Loading...
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