HomeMy WebLinkAbout1588
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1588
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
CUP 99-005 AND APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
NO. ADR 98-039 FOR A 2,426 SQUARE FOOT EATING
ESTABLISHMENT WITH DRIVE-THRU AT 164 E. LIVE OAK AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999, an application was filed by Anthony-Taylor
Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Foodmaker, Inc. (Jack in the Box) to develop and operate
a 2,426 square foot eating establishment with drive-thru; Development Services
Department Case No. CUP 99-005, at 164 E. Live Oak Avenue, more particularly
described in the attached legal description labeled, Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 23, 1999, 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 dated March 23, 1999 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or
vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one .for which
a Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
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.
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.
5. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General
Plan, that the proposed use is consistent with that designation, and that the granting of
the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
..
.
.
6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial
study are appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City
that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative
Declaration should be approved.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-005 to develop and operate a 2,426 square foot
eating establishment with drive-thru; Development Services Department Case No. CUP
99-005, at 164 E. Live Oak Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. The eating establishment (Jack in the Box) shall be developed and operated
in a manner that is consistent with the application and plans submitted and
conditionally approved for CUP 99-005, which include the following:
a. The hours of operation are limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.
b. Deliveries, mechanical parking lot sweeping, and mechanical landscape
maintenance are limited to 7:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
c. The existing pole sign is to be removed within 30 days of the adoption of the
resolution approving this Conditional Use Permit.
d. A covenant consolidating the affected properties to be developed and held as
one parcel shall be prepared and approved by the City Attorney for execution and
recordation by the property owner prior to the beginning of construction.
e. A final landscaping plan for the site shall be submitted for review and shall be
subject to revisions and approval by the DevelopmenlServices Department.
f. Additional architectural features shall be added to the East and West
elevations subject to review and approval by the Development Services Department.
2. Approval of CUP 99-005 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have signed and returned the Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
3. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to operation of the
proposed use at the subject property. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and
-2-
1588
conditions of approval for CUP 99-005 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or
. revocation of any approvals, which could result in the cessation of operations.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions of approval contained in
this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of March 23, 1999, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter and Kalemkiarian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner
SECTION 5. 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 foregoing Resolution No. 1588 was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on March 23, 1999, by the following
vote:
.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter and Kalemkiarian
None
Commissioner Bruckner
Chair n, I lanning Commission
City of ia
ecretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jn~ M 1MR
Michael H. iller, City Attomey
City of Arcadia
-3-
1588
.
Exhibit uN
Legal Description
Lots 13, 14 & 15 and the Easterly 12-feet of Lot 12 of Tract No. 13623, in
the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as
per map recorded in Book 278, Page 29 of Maps, in the Office of the
County Recorder of Said County, and together with those portions of Live
Oak Avenue and Tyler Avenue shown on Said Map of Tract No. 13623,
now vacated by the Order of the County of Los Angeles recorded
December 4, 1947 as Instrument No. 2558 in Book 25874, Page 274,
Official Records, in Said Recorder's Offiee.
.
.
-4-
1588
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
March 23, 1999
TO:
FROM:
Arcadia City Planning Commission .
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-005
Jack in the Box at 164 E. Live Oak Avenue
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Anthony-Taylor
Consultants to develop a Jack in the Box eating establishment with drive-thru at
164 E. Live Oak Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending
approval subject to the conditions listed in this report.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site was the parking lot for the building formerly occupied by
ACE Hardware. The property is zoned C-2: General Commercial.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Strip commercial - zoned C-2
South: Single family residential in L. A County
East: Strip commercial and supermarket - zoned C-2 & C-M
West: Vacant retail building & strip commercial - zoned C-2
.
.
.
BACKGROUND
The proposed Jack in the Box was initially submitted for Architectural Design Review
(ADR 98-039) as part of a larger proposal for a retail development that included
several of the commercial parcels to the west. Jack in the Box intends to be a part of
that larger development, but does not want to wait for that entire project to be
developed, and has chosen to proceed separately. Nevertheless, the larger retail
development has been kept in mind in evaluating the proposed Jack in the Box.
PROPOSAL& ANALYSIS
The proposal is to build a 2,426 square foot Jack in the Box at the southwest corner
of Live Oak Avenue and Secondffyler Avenue with a minimum seating capacity of
40 people, and drive-thru service. The proposal includes 24-hour operation
primarily for drive-thru service. It is unlikely that walk-in service will be provided on a
24-hour basis. But, because walk-in service may exceed the 16-hour per day limit,
or may be provided between 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m., it is being included as
part of the Conditional Use Permit request.
Parkina and Traffic
Eating establishments require 20 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which
results in a parking requirement of 49 spaces. The proposal provides 54 parking
spaces. If the adjacent properties are developed as a retail center, these parking
spaces will be shared with those uses, but there will still need to be 49 parking
spaces allocated for Jack in the Box. '
The proposed site of this Jack in the Box extends beyond the property lines of the
existing parcel at the comer of Live Oak Avenue and Secondffyler Avenues.
In order to comply with the Code requirement that the parking for a business be on
the same property, the affected parcels will have to be consolidated and held as one
for as long as the subject building and/or land use is maintained.
Access to the site will be from two driveways. One on Live Oak Avenue,
approximately 120-feet from the comer, and one on Tyler Avenue 25-feet north of
the alley. There will be no vehicular access to the site from the alley.
The building will be located at the comer of Live Oak Avenue and Secondffyler
Avenues with the drive-thru lane wrapping around the building. The drive-thru
service window is on the east side of the building. The drive-thru entry is south of
the building in the parking lot, and the exit is to the north at the driveway off of Live
Oak Avenue. The length of the drive-thru lane will accommodate at least 7 cars.
CUP 99-005
March 23,1999
Page 2
... . - .... .... - ..- .-, . .- .. . . -...... ." -.' .. . .. ."."' ..... . -.." - ,"
-. . .' .... . '-. .. ',' . . .' ...... .~.'
.
..
..
A traffic impact report was prepared for the retail development and includes the Jack
in the Box at the corner with the drive-thru and the two driveways as proposed. The
traffic consultant determined that all potentially impacted intersections will continue
to operate at an acceptable level of service (0 or better) with the entire project in
place. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the report and concurs with the
consultant's findings, and no traffic related mitigation measures are recommended.
Noise
A potential nuisance of drive-thru eating establishments is noise generated by the
drive-thru speaker system, and by the coming and going of patrons and deliveries,
and by patrons congregating in the parking lot during late hours and/or very early
morning hours. Also, mechanical parking lot sweeping can be a nuisance if it is
done late at night, or early in the morning. Such noises are not unusual for
commercial uses, but should not be allowed to be a nuisance to adjacent uses.
Because of the proximity of this eating establishment to the residential uses to the
south, staff is of the opinion that 24-hour operation would be inappropriate, and that
the hours of operation should be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Deliveries
and mechanical parking lot sweeping are to be performed between 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m.
The design of the drive-thru orients the speaker station away from the residences to
the south, and the applicant has indicated that the speaker system will incorporate
the most current noise reduction techniques available, and will be in compliance with
the City's noise limits.
Nevertheless, the driveway off of Tyler Avenue is only 45-feet north of the residential
properties to the south, and will be the driveway used by patrons coming south on
Second Avenue, west on Live Oak Avenue, and north on Tyler Avenue. Also in this
rear parking area are the loading zone and trash enclosure, Additionally, if patrons
congregate in the southerly portion of the parking lot, their noise will be an impact
upon the neighbors.
Architectural Desion Review lADR 98-039)
Concurrent with the consideration of the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the applicant's
architectural design concept plans for the proposed eating establishment.
The proposed building will have a Spanish/Mission style of architecture with
horizontal and vertical relief elements. The base color will be light beige and two
accent colors will be used: Medium beige for the trim, and Terra Cotta for the
CUP 99-005
March 23,1999
Page 3
...__, ........ ."" ..... . ._.... ". ...... "_"0'.
'" '. -,. ..,....
.
.
.
building base and cornices. The entries will be emphasized with towers and arches,
and a canopy and decorative wood trellis will cover the drive-thru service window.
The proposed landscaping complies with the minimum 5% required by Code, but
should be enhanced to better buffer the eating establishment from the residential
uses to the south and to provide some screening of the vacant commercial property
to the west.
Except for the internally illuminated wall signs shown on the proposed elevations, a
sign program for this project has not yet been considered. The signs will be required
to be architecturally compatible, harmonious and complementary to the building.
There is an existing pole sign on the site that was for the previous use. This pole
sign should be removed before this project begins.
Staff finds the proposed architectural design concept to be in compliance with the
City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. The proposed design, materials
and finishes will be visually harmonious with the surrounding developments. And,
the various design elements provide the necessary architectural relief. Colored
elevations and a color sample board will be available for review.
The proposal is required to comply with all Code requirements as determined
necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Maintenance Services Director,
and Development Services Director. The applicant has been notified of the various
City Departmental requirements.
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 approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 99-005 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 98-039 for the
proposed eating establishment subject to the following conditions:
CUP 99-005
March 23,1999
Page 4
-,-.' -. ......"'; ~ - -.";';'.'. ,- " ..-' . -.' ..~. ...,......' .' .-. . . --;-, ..... '. '.":' '. '. . ....... .',. ..". ". '.' '. - ". ...... ..-. '", ." . ',". .'. '. -, ',", ,-. .;. ",' .', '. . .' ,'. -' . '. .. .. . . -.' .-. .
.
.
.
1. The eating establishment (Jack in the Box) shall be developed and operated in a
manner that is consistent with the application and plans submitted and
conditionally approved for CUP 99-005 and ADR 98-039, which includes the
following:
a. The hours of operation are limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.
b. Deliveries and mechanical parking lot sweeping are limited to 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
c. The existing pole sign is to be removed within 30 days of the adoption of the
resolution approving this Conditional Use Permit.
d. A covenant consolidating the affected properties to be developed and held
as one parcel shall be prepared and approved by the City Attorney for
execution and recordation by the property owner prior to the beginning of
construction.
,.
e; A final landscaping plan for the site shall be submitted for review and shall
be subject to revisions and approval by the Community Development
Administrator.
2. Approval of CUP 99-005 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have signed and returned the Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
3. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to operation of the
proposed use at the subject property. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions
and conditions of approval for CUP 99-005 shall be grounds for immediate
suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the cessation of
. operations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve the Negative Declaration
and adopt Resolution No. 1588: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 99-005 and
approving Architectural Design Review No. ADR 98-039 for a 2,426 square foot
eating establishment with drive-thru at 164 E. Live Oak Avenue.
CUP 99-005
March 23, 1999
Page 5
_~;~~~.....-_.,.~:-...-,. -:;., ".'_ _.."... . _. ._~.;. ", ...... ..... ...... "..0-:.- ; ... .... _.' ......... .' .", ., .... ..' '." -
'.. '. -.
.
..
.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application,
the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which
incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
Should a Planning Commissioner, or any other interested party have any questions
or comments regarding this matter prior to the March 23rd public hearing, please
contact Associate Planner, Jim Kasama at (626) 574-5445.
Attachments: Plans
Land Use and Zoning Map
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Approved by:
/!l~~
Donna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
CUP 99-005
March 23,1999
Page 6
..
..
c-'1.
~
W
..J
~
(ALLEY)
L. A. COUN Y
000000
I
I
L YNROSE
SUPERM/>.RKET
p/>.RKING LOT
C-M
CITY BOUNDARY
ST.
L
LAND USE & ZONING MAP
164 E. Live Oak Avenue t NORTH
CUP 99-005/ ADR 98-039 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
.
.
.
~
""1
File No.: CUP 99-005
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 99-005: A Conditional Use Permit for a
2,426 square foot, 24-hour, eating establishment (Jack in the Box) with seating
capacity for 40 people and a drive-thru.
B. Location of Project:
164 E. Uve Oak Avenue, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
C. Name of Sponsor:
An~on~TayrorConsuftan~
2240 Vineyard Avenue
Escondido, CA 92029
(760) 738-8800
Contact: Jaymes Dove
D. Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of
the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the
attached Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially
significant effects:
None
Date Prepared: February 22, 1999
Date Posted: February 25, 1999
_0.' _ .... .... ._.-0'
------
.
.
.
.~
'~
File No.: CUP 99-005
3. Lead Agency Contact Person & Phone Number:
James M. Kasama, Associate Planner- (626) 574-5445/fax (626) 447-9173
CECA Checklist 2/99
....,...._... -. ", .~:. '. r 0." . ....,.. '.' . ........ '..'. ._ ...._ '0'"' ", '. ..".. r ._.... . _ . - . '.' . .... - . _ .. . . _ . ._, . .' . _. '.' ,'. .
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA. CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 99-005
2. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
Community Development Division - Planning Services
240 W Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
4. . Project Location:
164 E. Uve Oak Avenue, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
5. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Phone Number:
Anthony- Taylor Consultants
2240 Vineyard Avenue
Escondido, CA 92029
(760) 738-8800
Contact: Jaymes Dove
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C-2: General Commercial
-1-
.
.
.
.~
o
File No.: CUP 99-005
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action Involved, Including but not limited to later phases of the project, end eny secondary,
support, or off.sne features necessary for ns Implementation.)
A Conditional Use Permit for a 2,426 square foot, 24-hour, eating establishment
(Jack in the Box) with seating capacity for 40 people and a drive-thru.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The area is a suburban commercial area and the surrounding properties are
developed with a variety of commercial uses. A single-family residential area is to
the south, separated from the project site by a 20-foot wide alley.
10. Other public agencies whose approval Is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, participation agreement)
City Building Services, Fire Prevention Bureau, Engineering Division, Maintenance
Services Department, and Water Division, and the County Health Department must
review and approve the plans for permitting. The project is also subject to the
regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a .Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages:
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Agricultural Resources
[ I Air Quality
[ I Biological Resources
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Geology I Soils
[ ,J Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[ I Hydrology I Water Quality
[ I Land Use I Planning
[ I Mineral Resources
[ I Noise
[ ] Population I Housing
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Transportation I Traffic
[ ] Utilities I Service Systems
[ I Mandatory Findings of Significance
-2-
CECA Checklist 2/99
~.~._....~...._.~.__."r....',._..'......."""" ," ..... '_".'.'.' '.. ......-.............. ",.-.. ,.-... .." --."......... ..
1)
.'"\
. .
File No.: CUP 99-005
DETERMINATION:
. (To be completed by the lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATNE 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 applicant A MITIGATED
NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a .potentially significant impact. 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, but because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
February 22. 1999
Date
James M. Kasama
Printed Name
City of Arcadia
For
.
-3-
ceOA Checklist 2/99
. .-. " ..-.... ". -.' -~..- .. ...:....,...';. -,.,.....,-... .'.' - .... "'-' . ,". . .... ....... .'-'.' .., ..-'.' '-,,' .- .-, .-...', ,'" .,~.' ; ,-...-..,' . " .. " ,'. .., .-
.
.
.
'"'1
("\
File No.: CUP 99-005
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. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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," must 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in
Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
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, uses or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) The significant criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significant.
-4-
CECA Checklist 2/99
.. .' -. - -.
. .. ~. '". -.. .' ..' ..... .,. .' .' ."
,
.~
.....\
FIle No.: CUP 99-005
.
Would the proposal result In potential Impacts Involving:
Potentially
Slgnlllcant
Potentially Unless Less Than
S1gnlflcanl M1UgaUon Slgnlllcant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) ConnJct with general plan designations or zoning? I I I I I I [X)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencles with JUrisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
c) Be compatible with exisling land uses In the vlclnlty? [ ] [J [J [X)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., Impacts to
soils or fannllinds, or Impacts from Incompatible land uses)? [J [ J [J [X)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (Including a low-Income or minOrity community)? [J [ J [J [X)
The proposed eating establishment Is consistent with the general plan end zoning designations for
the araa, and will complement the other commercial uses in the area. The establishment wHI be
subject to a/lather environmental plans or po/icles adopted by the agencies with jurisdiction over this
area. Thera are no agricultural rasources or operations In the vicinity.
2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively axceed officlal regional or local population
projections? [ ] [ ] [ J [X)
b) Induce substantial growih In an area either directly or
Indlreclly (e.g.. through projects In an undeveloped area or
. extension of major Infrastructure)? [ J [ J [ J [X)
c) Displace existing housing, especialiy affordable housing? [ J [ J [ J [X)
The proposed eating estabOshment will be at the site of a vacant commerr;/al use (formerly ACE
Hardwara) and will not impect the population or housing of the araa.
.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result In or expose people to potential impacts
Involving:
a) Faull rupture? [ J [ J [J [X)
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
c) Seismic ground failure, Including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
d) Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
e) Erosion, changes In topography or unstable soli conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
f) Subsidence ofthe land? [ ] [ ] [I [X)
g) Expansive solis? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
The subject site is located within a Seismic Hazards Zone in an area where historic occurrence of
Hquefaclion, or local geological, geotechnical end groundwater conditions indicate a potential for
permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined In. Public Resources COde Section
2693(c) would be required (I.e., those measures that are consistent with established practice and that
win reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels) therefore, the proposed building will comply wIIh current
Building and Seismic Codes. The site has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of
the above geologic problems, and no unique geologic or physical features have been identified.
.s.
CEQA ChecIcIIst 7/95
._._. ... .... .0_..
1
7'\
FIle No.: CUP 99-005
--
Potent1ally
Slgnlflcanl
PotentIaDy Unless Less Than
Slgnll1cant M1UgaUon Slgnlflcant No
Impact boCOlpondsd Impact Impact
Would the proposal result In potential Impacts Involving:
4. WATER - Would the proposai resullln:
a) changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? [ ]
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding? [ ]
c) Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity)? [ ]
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ]
e) Changes In currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? [ ]
f) Change In the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions Of withdrawals, or through Interception of any aquifer
by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ground
watef recharge cepabllity? [ ]
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ]
h) I mpacts to ground water quality? [ ]
I) Substantial reduction In the amount of ground"water otherwise
available for public water supplies? I ]
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I J
I ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
[ ]
[ J
[ I
[X)
[X)
[X)
[X)
IX)
[X)
IX)
[X)
[X)
.
The subject site /s currentiy peved, and the proposed eating establishment will not significantly alter
absorption rates, drainage patterns, surface runoff. surface water conditions, or ground water
conditions. The site is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area, but the proposed eating
establishment will not result in an increased potantial for any of the above impacts.
5. AIR QUAUTY - Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard Of contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [ ]
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? I ]
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temp. or cause any change In
climate? [ ]
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
[X)
[X)
[X)
[X)
The proposed eating establishment will be in an established commercial area and wiil be subject to
local air quality regUlations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and
will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable
odors.
.
6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result In:
a) Increased vehicle trtps or traffic congestion? [ ]
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous Intersections) or Incompatibla uses (e.g., fann
equipmenl)? I ]
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ]
d) Insufficlent parking capacity on.site or off.slte? [ J
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
-8-
..'.
._ ". ._ ,". ..... . __.,0., _ ..........._... ...... .... .".
."." ....,......'." .-. ..,....
[ ]
I]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
I ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
CEQA Checkl1sl 7/95
[X)
IX)
IX)
[X)
[X)
'~
'?>
FUe No.: CUP 99-005
e
Would the proposal result In potential Impacts Involving:
Potentially
Slgnlllcant
Potentially Unless Less Than
5190lflcanl MltlgaUon Slgnlflcant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted pollcles supporting allemative
transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? [ ]
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic Impacts? [ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ )
[X)
[X)
The proposed eating establishment will be in an established commercIal araa, and is consistent with
the transportation and circulatIon plans for the araa. A traffic impect report has determined that all
potentially Impacted intersections will continue to operefe at an acceptable level of service (D or
better) with the project in ptaca, and no traffic related mltigetion measures ere recommended.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal resullln Impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare specles or their habitats
(Including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
b) Locally designated specles (e.g., heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? I I [ ] [ ] [X)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? [ ] [ ) [ J [X)
e) WIldlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
The proposed eating establishment will be In an established commerr;/al area and will not have any
impacts on biological resources.
.. 8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? I] [ ] I ] [X)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and Inefficlent
manner? [ J [ ] [ ] IX)
c) Resullln the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the state? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
The proposed eating establishment will comply with energy conservatIon end recycf/ng regulations,
and no mineral resources ere known to exist at the site.
.
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accldental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (Including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
b) Possible Interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? I] [ ] [ ] [X)
c) The creation of any heallh hazard or potential health
hazard? [ ] [ ] [ J [X)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential heallh
hazards? [ ] I ] [ ) [X)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ,flammable brush, grass or
trees? [ ] [ ] [ ) IX)
The proposad eating establishment does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or
expose people to heaith hazards. Eating establishments are subject to approval by the County
Health Department. The project will comply with emergency access and fire safety regulations.
.7.
CEQA Checldist 7/95
~ ......,
FUe No.: CUP 99-005
Potentially
Significant
. PolenUeJIy Unl... Less Than
Would the proposal result In potential Impacts Involving: Slgnll1cant M1Ugallon Slgnlflcanl No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result In:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X) [ ]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
The proposed eating establishment will be Ip en established commercIal area. There may be an
increase in noise levels during construction, but there should not be any long-term or permanent
nolse-related impacts. The proposed drive-thru facliities have been designed to minImize noise and
will incorporate the most current noIse reduction techniques available, and will comply with the City's
noise regulations. Except for the drive.thru facilities, the proposed eating establishment should not
generete any noIse that would be considered extraordinary to any other commercial use thet is
consIstent with the general plan land use end zoning designations for this araa.
11. PUBUC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result In a need for new or
altered govemment services In any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other govemmental services?
[ ]
[ ]
I )
[ J
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
. [ ]
I ]
[ ]
I]
[ ]
[ ]
[X)
[X)
[X)
IX)
[X)
.
The proposed eating establishment will be in an established commercIal araa end is consistent with
the City's Generel Plan, and zoning regulations. The project wiD not hava any impacts on public
seN/ces.
12: UTIUTIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies. or substantial alterations to the. following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [J IX)
b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ) [J IX)
c) Local or regIonal water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
d) Sewer or sepllc tanks? [ ) I ] [J [X)
e) Stonn water drainage? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] I ] [J [X)
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
The proposed eating establishment will be In an established commercial area. The site has ready
access to all necessary utilities and service systems. The project will not have any Impacts on
utilities and/or service systems. .
13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect?
c) Create light or glare?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
IX)
IX)
[X)
The proposed eating establishment will be In an estabOshed commerr;/al area and is In compliance
wIIh the zoning regulations and architectural design criteria for the araa. Any lighting for the project
will also comply with the City's lighting regulations.
.
-8-
~. ".," ._, . .._.. T. .. _ .... . ., .. _, . ., .- ". . ,_ .. .' '. ..
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
'-::)
~
File No.: CUP 99-005
Would the proposel result In potentiai Impacts Involving:
Potentially
Slgnlflcanl
P0tentla1Iy Unless Less Than
Slgnlflcanl MIUgaUon Slgnll1cant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [] [X)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ J [J [X)
c) Affect historical resources? [ ] I J [J [X)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cullural values? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
Impact area? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
The proposed eating establishment will be in an established commercial area In a diversely populated
area that Is zoned and developed with a varlety of commercial uses. The project will not have any
impacts on cultural resources.
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks ,or
other recreational facllities? [ ] [ ] [J [X)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? I ] [ ] [J [X)
The proposed eeting establishment wiU be In an established commercial area that Is zoned and
devaloped with a variety of commercial uses and Is consistent with the City's General Plan and
zonIng regulations. The project wm not have any impacts on recreational facilities or opportunities.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) DOes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? I ]
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tenn, to
the disadvantage of long-tenn, environmental goals? [ ]
c), DOes the project have impacts that are Individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project -are
considerable when viewed in connecllon with the effeds of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future project.) [ ]
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or Indirectly? [ ]
I]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
IX)
[X)
[ ]
[ ]
[X)
[ ]
[ ]
[X)
The proposed eatIng establishment w17l be in an established commercial area in a diversely populated
area that is zoned end developed with a variety of commerr;/al uses. The project Is consistent with
the City's Generel Plan and zoning regulations, and wiU not hava any of the above mentioned effects
or impacts.
-9-
CEQA CheddIsI 7/95
__ . ,.,....' _. - - ... '... _. '" A.A, ..... " .'". .,_ ." ._ ..
. .-. ." "." - '. . .,. - -. .
.
.
.
'1
""
File No.: CUP 99-005
Would the proposal resu~ In pOl8ntiallmpacts Involving:
POlenUa11y
Slgnlflcanl
Polenll8l1y Unless Lasa Than
Slgnll1cant Mftlgatlon Slgnll1cant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No earlIer analyses, and no additional docuinents were referenced pursuant to the tierlng, program
EIR, or other CEQA processes to enaiyze the project.
A traffic study was praparad by Dameil & Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1998 for a proposed
rata/I center that Includes this proposed eating establishment. The report was reviewed by the City's
traffic engineer who concurs with the findIngs of the traffic study.
.10.
CEQA ChecklISt 7/95
.- ".".. .- ....- ".". .. +, .. . -......- .- -. --. . -. ......" '...
...... '.0 ". .
---
..~
.'r:
FileNo.
--...
\ OCl;a 99-oo~
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATioN FORM
Date Filed:
2-/7- 99
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: A~ - -rA.'"'(l.o:z.. C1~'Ln.~~,,"'JTS
,Address: 'l>~t.b V/rJ'e.J~.4VE. ~~1)rt;;O) CA.c:7t'2D'lfl
2. Property Address (Location): L-\ \I'E. at..\<.. T""~ / M"'fF,.c. IU?
I
Assessor's Number: ~I? - c:>'Z,.,e-f - 0 \ Tb 0 I'D
3. N
eIephone number of person to be contacted c~ this project:
- e 'Sf,.
4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
.
. A~I""'~j:2AL. 1=2:G'J\e.,.u
-:f;u1L."'DI~ ~ers
5. Zone Oassification: C 'Z
C tJ'F
6. General Plan Designation:
Cor ."~c.,, a, L.
Proiect Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): aM MFPr.\e..L ~'F-j ~
~A.L..""t'.,. ~ n,~.\L I ~A,\L. ../l.1Jlb ~~ I ~~
J5tz:,\~\~ ~I~ ~~\"TE U~.&f"fll.lI'!.
8. Site size: 3 ~e.
. ""'UT'~E. I ~~ ~..., "m&.15oC
9. Square footage per building: !Jeiij~~ '2.400 .!>dl4I\
-'?t-....I~"1"'( ~H_
'2'214co ~Q"""
10.
.
Number of floors of construction:
,
~'2"'O
.1.
12.
Amount of off-street parking provided:
Proposed scheduling of project: ~~
13. Anticipated incremental development:
~
.
')
,",
. ...
14.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
~.;;
15.
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
~EE. .tl:: 4' "I ~ "'to lor-
16.
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
~A..
17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
N!.
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
. and indicate clearly "{hy the application is required:'t"""l- ...,-.:'
CU'P 'f"~ ...J~ IN~e: ~ ~\II"E- ,"-\~U
Y~~c.e ~ ~ro~..-y @ ~~R
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
19.
20.
21.
23.
.
YES NO
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o t3--
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o S.
Change in, pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o Ief..
o a
D~
22.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
_4.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
'1
.~
'.,:.)
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
Substantial increase infossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Environmental Settinl1:
.1.
YES NO
o ~
o 'tB
o S-
O ~
o ~
o ~
o ~
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
i.r:dormation on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants,
animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land Uses (residential,
commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department
stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Certification
32.
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the atta.
and information required for this initial evaluation to e best of
5tatemen ,an, information presented are true and c ec to the b
Date
.
ed exhibits present the data
y ability, and that the facts,
of my knowledge and belief.
H
-3-
E.I.R.
3/95