii)1.1:!iE "I11i■Cp 1
1 .'I 91 €c,l II ICCi'n
ti' .II, G111I " €C{Ek _
(1111.1191 iff1€€€th!H C1'
a'� w a JIMH1 OI 1ell'I€ JII
J t o si c. 91:E 111C
PICiIdI
r i ; Il 4 tLl411 14011 o '�
c -- ;v i I 1'I 41. I I'lin
�, /11 - 1 C /1V 111i�Illlfii iii
- , '�r 74 1
r9CCi:I 1Y I [IICEi
Z ILL-7,', 4IIiI€ 111.1111ill :HisU
____
/'%1119 it EllniTil'9'191irf1 "'111In U— 'll't" I((CP 3
IT I
3/I b
xl
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
aE
•
•
is
JD JD 11Z
•
N
1
N
N
Z
0
0
J
LL
F
z
W
2
W
4
m
6'4" HIGH GLASS BLOCK WALL
9
0
YiXiang Seafood Restaurant
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
eneration, without pass -by
reductions,
the project would generate
Based on the full trip g
6 inbound and 6 outbound trips in the AM peak hour, 75 inbound and 37 outbound trips
in the PM peak hour and 1,349 daily trips.
The study analyzes eFf the following scenarios:
(a) Existing Conditions,
(b) Opening Year (Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Projects)
()
(c) Opening
Year plus Project Traffic.
act to nearby intersections. The
The project should have no significant traffic imp peak hours for each
intersection maintains level of service "D" or better in AM and eP oject.
of the study scenario. Mitigation measure is not required for project.
regulation of the City of Arcadia requires 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross
for restaurants greater than 1,500 sq. ft. an /or with more than 12 seats. The
floor area parking
proposed restaurant has 15,000 sq. ft. and the parking requirement is 150 p g
prop peak parking demand
spaces. After monthly and time -of -day adjustments, the adjusted a king capacity in the
is 989 spaces at 6:00 pm, approximately 87% of the 1,139 parking
center. The existing parking capacity can sufficiently accommodate the
shopp g
parking demand for the proposed restaurant.
seven -day parking surveys reveal that Zones A and B, as defined in Exhibit 2,
The ace m the pp g
generally have the lowest percentages of available parking sp
center. Meanwhile, the upper level of parking structure, although not far from ZoneTs�A
c parking spaces. and B, normally has the highest percentage of unoccupied
of parking structure,
shopping center has recently made improvements to the upper llt is recommended that
including new pavement surfaces, paints, and potted plants.
August 8, 2012
Focused Traffic Impact Study
K2 Trafc Eng /neenng, /nc.
YiXiang Seafood Restaurant
1271 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia
August 8, 2012
Focused Traffic Impact Study
additional signage be installed to promote awareness and usage of parking p mg at the upper
The study also recommends the revised Employee Parking Allocation (D
in order to vacate more parking spaces conveniently to the patrons. Map, Eions for
employee parking and short -term parking Restrictions for
p g should be y strict) enforced b
security guard. Directional signs showing Y uniformed
g `Employee Parking" should be installed as
necessary.
3
01ra� c E.
Inc.
010c E.
z
w
z
ce
a
1.1.1
(-)
<_) Z
>- R
<
BURLINGTON COAT
rarrtr'r'
0
t,1
v.-am= ...tam eammmem-,
*Os.=
vasoloars, a====a,
•,;
ea**
cNo
otz
0- 0
r ,
1 C'J C4
T1TH 1111
urntitirrjan
A(98 ( 8
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
1- -
END:
E(53)
"--jj .11W1i111
11,L111!1
c(29941.,)
Ti
Hiliii111110111,111flir,
-
.111Ii A11,1.11111Hp
-:11[11111r:11177
A(X)= AREA "A" WITH X PARKING SPACES.
D(58)
815 W. NAOMI
1111{111
K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
EXHIBIT 2. SITE PLAN
a
a.
BURLINGTON COAT
0
C■J
I • cg CJ
I `2
VFIL 11117--
IT Hifin
UIHM!!1! II1HL
174
Nkl i , ss461 %II". 4 At re \‘‘ ' \ %".....` 4., , , . .. 1 '''''■,. \ N\ . 1. :II
SW Va.,
Nk■ ....,0„
.1A.V., WASo•
S0.4,7\ NNAM. *M.k
.44%. \ WAS* WSNiS. N
orSS S, Zal*:::::
Vs 11 ANNA. ,4S1 OA, ,
AZ \NOZIWC,Ipok,
\MAIN, \NM&
NI ,.
k,S •
vsz„
.
k
q
733 W. NAOMI
z
7.5
5
745 W. NAOMI
tqbflezobt
L.A
1 1 1 11 ■Wif. 111 "HIM
O1 1111[11 ni riHr
11r
011NPUIL U Hi 1 11 -
1!Nuilicioiii.ukli
.fliilF![iti‘J141:111.111111111J
'...11i110111,11111111Hilli!).
"--1 KIHITTOHHUifill,
tHhtUR(i.
(Td[illtjr,11HilINIII
11 i1 • 1111 .UfJ111111111Lr
- 11 r1,ljl1I1331
11110111.1 illifff.11Diffl-
tAilti1U11P1WAIL
4 4'
rilli/WITininr
HrIPIL1 11.111H:hrni..
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
NAOMI AVE.
uJ
5
z —1
0
0 in
Z
0 L.1
- <Q_
X
O° Lu
o
• LJ
cc
W
Z
O 0
<
Z
D
Z >
0<
<
a_ 0
0
0
• 0
Z
> <
EMPLOYEES SHOULD PARK IN AREA
K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
EXHIBIT 10. EMPLOYEE PARKING MAP
INITIAL STUDY
Seafood House Restaurant —1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3.
4.
5.
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Contact Person and Phone Number: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner - (626) 574 -5445
Project Location: 1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Twen Ma
195 Mt. Olive Drive
Bradbury, CA 91010
6. General Plan Designation: Commercial
7. Zoning: C -2
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 Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification to permit a new seafood restaurant
within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit at 1271 S. Baldwin Avenue.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The subject unit is located within the Arcadia Hub shopping center, which includes a 1,143 -
space parking lot, a Burlington Coat Factory/Baby Depot, L.A. Fitness health club, Joann
Fabrics, Vons Pavilions supermarket, and three multi- tenant strip commercial buildings. The
property is zoned C -2, General Commercial, and the portion located along Baldwin Avenue
has an H4 Height Overlay.
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.
C
C
C
C
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation /Traffic
C
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
C
n
Air Quality
Geology / Soils
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Initial Study Form Page 1 of 21
File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
n 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.
C
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
7 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.
▪ 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
Lisa Flores
Printed Name
Date
For
City of Arcadia
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.
Initial Study Form
Page 2 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
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.
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 significance.
Initial Study Form
Page 3 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Scenic resources such as
undisturbed or unique vistas, natural or undisturbed areas, or officially recognized areas are not
located on the existing City right -of -way or surrounding area. The San Gabriel Mountains to the
distant north are the most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the subject site.
Additionally, no designated scenic highways are located adjacent to or within the view of the subject
right -of -way. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to scenic resources and
views.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
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 resources.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
The proposed restaurant is located in an urbanized area and it will be located within an existing 15,000
square -foot commercial unit. Therefore, it will not degrade the character or quality of the site.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
The project site is developed with buildings that are compatible with surrounding structures. Sun,
shadow, light, and glare will not be a problem with the proposed restaurant because it will be located
within an existing commercial unit.
Initial Study Form
Page 4 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California 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 Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area and contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. 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))?
The City of Arcadia has no timberland or Timberland Production land, and has no land zoned for forest
land. There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non-
agricultural use.
❑ ❑ ❑
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non - forest use?
The proposed restaurant within an existing commercial unit would not result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to non - forest use.
Initial Study Form
Page 5 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non-
agricultural use.
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking
individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing
decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough
stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with
ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. The
proposed restaurant within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit, is not a regionally
significant project that would warrant Intergovernmental Review by Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). The proposed project does not have the potential to affect housing,
employment, and population projections within the Southern California region, which is the basis of
the AQMP projections. Therefore, the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the
AQMP.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
The proposed project is consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Air Quality Management Plan based on the discussion below.
According to SCAQMD Rule 1138, Control of Emissions for Restaurant operations requires that the
owner install a catalytic oxidizer to the kitchen equipment which is a device that controls the
emissions into the air and reduces the particulates. As a result, the applicant will be required to install
a filtration system with a standard filter. The property owner shall be required to replace the grease
filters within the restaurant operation on a regular basis. If the odor becomes a nuisance, according to
SCAQMD Rule 402 — Nuisance, the residents may request for an inspection to determine whether the
emission of the odor is in violation with SCAQMD air quality standards.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Initial Study Form
Page 6 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) under the California and National AAQS, and nonattainment for Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) under
California AAQS. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can
be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact
(SCAQMD 1993). There will be no new construction proposed under this project, and the trip
generation and the associated mobile source emissions would not change since the shopping center
will continue to meet the definition of a "shopping center" as set forth by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Therefore, the project does not significantly add to any cumulative
impact. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
El
The project is for a restaurant that will be located within an existing commercial unit. It is not in close
proximity to a source that creates obnoxious odors dust and /or hazardous emissions.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
With regards to potential odor impacts, shopping centers, and restaurant uses they are not identified
by SCAQMD as uses that are associated with objectionable odors with the potential to affect a
substantial number of people. In the event that the restaurant uses include a charbroiler, the
charbroiler would be operated in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1138 (Restaurant Operations).
Therefore, compliance with this regulation would ensure that potential odor impacts would be less
than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is not a habitat for any known species.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of
Arcadia. The project site is located within an area that is not proximate 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?
Initial Study Form
Page 7 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The project site is not proximate
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 native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia.
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 proposed restaurant will be located within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit,
therefore it will not conflict with the City's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
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.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in § 15064.5?
The proposed restaurant would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5 since there are no cultural resources on the subject site.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
The proposed restaurant will not cause a substantial adverse change since there are no historical or
archaeological resources on the subject.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The subject site is not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources.
Therefore, the project will in no way destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique
geologic feature. The right -of -way is surrounded by residential structures and located in an urbanized
area.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study Form
Page 8 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The proposed restaurant would not include construction of any structures requiring grading or
excavation in areas not previously disturbed. As such, there will be no disturbance to any human
remains.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
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 of this region is subject to this hazard, but building design standards do
significantly reduce the potential for harm.
The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other designated
earthquake hazard zone; nor is it located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected as a result of the proposed restaurant within an existing 15,000
square -foot commercial unit.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
The proposed restaurant would not require construction of new buildings and no soils will be exposed
at the site. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts.
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
project site is a flat site and will not result in an on- or off -site landslide.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Initial Study Form
Page 9 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential,
and no construction is proposed. Therefore, there will be no substantial risks to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system are proposed.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
No Impact a -b: The City of Arcadia has adopted policies under the City's General Plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. There are no new construction
proposed for this project, and the total GHG emissions onsite from the project would be nominal.
Further, because this restaurant will be located within an existing commercial unit, the project would
not exceed the regional emissions threshold for criteria pollutants established by SCAQMD to identify
substantial emission sources, GHG emissions are not to be considered substantial enough to result in
a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore, the
project's contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
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 the use of hazardous materials and will not create the potential for a
significant hazard to the public or the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Initial Study Form
Page 10 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
There are no underground or aboveground pipelines that would carry hazardous substances or
hazardous wastes.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
The subject site 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 and
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 subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport. Therefore, there would not be any airport related safety hazards for people working
at the subject site.
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?
There is no private airstrip near the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in a
safety hazard for people in the project area.
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
The project will not impair implementation or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency 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?
California's Public Resource Code and Government Code 51175 -89 directed the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels,
terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL Fire created a mapping system that identifies Fire
Hazard Zones, and has created a map showing areas that are considered to be Very High Fire Hazards
Zones in Arcadia. The map has been officially adopted by the City, and the City has targeted these
areas to implement stringent wildland fire mitigation strategies. The subject site does not fall within
any fire hazard zones, and is not within close proximity to any wildlands and will not have the above
impact.
Initial Study Form
Page 11 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
The Clean Water Act provides control over urban runoff and storm water discharges through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). The NPDES permit protects public health
and aquatic life. At the local level, cities must ensure provision of vegetated swales, buffers, and
infiltration areas in new development projects. The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants. For Arcadia, the NPDES permit is issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. The NPDES program coordinates the
actions of all incorporated cities within this region (except Long Beach) and Los Angeles County to
regulate and control storm water and urban runoff into Los Angeles County waterways and the ocean.
In support of the NPDES permit and the obligation to keep waterways clean by reducing or eliminating
contaminants from storm water and dry weather runoff, the City is required to implement the most
effective combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water /urban runoff pollution
control. The City has a storm water education program, an aggressive inspection team that issues
notices of violation for water quality violations, and requires the use of best management practices in
residential, commercial, and development - related activities to reduce runoff. The project is subject to
NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements, and therefore the impacts will be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre- existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
El
The project is subject to NPDES requirements and will be designed and constructed in compliance
with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and therefore no impact will result
from this project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
The proposed project will not alter the drainage, nor provide additional sources of runoff from
buildings, parking lots, delivery areas, loading docks, etc., and therefore no impact will result from this
project.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site'?
The proposed restaurant within the existing commercial unit will not alter the drainage pattern on the
subject site.
Initial Study Form
Page 12 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
The proposed restaurant is not projected to create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity or planned stormwater drainage systems.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
The project will comply with NPDES requirements to ensure that no water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements are violated. The project will not result in an impact.
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
The project does not include, nor will it affect any housing, and is not within a flood hazard area, and
therefore will not have this impact.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
The subject property and adjacent rights -of -way do not lie within a 100 -year or 500 -year flood hazard
zone. Project implementation would have no impact on the course of flood flows within such a zone.
No significant flood hazard impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
The subject right -of -way lies within the flood hazard zone of the Santa Anita Dam. The Santa Anita
Dam is located along the Santa Anita Wash approximately three miles north of the site. The concrete
dam was completed in 1927 and is owned and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works Flood Control District (LACDPW). In 2009, the LACDPW started a sediment removal
project at the Santa Anita Reservoir to increase reservoir capacity and ensure compliance with
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams' seismic stability requirements
for the dam. Seismic safety retrofits to the dam include modifications to the dam's inlet/outlet works
and the construction of a new dam riser. Additionally, the Santa Anita Wash and the 20- to 30 -foot tall
berm for the railroad track are located between the dam and the subject site.
Dam failure could be caused by a seismic event or intense storm that lasts over an extended period of
time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of the subject site, but is highly unlikely to occur,
and therefore, will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by ❑ ❑ ❑
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The City of Arcadia is not located near any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean and will
not be inundated by a seiche or tsunami.
Initial Study Form
Page 13 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The proposed project will have no significant impact to population and will not
impacts to the local population projections, induce substantial growth, or displace
housing is proposed with this project. As such, there will be no significant impact
housing as a result of this project.
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 City's General Plan land use designation of the project site is Commercial and the zoning
designation is C -2, General Commercial. The proposed restaurant would be located within an existing
commercial unit at the Arcadia Hub shopping center, which is an allowed use through a Conditional
Use Permit. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any plan or regulations.
No
Impact
cause substantial
housing since no
to population and
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 site.
Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
There are no known mineral resources on the subject site 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 site is not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore,
the proposal would not have the above impact.
XII. 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 proposed use will not substantially increase ambient noise levels. Although there will be parking
on site, noise from vehicles parking will not exceed established threshold. Construction noise may
result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. However, compliance with the
City's Noise Ordinance will abate this impact to less than significant levels.
❑ ❑
Initial Study Form
Page 14 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The proposed use is not considered a sensitive use and the closest noise - sensitive uses (multi- family
residences) are located approximately 500 -feet from the subject unit at the shopping center. In
addition, noise- sensitive uses are separated by surface parking areas, and two -way lane street.
Further, construction activities would be limited to typical tenant improvements inside the existing
building and the majority of the construction activities would occur within the interior of the buildings.
Thus, construction noise impacts would be less than significant and compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance will abate this impact to less than significant levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
The proposed use will not substantially increase ambient noise levels as the restaurant would occur
within the existing building, and the loading areas would continue to operate as they do today, no
impacts associated with increase in noise levels are expected to occur.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Construction noise may result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, but it would
be limited to typical tenant improvements in and around the existing building. However, compliance
with the Noise Ordinance will abate this impact to less than significant levels.
e) For a project located within an airport and
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport.
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 is no private airstrip near the project site. The project would not change the uses of the
surrounding site and would not impact the noise levels for people residing or working in the project
area.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
The project restaurant will be located within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit. Therefore,
it will not induce substantial population growth.
Initial Study Form
Page 15 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
There is no permanent housing on the subject site.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
El
The proposed restaurant would not involve the removal of any residential uses, nor would any new
residential uses be proposed. As a result, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or
people or result in substantial population growth.
XIV. 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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ El
❑ ❑ ❑
No Impact a -e: The proposed restaurant does not include residential uses, which typically generate a
demand for public services, and it would not generate an increase in building area. As such, the
proposed restaurant will not result in an increase of fire, police, schools, or park services, and nor will
it alter the existing public facilities. Further, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a
significant impact or an increase in demand for governmental services.
XV. 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 proposed restaurant within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit will not result in an
increase in the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities.
Physical impacts to recreation facilities are usually associated with development of new housing and
population in- migration and growth. The proposed project would not increase or effect population
growth. Therefore, no park or recreational facility impacts would occur.
Initial Study Form
Page 16 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
As discussed above, the proposed restaurant will not result in an increase in the demand for
recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will not increase the demand for neighborhood
or regional parks or other recreational facilities.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -
motorized travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
A focused traffic and parking study was prepared by K -2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. to evaluate any
potential impacts from the new restaurant. Based on the analysis, the City Engineer determined the
project should have no significant impact to nearby intersections and the intersections maintains level
of service "0" or better in AM and PM peak hours, therefore no mitigation measure is required for the
project.
In regards to parking, the City Engineer determined that even though the shopping center will have a
parking deficiency, the existing parking capacity of 1,139 parking spaces can sufficiently
accommodate the parking demand for the proposed restaurant. Therefore, the proposed project would
not conflict with measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to, level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Initial Study Form
Page 17 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
As shown in the focused traffic and parking study, prepared by K -2 Engineering, Inc. the project
should have no significant traffic impact to the nearby intersections, which are: 1) Duarte Road and
Baldwin Avenue, 2) Intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Naomi Avenue, 3) Naomi Avenue and Golden
West Avenue, and 4) Golden West Avenue and Duarte Road. The Congestion Management Program
(CMP) standards have been used because the City of Arcadia does not have an official policy for
significance threshold. According to the "Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County",
an intersection would be significantly impacted if the project would result in a change at an
intersection that is projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F, or if the project would contribute
50 or more peak hour vehicle trips to a designated CMP intersection, or if the project would add 150 or
more peak hour trips in either direction to a designated CMP freeway monitoring location.
According to the City Engineer, the project would not exceed the threshold; therefore, it would not
conflict with the applicable congestion management program or level of service standard established
by the congestion management agency. The impacts would be less than significant relative to CMP
roads or highways and no mitigation would be necessary.
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?
There are no airports or airstrips in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest airport is El
Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles south of the project site. The project would
not result in a change in air traffic patterns or safety risky related to the airports. The project would
have no impacts and no mitigation measures would be necessary.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The impacts would not be significant since there will be no alterations to the existing parking layout,
parking structures, or driveways. Therefore, no impacts will result from this project.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed restaurant that will be located within an existing commercial unit will not alter the
existing street width or the shopping center driveways. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the
existing emergency access route.
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 proposed project would be consistent with policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities, and the applicant has proposed to install new bike racks on site. Therefore, the
proposed restaurant would not conflict with the policies, plans, or programs and no mitigation
measures would be necessary.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Initial Study Form
Page 18 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The proposed project would not increase the wastewater generation according to the City's Public
Works Services Department. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County provide wastewater
treatment services to the City of Arcadia and comply with state and federal requirements governing
the treatment and discharge of wastewater. As a result, the proposed conversion from retail to a
restaurant use within the existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit would not increase the amount
of wastewater estimated to be generated from the existing shopping center, where the subject unit is
located at, and it would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles
RWQCB. Therefore, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur.
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 City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department provides water service to the local area. The
department obtains water from two sources: groundwater and imported water. The City also provides
sewer service to the local area, and the wastewater from the area is carried by sewers to the San Jose
Creek Water Reclamation Plant, located at 1965 Workman Mill Road in Whittier and operated by the
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. This plant treats 100 million gallons per day of waste
water (Sanitation Districts 2008).
Since the proposed project would not change the number of users of the site, it would not increase the
demand for portable water or the amount of wastewater generated by the project. The existing 2 -inch
meter is sufficient from the change in use from retail and restaurant and no update to the water meter
would be required. Therefore, the water and wastewater impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
No new stormwater drainage system would be required to accommodate the proposed restaurant
within the existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit. No significant impact to the drainage facilities
would occur.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this
determination, the Lead Agency 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 (SB 221).
Initial Study Form
Page 19 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department provides water service to the local area. The
Department obtains water from two sources: groundwater and imported water. The department
obtains groundwater from the Main San Gabriel and Raymond Groundwater Basins. The City obtains
water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) from the State Water
Project and the Colorado River. MWD forecasts that it will be able to meet the region's water needs
through 2030.
According to Arcadia Public Works Department, the demand was calculated based upon the
information that was provided by the applicant, and the City's Water Quality Inspector on the Water
Meter Clearance application. It was determined the proposed restaurant would not increase the
capacity for the unit, an upgrade is not required, and it is not expected to increase the use of water.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
The proposed restaurant would not generate an increase in area population or otherwise induce new
population growth. Therefore, there will be no impacts to the wastewater treatment capacity.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
Solid waste from Arcadia is disposed of at Puente Hills Landfill, which is located at 13130 Crossroads
Parkway South in the City of Industry and is operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County. The proposed project would not result in an increase and it would not increase the shopping
center waste generation rate over existing levels. The Puente Hills Landfill has sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Project- related impacts to landfill
capacity would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed restaurant will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to
solid waste.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially 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 proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, and does not have the potential to 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.
❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study Form
Page 20 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short -term environmental goals to
the disadvantage of long -term
environmental goals?
The proposed restaurant will achieve long -term goals to provide a more efficient circulation system
and pedestrian access.
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
project, and the effects of probable future
projects).
The project is consistent with the General Plan, and it will not have any negative impacts on the
environment; neither individually limited, nor cumulatively since it is located in a fully - developed
area.
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project is to reconstruct and widen an existing
roadway to improve traffic flow and will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings.
Source References
1. City of Arcadia General Plan, adopted November 2010
2. City of Arcadia Land Use and Zoning Map, adopted November 2010
3. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan, 2011
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). 2005. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Handbook
5. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Rules and Regulations, 2005.
6. Response letter from Arcadia Public Works Department, dated July 26, 2012
7. Focused Traffic Impact and Parking Study prepared by K -2 Traffic Engineering, dated August 8, 2012
8. Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing
Climate Change Through CEQA Review
Initial Study Form
Page 21 of 21 File No: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
- - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - -
State of California -The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467 -4201
www.dfg.ca.gov
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR, Govemor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination
Applicant Name and Address:
Twen Ma
195 Mt. Olive Drive
Bradbury, CA 91006
CEQA Lead Agency: City of Arcadia
Project Name: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08
CEQA Document Type: Negative Declaration
State Clearing House Number and /or local agency ID number: N/A
Project Location: 1271 South Baldwin Avenue
Brief Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification to permit a
new seafood restaurant within an existing 15,000 square -foot commercial unit at 1271 S.
Baldwin Avenue.
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 (Fish and
Game Code [FGC] Section 711.4(c)) the project has no effect on fish, wildlife or their 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. Local lead agencies are required
to file two copies of this determination with the county clerk at time of filing of the Notice of
Determination (NOD) after the project is approved. State lead agencies are required to file
two copies of this determination with the Office of Planning and Research (State
Clearinghouse) at the time of filing the NOD. If you do not file a copy of this determination
as appropriate with the county clerk or State Clearinghouse at the time of filing of the NOD,
the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable.
Without a valid CEQA Filing Fee 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 FGC Section 711.4(c)(3).
DFG Approved By: Leslee Newton -Reed Date: 09/11/2012
Title: Environmental Scientist
Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Name or description of project: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 12 -08 with a parking modification
to permit a new seafood restaurant within an existing 15,000 square-
foot commercial unit.
2. Project Location — Identify street 1271 S. Baldwin Avenue
address and cross streets or ;Arcadia, CA 91006
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' . (cross streets are Duarte Road and Naomi Avenue)
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
3. Entity or Person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name: Twen Ma, Architect
(2) Address: 195 Mount Olive Drive, Bradbury, CA 91010
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 find 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 Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A
copy of the Initial Study is attached.
A copy of the Initial Study, and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
Planning Commission based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration may be obtained at:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department — Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Phone No.: (626) 574 -5445
Date Received
for Filing:
Staff
Negative Declaration
FORM "E"
3co'
fZadi us Vtato
- - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - -