The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1607 e . . RESOLUTION NO. 1607 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-009 TO OPERATE A 2,100 SQ.FT. RESTAURANT AT 639 W. DUARTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on May 22,2000, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by Rachel Chung to operate a 2,100 sq.ft. restaurant, Development Services Department Case No. C.U.P. 00-009, at property commonly known as 639 W. Duarte Road; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on June 27, 2000, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This COmnllssionfinds: l. 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. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect .the comprehensive General Plan. 5. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole 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. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 2,100 sq. ft. restaurant, upon the following conditions: I. Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the . complete satisfaction of the Building Section. 2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. Seating shall be limited toa maximum of fifty-nine (59) people. 4. A modification shall be granted for 214 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 384; and this approval shall not constitute an approval for the general reduction in parking for the total site. Thatthis parking modification shall only be for the use approved by C.U.P. 00~009 (2,100sq.ft. restaurant). 5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grOlmds for its immediate suspension or revocation. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on July II, 2000, by the following vote: . AYES: Commissioners Huang, Bruckner, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: /J~ ' Secretary, P annin Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM:" ~p.~ . Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT June 27, 2000 TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Kenneth Phung, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 00-009 to operate a proposed 2,094 sq.ft. restaurant with seating for 59 patrons, operating from 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 7 days a week at 639 W. Duarte Road. . The COWllf) iS514 VI \'I'loveJ +0 o.'~FavQ. SUMMARY -\'nt '("eft u..es-\ \ o..~d ~~t V'eq v...eb t This Conditional Use permit application w s submitted by Rachel Chung to operate a \},jf.S o.tb-(Ned p-rDpos 2 sq.ft. st In' Ing com . center at . ~ I 63 . D arte Road. e restaurant wo Id be open 7 days a week from 11: .m. 7. lit 00 to 12:00 a.m. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of this _. application due to inadequate parking. FROM: . GENERAL INFORMA APPLICANT: Rachel Chung (lessee) LOCATION: 639 W. Duarte Rd. REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a proposed 2,094 sq.ft. restaurant with seating for 59 patrons, operating from 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 7 days a week at 639 W. Duarte Road. SITE AREA: 110,932 sq.ft. (2.55 acres) FRONTAGES: Approximately 389 feet on W. Duarte Road, and 310 feet on Arcadia Avenue. . EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a 48,175:!: sq.ft. commercial shopping center with 214 on,site parking spaces. The property is zoned C-2 & H-4 (General Commercial with a Height Overlay for a maximum of 4 stories, not to exceed 45 feet). . SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Multiple family residential: zoned R-3. South: Offices: zoned C-2 & H-4. East: Offices: zoned CoO West: Offices: zoned C-2 PROPOSAL Restaurants are permitted uses in the C-2 zone with an approved conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a proposed 2,094 sq.ft. restaurant to be in a vacant space within the commercial shopping center at 639 W. Duarte Rd. The restaurant would provide seating for 59 patrons and would be open from 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 7 days a week. . PARKING The subject.shopping center was built in 1959, and currently provides 214 on-site parking spaces (175 parking spaces at the central area of the shopping center and 39 spaces behind the retail buildings on the northerly and easterly portion of the site). The on-site parking does not comply with the current Code requirements; as summarized in the following table: Proposed Mix of Uses and Current Parking Requirements Approx. Current Total Size Perking Parking Parking Tvne of Use in so. fl. Re ulrement Allocated> Deficlenc #1 - Retail 32,595 163 145 18 #2- office (vacant) 435 2 2 0 #3 - Chinese Rest. 950 19 4 15 #4 - Mexican Rest. 640 13 3 10 #5 - Martial Arts Center 2,850 70 13 57 #6 - St. Michel 3;873 39 15 24 #7 -Vacancies 2,705 14 12 2 #8 - Tutorial Center 2~500 43 11 32 #9 - Proposed Rest. 2,094 21 9 12 Totals 48,642 384 214 170 (net parking deficiency) >Based on each use's Share ofthe 214 on-site parking spaces available (i.e., 4.44 spaces per 1,000 sq. fl.) . Notes legal-nonconf. conforming CUP 83-13 legal-nonconf. CUP 94-009 CUP 99-010 assumed retail CUP 98-002 eup 00-009 June 27, 2000 Page 2 . . . The current on-site parking ratio for the shopping center is 4.44 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial space (48,175 sq.ft.) which results in an allocation of 9 spaces for the applicant's 2,094 sq. ft. restaurant. Such a ratio is inconsistent with the code standard of providing 10 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. for the proposed restaurant (Le., 21 spaces). Based on current parking requirements for the entire shopping center, including the proposed restaurant, there should be 384 on-site parking spaces. ANALYSIS The applicant indicated to staff that the site currently has ample on-site parking spaces, which staff verified with numerous site visits, but the site has a 22,000 sq.ft. vacant building that was previously occupied by the "99 Cents Only Store." If a tenant occupied the vacant space and was successful it woLild limit the number of parking spaces available to other businesses within the shopping center. Although, three (3) conditional use permits (CUP 91-005, 94-009, and CUP 98-002) have been issued since the opening ofthe"99 cent only store" and one (1) CUP since its closing (CUP 99,010 to add 473 sq.ft. outdoor dining area to an existing restaurant) staff believes that it would be inconsistent with good planning practice to permit a restaurant use while there is a 22,000 sq.ft. vacant building, that has the potential of being developed with a use that could serve as an anchor to revitalize the center. At t~is time staff does not think it is appropriate to approve any further increase in the site's existing parking deficiency and, therefore, is opposed to the requested conditional use permit. CEQA Pursuant to the proVISions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 00-009. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-009, the Development Services Department recommends the following conditions of approval: CUP 00-009 June 27, 2000 Page 3 . . . 1. The restaurant shall be maintained and operated in a manner that is consistent with the application and plans submitted and approved for CUP 00-009. 2. Seating shall be limited to a maximum of fifty-nine people (excluding the waiting areas). 3. A modification is granted for 214 on-site parking spaces ih lieu of 384 spaces required.. This approval shall not constitute an approval for a general reduction in parking for the total site. That this parking modification shall only be for the use approved by CUP 00-009 (a restaurant). 4. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department which shall include, but not limited to the following items: 5. If only one of th~ proposed restrooms is to be disabled/handicapped accessible, then both of therestrooms must be unisex. 6. Installation of a Knox-box with keys in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. 7. Installation of an NFPA-72 fire alarm system in conformance with the Arcadia Municipal Code. 8. Approval of CUP 00-009 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the. conditions of approval. 9. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion of the tenant improvements, and the opening of the restaurant. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 00-009 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals that could result in the closing of the restaurant. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Denial The Planning Commission should move to deny this application and adopt Resolution No. 1607: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 00-009 for a 2,100 sq. ft. restaurant at 639 W. Duarte Road. CUP 00-009 June 27, 2000 Page 4 Approval . If the Planning Commission intends to approve this Conditional Use Permit application, the Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration, state the supporting findings, and direct staffto prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the June 27th public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Kenneth Phung at (626) 574-5447. Approved by: - Donna L. utler Community Development Administrator . Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map Plans Negative Declaration & Initial Study Resolution 1607 (denial) . CUP 00-009 June 27, 2000 Page 5 . . . :> <: f-------;~ ~ '.\lIXED;- -:: COMM. I-- C-2 : R ET A I L ...------ I _\ I . rARKING .. PR.J .:0' I I I G:G 1 : i : ~ I I I \ I I I nOn 1,71." . e ...... ~c ;. BOWLING ALLEY C-2 &: H-4 R-3 ","'C",O!A :z ~ ::l .J - , o ~ . g BANK PHARMACY 4 MEDICAL OFFI CES ':J':\'__.. f------ . 1 I ~l GAS STATION UU}<.I1.''E - r-' ",.,.. BANK ,)'1:11 1".&1' . '.. I" fl." . "''' // /j"" // // ~~ ////////////////////~'I /// /,/ / /// / / ///,/ /".' // /.~ ~ /~//'/~/////,//,,///~~ ,....II.'):;"I:-Ie :~~// //,( / // / // ,./" / /'/'//~.. . ! i/ ~,///-/./ / /./ ////./ /// //~.1 r.///.~///////~////////~~ ~////////////////////~~ ~/////~//////////////~~ I~/./ I!/./ ~ //// /./',/"./ / // // ":.... ~//y/////////////////~~ ////////////////////~.1 ///////////////////// ~ ///////////////////// ~ /////v/////////////// ~u //// RETAIL /////// "- //// /////// ~~ //'r 2 ., -i!' 1\'/////' 1ol.o ,!roO'. ,/~'1_-....;"' .!t":l-"....////..-:.. 0 ..-. ""., '";' ////"',.,:-;,,';',,"i'////'-:,; 0 '- - 4. ,/ I" / ,/./ /,/" / I" / / 1"/ I" /'/ / /,/,/ ,///" / ~'~ -l I I /////////////////////////'/~; U I I"/'//////////'/'/////////////~I < I ////.//////////////////'/'//'/~; U // / / /' /,/,/,/ / / / / // / /,/ // /,/ // /' / ~I - I... /////'////////'/////////,j'.///",I 0 ,: :.n - ~/'////////////////,,, //////'//.,I ~ I~ :.:l ': ,(//'/////'///'///'////'////////'~I ~ U ~Y////'/////////////,////////,/, I _ ///'//////////////////'/////// Z, _ /1"/.// ///// / /'/ /,/ I" /// /,/,/ //// / / ~ 1 - '/////'//''/'////I''//////~///////,/ ~)~\ ;( 0: ////'////////.'///_/////'/////,/ < I ///,//////1"/''//////'/// ~:1 I " :.. ,/, / /,. ,/ ,,":,': -': / / / / / ... ' , I I ////',///,~ I I ,:,\\1' / r ..,< U'f,'~ 1'i1U ,-,-;;,A r" JUCI Ne -Jr,to' ... .. ~.., z;: <~ ~.o . ~..l ..Jill <", Uu oii:. uN:.. ::;:.Y ~'" ;<~ ~. -.- - . = ... '" . -'" 1,:,1,,- ;:00 - . " . \ ~: ... ~ .. ; ~ o jC-2.. !: t"'-~-I <- ~..:. "'~ ,,0 111.91 ... .'" _u <- ...~ ..~ ..0 : " ~ C-2 << H-4 I @ :"" : ~ . @ I~ r." u z "VE. ,u.'"O i , s c R-3 :: ~ . . l- 0 :z "'-, :i~ ~~ :<0 0 i== '" :< 'al\ RU, J"'1o+ I MEDICAL OF'FICES CoO Ie H.8 " .. < L LAND USE & ZONING MAP 639 W. Duarte Rd. t NORTH CUP 00-009 1 inch = 100 feet . . . File No.: CUP 00-009 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT AI.. QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Conditional Use Permit No. 00-009: A Conditional Use Permit for a 2,094 sq.ft. restaurilnt at 639 W. Duarte Rd., with seating for 59 patrons, operating from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 7 days a week. B. Location of Project: 639 W. Duarte Rd. City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Applicant: Rachel Chung Contact: 1231 Monterey Rd. South Pasadena, CA 91030 Same (626) 799-9651 D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached lnitialStudy. E. Mitigation measures, if any, . included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None Date: June 1,2000 Date Posted: June 1,2000 BY:;:-~- ~ ~ Kenneth Phung, d.1ll aimer . . . (i) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM l. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 00-009 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 1 Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kenneth Phung (626) 574-5447 4. Project Location: 639 W. Duarte Rd. 5. Rroject Sponsor's Name and Address: Rachel Chung 1231 Monterey Rd. South Pasadena, CA 91030 (626) 799-9651 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 for a 2,094 sq.ft. restaurant at 639 W. Duarte Road, with seating for 59 patrons, operating from I I :00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., 7 days a week. 9. SurroundingLand Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: South: East: West: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3 Offices; zoned C-2 & H-4 Offices; zoned C-2 & H-4 Offices & commercial retail center; zoned C-2 10. Other public agencies whose approval Is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): City Engineering Division 1 City Maintenance Department 1 City Water Division 1 Los Angeles County Engineer CEQAFORMS/CHECKLIST 0('i/0 1100 Page I of4 . . . ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOgs POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics - Agriculture Resources - Air Quality - Cultural Resources Geology 1 Soils Hydrology 1 Water Quality Land Use 1 Planning Noise Population 1 Housing Recreation Transportation 1 Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities 1 Service Systems DETERMINATION (To beeompleted by the Lead Agency): On the basis oftbis initial evaluation: - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed projectMA Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but.at least one effect I) 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 fmd 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 Kenneth Phung Printed Name ? 4/13/2000 Date CITY OF ARCADIA For CITYIRVPUB/20002000/546265 "f' FORM Page 2 of 4 . . . 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,. indirectas well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section xvn, "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)(O). 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 inCdrporated 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. CITYIRVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "f' Page 3 of4 . . . 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 norrnallyaddress the questions form 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. CITYIRVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 4 of4 . . . Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed restaurant will be in an existing commercial building, any exterior improvements will be required to comply with local architectural standards and illumination limits'and will not result in any oftbe above impacts. n. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES, In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources'are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ,use, or a Williamson Act contract? CITYIRVPUB/20002000/546265 1 Potentially Sigoificant Impact File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x FORM "J" . Issues: File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorpo~ted Impnct Potentially Significant Imp.act x c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The proposal is consistent with the commercial designation in the General Plan and with the C-2 zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for a commercial use, which is consistent with the snrrounding development. m. 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 - X . applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? - X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? . C11lr~\TPtJB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 2 . . . Issues: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed restaurant and its operation wiD be subject to local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality MlIDagement District which should prevent any impacts relative to Items (a) and/or (b) above. There are no exterior improvements proposed that would result in alterations to air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause a change in climate. No objectionable odors have been associated with the proposed use. 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substimtial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? CITY IR VPUB120002000/546265 3 Potentially Significant Impact File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x FORM "]" . d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed use will be in an existing commercial center. None of the ahove resources have been identified at the subject area, and none of the impacts have been assoclated with the proposed use, VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to pot.ential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofIoss, injury or death involving: CI1lrnt\fPtnB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 4 x x . . . Issues: 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? iiii) Landslides? b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? 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? 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? 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? While this entire region Is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. . vn. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: CITY /R VPUB/20002000/546265 5 potentially Significant Impact - File No: CUP 00-009 Les,Than Significant Witb Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x - x x FORM "J" . . . Issues: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine'transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or. handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials si tes compiled pursUant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public Or the environment? e) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? CITY /RVPUB/20002000/546265 6 Potentially Significant lmpact File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than MitigatiQn Significanl No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x x FORM "J" . . . Issues: 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? The City Building Services and the City Fire Department will review the plans for the restaurant to prevent any ofthe above impacts. No existing sources of potential health hazards have been identified at the subject property. VIU. HYD~OLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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)? 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? 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? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? CITY IR VPUB/20002000/546265 7 Potentially Significant Impact - File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Thall Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x x FORM"]" . . . Issues: g) Place housing within a I DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i) Place within a I DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) 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? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed site alterations would not result in any of the above impacts. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed restaurantis consistent with the general plan and zoning designation for the area, and will complement surrounding uses. The requested use permIt is a permit process to establish specific conditions for the consideration of allowing the restaurant within the City of Arcadia. Such a permit will not affect existing land uses or general plan designations. The operation of the proposed business will be subjectto all other environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over this area. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity. CITY IRVPUB/20002000/546265 8 Potentially Significant Impact File No: CUP 00-009 Less'Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation SignUicam No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x x FORM"]" . . . Issues: X.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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral-resource recovery site delineated on alocal general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed restaurant will be required to comply with adopted energy conservation requirements. None of the above impacts have been associated with the proposed type of use. No mineral resources are known to exist at the site. XI. 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbomevibration or-groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporllry or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive-noise levels? Clllrnt\TPLnB/20002000/546265 9 Potentially Significant hnpact File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x - x FORM "J" . . . Issues: 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? The site ofthe proposed use is in-an existing commercial building in a commercial area aDd none of the above impacts is associated with this location or the proposed use. Should any problems arise however, compliance with noise regulations will prevent any unreasonable noise levels. XII. 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed service is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the area and-will not impact the population or housing. XIll. 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? CITY nt VPUB/200P2000/546265 10 Potentially Significant Impact - File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Signific.ant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x - x x x x FORM "J" . . '. Issues: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed restaurant is located in an existing commercial center. The site will have an on-site parking deficiency of 170 spaces with the requested use. The proposed project may be snbject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related impacts arise. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilitics or expansion of cxisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result ina 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? CITY nt \TPUBI20002000/546265 12 Potentially Significant Impact - File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Thali Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact x x x x x x x x x FORM "J" . . e. Issues: f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? It Is not anticipated that aDY of the above nti1lties or service systems will be significantly impacted. Nevertheless, the proposed improvements will be reviewed for, and the developer will be required to provide, If necessary, any new systems or supplies necessary to mitigate any such impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant pr animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effectS of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed use will be in an existing commercial center, the proposed project will not result In any of the above Impacts. CITY nt\TPUBI20002000/546265 13 Potentially Significant Tmpacl - File No: CUP 00-009 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated ImpaCt x x x x x FORM "J"