Loading...
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 - -