HomeMy WebLinkAbout1585
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 1585
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 99-001 TO OPERATE RESTAURANT WITH A
SEATING CAPACITY FOR 40 PERSONS AT 1429 S. BALDWIN
A VENUE.
WHEREAS, on I;>ecember 3, 1998, applications were filed Dong Tien Truong
to operate a restaurant with seating capacity for 40 persons, to be located on a C-2 zoned
property that is commonly known 1429 S. Baldwin Avenue, and more particularly
described on attached Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on January 12, 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 RESOL YES 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 Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Pemtit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurions to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the
area affected by the proposed project.
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 for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and
other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the
Arcadia Municipal Code.
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 granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with
the General Plan.
6. That the new exterior design elements for the subject building are in
compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review
Regulations.
7. 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 restaurant with a seating capacity for 40 persons
upon the following conditions:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department.
3. Hours of operation shall be II :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
4. A modification be granted for 275 parking spaces in lieu of 312 spaces. This
approval shaH 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 99-001(a restaurant).
5. That CUP 99-001 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have
executed a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and
acceptance of the conditions of approval.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use
permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
2
1585
.
.
.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect
the Commission's action of January 12, 1999, and the following vote:
A1r.ES: Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, 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 forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of January 12, 1999, by the
following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bruckner
Chairm . ,Planning Commission
City of cadia
~n:
Secretary, PI~ssion
City of Arcadia
APPROVED A~T F~
iller, City Attorney
3
1585
.~ .. ::..:':,:::'. .
I:N&
~
e.
~
Exhibit "A"
"LEGAL DESCRIPTION"
PARCEL A:
PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1411, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK
23, PAGE 84, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL B:
MUTUAL AND NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, VEHICLE
PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS OVER THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2
OF PARCEL MAP 1411 FILED IN BOOK 23, PAGE 84, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DESCRIBED
AS PARKING AND COMMON AREAS IN THAT GRANT OF EASEMENTS,
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND PARKING AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN SAV-ON REALTY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND
E. F. MAC DONALD SHOPPING BAG FOOD STORES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, DATED JANUARY 28, 1970, RECORDED JANUARY 30, 1970, AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 406 IN BOOK 0-4620, PAGE 589, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL C:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF A~
KINDS OVER, ALONG, ACROSS AND UPON THE SURFACE OF THE EASTERLY 50
FEET OF THE WESTERLY 261.50 FEET OF LOT 8 IN BLOCK "An OF SANTA
ANITA LAND COMPANY'S TRACT AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6, PAGE
1.37, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 176.1 FEET THEREOF.
98 66269
-
I
STAFF REPORT
DIDniliOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
January 12, 1999
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-001
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Dung Tien Truong for a proposed
1,200 sq.ft. restaurant (Vietnam Kitchen) with seating for 40 persons at 1429 S. Baldwin
Avenue.
.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal
subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
.'
"
APPLICANT:
Dung Tien Truong for Vietnam Kitchen
::
LOCATION:
1429 S. Baldwin Avenue
;:
REQUEST:
A Conditional Use Permit for a proposed 1,200 sq. ft. restaurant
(Vietnam Kitchen) with seating for 40 persons.
LOT AREA:
Approximately 209,286 square feet
FRONTAGE:
Approx. 109 feet along. Baldwin Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE &ZONING:
Currently the site is developed with approximately 57,876 sq. ft. of retail
space with 275 on-site parking spaces. The site is zoned C-2.
.
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
"
North: Mixed retail; zoned C-2
South: A bank under construction, mixed retail, and board and care facility; zoned
C-2, COO and R-3
East: Mixed retail; zoned C-2
West: Multiple-family; zoned R-3
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with a seating
capacity for 40 patrons, as shown on the submitted plans. Business hours would be from 11:00
a.m, to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
PARKING
Restaurants require 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor' area. The proposed
restaurant has 1,200 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which amounts to a parking requirement of 12 on-
site spaces. The existing on-site parking ratio of 4. 75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross retail floor
area results in a net parking space requirement of 7 spaces for the proposed restaurant.
The existing 57,876 sq. ft. commercial center was originally built for retail pUIJloses, with a
parking ratio of 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross retail floor area. Currently, the site consists
of one eating establishment totaling 860 sq. ft. (Baskin-Robins - CUP 71-12) and two restaurants
totaling 3,216 sq. ft. (Moffets - CUP 75-13 and Chinese Express - CUP 77-23). The remaining
businesses in the center are retail uses.
"
'.
,-;
.'
There are 275 on-site parking spaces; current code requires 305 spaces. With the addition of the
proposed restaurant the total number of on-site spaces required for the commercial center would
be 312.
The attached traffic counts were submitted by the applicant, which indicates the number of
available stalls during the proposed hours of operation for the proposed use (counts occurred
between the hours of II :00 am. to 9:00 p.m. for a two week period). The survey indicates that
on an average, during the times of the survey, 178 on-site parking spaces were available (64%
available). Staff has made random traffic counts, and concurs with the applicants parking survey.
CUP 99-00 I
January 12, 1999
Page 2
.
.
.
ANALYSIS
Uses such as eating establishments and restaurants require conditional use permits, and traffic
concerns can be addressed as part of the consideration of such applications. Generally, staff does
not encourage uses, which are deficient in parking; however, based upon the applicant's proposal
and random parking counts by staff, it is stafrs opinion that the proposed use would be an
appropriate addition to the retail center.
Attached for your consideration are copies of the proposed plans and traffic counts.
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 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 an adverse effect on wildlife
resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-
001, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete
satisfaction of the Inspection Services Manager.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department.
3. Hours of operation shall be II :00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
4. A modification be granted for 275 parking spaces in lieu of 312 spaces. 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 99-001 (a
restaurant).
5. That CUP 99-001 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have executed an
Acceptance Form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance
of the conditions of approval.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall
constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
CUP 99-001
January ]2, 1999
Page 3
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. 1585 approving CUP 99-001.
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, thc
Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which
incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
Should the Planning Commission have any questions.regarding this matter prior to the scheduled
public hearing, please contact John Halminski at (626) 574-5447 at your earliest convenience.
adBY_~
Donna~
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, environmental documentation, floor plan/site plan,
parking survey
CUP 99-00 J
January J 2, 1999
Page 4
.
.
C-2
I \ -111)
MIIX~D RETAIL (1;~
I03.aA
~
.. ,\':).\....
-
".
Z .,
... -
'"
- I-
3: .-
"
a ..
..J '"
'" ,.
~ ., .
.,.
co ~
r::.
"'~
00
..:...
/-0...
'-
LAND USE AND ZONING MAP
1429 S. BALDWIN AVE. t NORTH
. CUP 99-001 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
(;,7
C.7-7!>
p...vE
10D.'
~'
....
'\:
'O~
'" .
~~
.....
- NAOM'
5SI. S8
'4~
'"
- 0
~o
10\
6\
545.0'
SAY-ON
....0
,..CZl
c),";
...'"
,-
.....
'W"
..
..
f;.
I.
I -'
@'o;.
\~ L ~
\?;
'0
'" 497.9\ .
\ \ - " ,~
\! -\ . ::~,~ ..
\ ~~~~
~ ~~~~
\ =S7.s~ ~'--
. _ _ - \ , 7"- .71
\ ". ~,.8 S ;:, ...
,-..;; '~lT)~
\ ... .." 0
, ~ ... ~~ -- -~:::
, ... ,... '"L__RETAIL' 0.-
, 1 J ').58.11 \ .0 I "l0
""I ~ S c ':r. ~ "
\...".....r' \ .~_ \ \_ '-0
- 1c&I.SO yo: n 50 I 5S5 \ \ C 0 r--% .L~L.-
. ,,-,,1:h \ . \ , _\ _ lolI~~.,~,
\\1:35 \ ............ R 3 ~\ ~ (
-* - -"t - ,,' :
\ i \~ \ OFFICE ~~ BANK ~ ~
~ ~ \(;7\\~' ~ ...
~ ~ t=i::\ \~ \ ~ \ \:y , r <!-?~
Q -\2) \~ \ \ \ (7/1) \ ,,,,,,OB d
e \ \ 72J.7ZS}\(TJ.(.7") \ eo L
(1J3'7J()\(~~ f !'>5.!. \!>~ C l\ ,\,\\1'10 REA
,1:1'1 ,...
C-2
MIXED RETAIL
. (7~/)
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project;
CUP 99-001
Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with a seating
capacity of 40 persons.
B. Location of Project:
1429 S. Baldwin Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
. C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
.
Dung Tien Truong
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 Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
None
Date: December 17, 1998
Date Posted: December 17, 1998
BY:~~'
JiM Halminski, Assistant Planner
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
~OWESTHUNTINGTONDroVE
ARCADIA, CA 9] 007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-001
2. Project Address:
1429 S. Baldwin Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
. 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Dung Tien Truong
4425 Durfee Avenue
EI Monte, CA 91732
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
John Ha1minski, Assistant Planner
(626) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
.
-]-
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
7. Zoning Classification:
. C-2 General Commercial
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 sheets if necessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant with related parking modifications.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is req\lired:
(e.g., pemits, financing, development or participation agreements)
City Building Services I City Fire Department
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.
.
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] All: Quality
[ ] Transportation I Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
.'
DETERMINATION
(To be completed'by the Lead Agency)
."
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.
-2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
rile No.: CUP 99-00 I
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any
remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant
Unles$ Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed.
[ ] 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 all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
udJ~'
~ature
December 17, 1998
Date
John Ha1minski
Print Name
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
EV ALUA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. 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 such as the one involved (e.g., the project
is not within 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 related as well as
operational impacts.
3. "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.EnvironmentalImpact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduc;ed 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 17
"Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact
Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration {Section l5063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 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.
-4-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the Commercial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 9261.1 of the
Zoning ordinance;)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
(The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency
with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the
South Coast Air Quality Management District.)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed restaurant is consistent with the
surrounding land uses.)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
(There are no agricultural resources or operations
in the area)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
(The proposed restaurant is consistent with the
surrounding land uses.)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
(The proposed restaurant is consistent with the
surrounding land uses.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
;'
[X]
[X]
"
[X]
t'
,.
,
.
I
,
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity ofanidentified fault.)
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(The site for the proposed use is not more
susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any
other site in the area The proposed use will
occupy an existing building that complies with
current seismic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
viCinity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.)
d) Landslides or mudflows?
(The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and
not within an inundation area)
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
f) Subsidence of the land?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potcntially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
g) Expansive'soils?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to expansion of soils.)
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
(No such features have been identified at the site of
the proposed use.)
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surfitce runoff?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposal.)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
(The site for the proposed use is not within an
inundation area.)
c) Discbarge into surfitce waters or other alteration of
surfitce water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, tbe
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
d) Changes in the amount of surfitce water in any
water body?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surfitce waters.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect any currents or water
movements.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 99-001
potentially
Significant
Un less
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 99-001
Potentially
Significant
.. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an !
existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
. (The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to.
pollutants.) .,
c) Alter air movement, moistUre, or temperature or
cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] "
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] i
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the I
proposal will not have any such affects.) r
6. TRANSPORTATION I CmCULATION
t
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal viill have minimal increilses in trips and
traffic to the site, due to the hours of operation and
. limited seating. In addition, a parking survey
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
indicates that approximately 64% of the on-site
parking spaces are available on a regularcbasis.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan. The location has not
been identified as hazardous.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
('The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
anti the proposed use will not inhibit access to
adjacent or nearby uses,)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
('There is adequate on-site parking for both the
tenants and guests to serve the proposed use. A
parking survey indicates that approximately 64%
of the on-site spaces are available on a regular
basis. In addition, off-site parking is adequate and
wilI not be impacted.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential bazards or
barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential conflicts with
policies supporting.alternative transportation.)
g) Rall, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impaclSc)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species Or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[ ]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
FileNo.: CU P 99-001
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Un less Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorpomted Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any sucb impacts.)
c) Locally designated natuml communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts;)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not bave any such impacts.)
. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES .'
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(TIte proposed project is consistent with the zone :
designation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficientmanner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] .'
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Result in 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]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the .;
proposal will not have.any such impacts.)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including. but not limited to:
. oil, pesticides, chemicals or mdiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] (X]
'.
CEQA Checklist ..
3/96
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Increased flTe hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] ..
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the ..
proposal will not have any such impacts)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in: (.
Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] :.
a) [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
'.
b) E"..posure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.) l
I
ll. PUBLIC SERVICES [
L
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a I
need for new or altered government services in any of
the following areas: I
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal. will not have any such impacts.)
. b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
l::EQA Checklist ..
3/96
FileNo.: CUI' 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific..screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening, analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
12. UTILITIES AND 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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any sucb impacts.)
b) Communications systems? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not bave any such impacts.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Storm water drainage? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any sucb impacts.)
t) Solid waste disposal? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local oHegional water supplies? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts invlllving: Impact I ncorpomted lnipact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ I [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specifie'screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create Iightllr glare? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb palellntological resources? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) have the PQtential to cause a physical change
whicb would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. 15. RECREATION
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
..
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
(Based on a project-specific"screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
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 Califomiahistory or prehistory?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-tena, to the disadvantage of long-teno,
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts:)
c) Does the project have impacts that are. individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effectS of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future project.)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
FileNo": CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Un less
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
I
[Xl
"'
~ :
[X]
.'
."
[X]
;
~
~
~
r
,
t
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documelllS were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
File No.: CUP 99-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CEQA Checklist
3/96
FileNo,
C,UR q9,-OO\
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
I zJ?, Ill!!
I I
General Information
.
1. Applicant's Name:
Address: 0
Property Address (Location): '4 2- q <;, 7Z..~ r>~AlI\n
Assessor's.Number: 1=):? R :, - 0 .~ I - 0 3 4
"It- 7 z-
Are., Am-A-~A . {A q/tlJ7
,.I ~
2.
3.
4.
'List and describe .any other related permits an<:J. other public approvals required for this
project, mclu<ting .,,'" "'I'"''"' by dty, reroru>!, ""Ie ond fed"" ag,od", ~
~h~~;:'1~'~~~tAD~~
~~,
Zone Classification: C Z.
General Plan Designation: Cn W'I "'" -V\.-U \ ~
5.
6.
8.
~co{
,
,
...
,
&1:0~d',M.
Site size:
9.
Square footage per building:
10. Number of floors of construction: J
.. Amount of off-street parking provided: ~ 4
12. Proposed scheduling of project: Z/I 111 q
I / ,
13. Anticipated incremental development: ,"~/A-
14.
.
15.
16.
1'7.
If residential, include the nUJ;l\ber of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
f.) /4-
, I
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
-:;:r.-~ ~r~'o~::,,~:~~ t.o ~:OOlr-W"\'- flno-vlU ~, (~dd-J
. I 1'\:/\. ,(<'j I,:> i.tA ..
If indus i ,indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy" loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
AI/A-
, I
,
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required: A .. t , I
. iR,.'., <f>A.a.\ ~ ,.,4- .,.....",.1. U\ "" ,..t'"N\ ~-l-.'l>"""~ lAS: (l f'PV\ n.., I':t- Iou /MIv~ e. 1-'-
V J V A
~1M'Y.l.~? fw1~'r ~N\.i''(J-ffh.. ~~DVJ .
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
19.
YES NO
'.
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
D)(
D J1:
(
.
I.
.
JC! f
D
D ~
D :a.
E.!.R.
3/95
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke,fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
-2-
e.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
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 demandJor municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Environmental Settine .
..
YES NO
D ~
D :a
D ;e1
D )a
D ;a:
D ~
D ~
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
information 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. A,j:tach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. be (. f' ~ > .
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.). :n;ach,
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 5e. e.. U"l or;f-o s:
Certification
32.
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true.and c ect to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/I /?'O /q (
Date I /
.
~
-3-
E.l.R
3/95
tr-t
'.~
....-
FLOOR PLAN
G-
.~
,,~
1InII_~-' .,<.:1'1
_~ur""UCIlllll
---.....
;;
-,
~..
~
Nare
MQCSISIBlIIDISIM_
MM,DIl\DIIIS_JAllUQIL
..__lIlCl\la(llllUQ_1lIS
-
1CM.I:I,/r_r...
\l
';M'
,..'l
~:
."(
,:l~,
I.;;k
.
(il!
t~,
LEGEND:
t=:l .....w
IiiiE!II :","=~.wttl"u
CIIWC'lP....IQ'Illa.'hIIft'
818\ DINNINCI RM
'(~
!~
. (.
J
."
NOTE:
ClUNl.TINP. N
--..
NIIlflU.JDUt.:1DfI
lQ1SJMlII'4'f;Q'~.u:l'll
MIQU 11'Sf ~JUi',lfIl}~_.
D'U; ""I.ll1.i\~ ----
lD.lin'IWL J!I",J,IlL\,-,.r.}_""",,
~NU .t)~,:UK!.Nl!
M\aaLPMrlOlA 4
1m
\
....,J...._
.............
......-
'lm"Ul'UtII;WIl
'l!WNlC_tI'BIJ.
r-a-
....-..
--
lUDlIU/llBtlGl8'.
'''.''
'~'
~l,
lM-"
~ tw.L
P .~ J- ..~ ! ,~ !
"'~
IW-crULI
""
'~J
I~Jj
:!if?;
--..:.-.--:."~.:.._-- .
"',. .
"=
fINISH SCHEDUI.E
RGaK: ~ ~:
. L
. L
.
. .
. .
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
Mm!;Ju.1'CI1D-....n:a......~QIt-.Q&M_~
DESCRlP110H IWU( NlDuooEl
.........
.
""......
~ .
,
-
....."""....
"'~
..J....
...
_ , .4V~
~1::9'!.~.J:'l'P'
SITE PLAN
G-
SECTION OF
THE FROm- COUNTER
KEY MAP
G-
toLll~."4'
~
EB
tJ
3
~ Il~~
I ';J
'" iIIf
1111
z -
.. j!
Jil
co
""BIWolE
NGADOAESS
z
w
:z: uI ..
U ~g
... z Gi
Si! ' iot
:l5 i~
c( 03
Z IllS
F ~...
IU
-
>
DATI!
"",.
lIRA"" BY
~
llC.ILE
",,-.(\(\"
lIRA"" NO.
.....
~
~
I "";;t I
.
e
.
page 1 of 2
VIETNAM KITCHEN
1429 S. BALDWIN AVE.
ARCADIA, CA 91007
(626) 294 - 9605
PARKING SURVEY
Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues.
11/18/1998 11/19/1998 11/20/1998 11/21/1998 11/22/1998 11/23/1998 11/24/1998
Open Hours
11:00 a.m 165 148 151 126 145 203 157
12:00 p.m 147 142 129 137 134 186 150
1 :00 p.m 148 146 130 145 143 178 151
2:00 p.m 153 157 147 148 152 156 155
3:00 p.m 153 156 131 143 140 149 156
4:00 p.m 145 150 132 156 146 157 162
5:00 p.m 138 157 139 159 178 169 143
6:00 p.m 161 150 147 153 1785 162 139"
7:00 p.m 175 160 163 156 199 139 166
8:00 p.m 181 186 193 182 226 148 175
9:00 p.m 202 205 207 194 230 159 198
TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 275 (.9 handicaps & 266 non-handicaps)
The data shown above were counted on numbers of parking space available.
Prepared and Surveyed by: Dung Truong
'.
i
l
E
I
-.
.
.
page 2 of 2
VIETNAM KITCHEN
1429 S. BALDWIN AVE.
ARCADIA, CA 91007
(626) 294 - 9605
PARKING SURVEY
Wed. Fri. Sat. Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed.
11/25/1998 11/27/1998 11/28/1998 11/29/1998 11/30/1998 12/1/1998 12/2/1998
Open Hours
11:00 a.rn 195 189 153 165 159 156 158
12:00 p.rn 157 175 148 159 152 147 145
1 :00 p.rn 153 163 143 147 142 149 141
2:00 p.rn 130 168 153 158 150 156 153
3:00 p.rn 128 171 166 152 157 158 157
4:00 p.rn 130 176 169 159 162 162 165
5:00 p.rn 132 178 171 175 148 165 162
6:00 p.rn 140 169 185 186 154 158 153
7:00 p.rn 175 173 198 196 163 163 167
8:00 p.rn 180 189 210 205 176 178 186
9:00 p.m 210 198 218 223 199 196 201
'.':
..
:::
TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 275 (9 handicaps & 266 non-handicaps)
The data shown above were counted on numbers of parking space available.
Prepared and Surveyed by: Dung Truong