HomeMy WebLinkAbout1572
.
RESOLUTION 1572
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
98-013 TO OPERATE A COFFEE BARAT 29 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on June 3, 1998, applications were filed by Arcadia Presbyterian
Church to operate a coffee bar, to be located on a CBD zoned property that is commonly
known as 29 E. Huntington Drive, and more particularly described as a part of Arcadia
Santa Anita Tract, Ex ofSt, Lot 8 Block 74.
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on July 14, 1998, 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 I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
. SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health. or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity 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 authorize.d.
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 tutoring center'upon the following conditions:
1. Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
2. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Manager.
3. That a modification be granted for 7 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 31 for
the coffee bar and dental office. This parking modification does not constitute an
approval of a general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site, but rather
only for the specific use approved by this CUP.
4. That all employees shall park off-site during normal business hours.
5. C. U.P. 98-013 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant
have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development
Services Department to.indicate 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.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of July 14, 1998, and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian and Murphy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Sleeter
2
1572
.
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 28th day of July 1998, by the following
vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Murphy and Kalemkiarian
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Sleeter
ABSENT: None
~
goo""". PI'~
. City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS T FO~
iller, City Attorney
.
3
1572
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 14, 1998
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna 1. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 98-013
SUMMARY
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Arcadia Presbyterian Church to
operate a coffee bar at 29 E. Huntington Drive. The Development Services Department is
recommending approval of the application, subject to the conditions that are outlined in this
staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Arcadia Presbyterian Church
LOCATION: 29 E. Huntington Drive
REQUEST: A conditional use permit to operate a coffee bar with related parking
modifications.
LOT AREA: Approximately 7,000 square feet (.16 acres)
FRONTAGE: 50 feet along HuntingtonDrive.
50 feet along the. northerly alley.
EXISTING LAND USE &ZONlNG:
The site is currently developed with a vacant 2,500 sq. ft. building, and is
zoned CBD. The previous tenant was Steerburger.
.
. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The neighboring properties to the north of the site are developed with
Parking District No.2 and US Post Office; zoned CBD. Properties to the
south, east and west of the site are developed with mixed commercial uses;
zoned CBD
BACKGROUND
On May 5, 1998, the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency reviewed and approved the applicant's
redesign of the subject building (see-attached elevations). Included in the proposal was the
applicant's desire to have a coffee bar (retail use) within the front 1/3 of the building, and a
dental office occupying the remaining space. The proposed front 1/3 retail space (Le., the
coffee bar) would be in compliance with the newly adopted CBD Zoning Regulations.
PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS
. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a coffee bar with related
parking modifications. The proposed coffee bar would occupy a 1,371 sq. ft. retail space, and
a dental office would occupy the remaining 2,749 sq. ft., as shown on the submitted site plan
(copy attached). Business hours would be as follows:
Coffee Bar - Thursday 4:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m., Friday and Saturday 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.
Dental Office - Tuesday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Saturday 9 am. to 5:00 p.m.
Automobile Parking
The coffee bar requires 10 parking space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (14 on-site
spaces); and the dental office requires 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (17 on-site
spaces). Based on the combined uses, a total 001 on-site parking spaces would be required.
The site will provide a total of 4 on-site parking spaces.
In addition, there would be 3 allotted spaces in Parking District No.2. Staff has made
random observations of Parking District No.2, which provides a total of222 spaces. It was
noted that at least 70% of such parking was available during the various site inspections by
staff.
.
CUP 98-013
July 14, 1998
Page 2
.
ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the coffee bar use will not have a substantial impact upon the available
parking, because its primary clientele would be from the downtown pedestrian traffic. The
proposal provides an exterior pedestrian corridor, through the site, to promote such traffic, as
shown on the attached site plan.
In addition, a dental office typically operates on scheduled appointments, which should
mitigate the parking demand, at any given time, for such a use. Based on the available off-
site parking, staff does not anticipate a parking problem in reference to the applicant's
proposal.
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 asa 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.98-013, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. All City code requirements and policies regarding accessibility, civil engineering,
construction, fire protection, maintenance of public facilities, occupancy, plan checking,
safety, and utility services shall be complied with to the satisfaction of all City
Departments.
2. A modification be granted for 7 on-site parking spaces in lieu, of 31 for the coffee bar and
dental office. This parking Modification does not constitute an approval of a general
reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site, but rather only for the specific use
approved by this CUP.
3. That CUP 98-013 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.
.
4. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall
constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
CUP 98-013
July 14, 1998
Page 3
.
.
.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and direct staff to
prepare a resolution which incorporated the Commission's decision, specific fmdings and
conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use peITllit application, the
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 H~ lmin.ki at your earliest convenience.
a L. Butle
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, site plan, floor plan, elevations, Parking District
No.2 map, and environmental information
CUP 98-013
July 14, 1998
Page 4
.
.
.
.
.
,~
cii. ,.....
~'1. . ~
,~"'1I0.,O,:,,;;
!-.-
10' .:lO
.~.~. ~:::..:.;.~ ~~~}~.:: .~ >;.:
, .~ ,~: 'f;;;;'~;'\ "'~' I'
,_' ';' ......",-'0..
" ., ...;....;..... ..i.!AA--:' ,', )
'0..' .
.._~~.:.t.OG.~lJl
50
50':.
~
a WHEELER
\II
'AVE
.....
'.$'.-
W ~g
> '-
<C
"c;...~"
50
50
(/2)
eo
50 .
"0 50
(34)
~
<Uc> T.
I .b.r
""1. u,.s.
I".r.
, t
" "r I
~~ . i~ I
'1'Jl I
. ....1.. !'
so
'lllt:
50
R
...
..
PARKING
.'~ 'r-. '\0 ) ,
PARKING DISTRICT NO: 2 ~
~ caD'
'50''-[ 50 50 so ~
'II.'
Q
~
.."
'\.
~
I~'- "
5a
la
~" . t5 I !II." ~ ~ '25 1'25 50 ~~~l'\'\ 50.
''''4' I III I, ,", '\
.. I III
.. .100 I. "\:\
'I (;/ MIXED RETAIUOFFICE ~~ ~
~... DENNYS (I !!! I ~
~ " . I CI K, ...... "
, "06 ;... 'fI,-> ~~ I L. "-
~...~" "'(1JI ,,(/SJ ~v ~)~ (26) ~~) (4S)
l'l.? 8$ : sU"" 50 ~ '251'l!:. 50 ~lftA. ':"',.
50
50 ~o.Y
I
~ caD ." ~I
f3lJ
so
I
(41) ~.;.l0~
50 40 J!I]
- HUNTINGTON
""t
0')
- .
,
<C ~~ ISI.," 50 ~.1 ~~ 50 49.7~;! 50 50 ~ 50
'" ('~J (uJ ~JJ ~ (Jf:.1 (dG-4J
I- .. ~ (#.1
- .
z ~~ "7,)
Ill"
<C on::! ,MIXED RETAIL . ..~ ..
.J
<C :~~ :
I- ,,~ III ~
"-.:. ..on .4 M'
Z ISI." 50 50 '9.11 50 50 so 50
<C -.. I
...
en :\1.(; I ~ I :\0 50 50 50 50 50 ' 50 50 SO 50
"
" I I . "
III , I III
LAND USE AND ZONING MAP
29 E. HUNTINGTON DR t NORTH
CUP 98-013 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
.
.
M~
"T..t::~"T"
.--
_..;,,--4_ "
~.
HALL
3t6SQ FT
._-----~.::-.
.......,
II
1
-
~.----" ..-
.... ..
"""""""
I: ,..-t-''''''''''''
..-.-- ~:f!
... r
. .
c
:
.....
I L. .. r.
.
19-11
-
-.
BUILDING AREA
4120 SQ FT
RETAIL STORE
II00SQFT
,
~
"
--
.'.
.
.
.....
u.
l
..~
....
M"
...
...
".
ukdng\'O_'~
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
I.
.
"
!I
.
x
.
1''1 ir
...
.
l~- @~:-=~., r-
~ jJ 8' ':;.' .~~~~..
~,~ffl""""'f C'-- -
....... . _ ~~ ~---1'
1- . ~. -
l4~ J{' ...... i
n---' -- Jl !
~!@PA......8! ;
. , Ii
~___/~. f
4fcZ~ =- f
~-"\, -. =- ;
.; --.J
.
-
-
.......-
=--~
-
----
......,..
I'
/
i
I
~8ulU)lHGTOBI!:
SITE PLA~
-=-1,...,_
I" ,i
.!
i
. I
d !
~ll':
. ,
~ EHTRY
--
~
-
-
.
g
-=:-......
caISl.U'.''''
:--
II!
a
z
o
~.
j:
z
~
bI
..
N
~ I
il i ..
~H
~ I
I '! I ~
~ i
z
o
~
~ !
Iii
~ I
P II
II ~.
~ ~
I
TIPLAN
-
:-
.
. . I
~
- -
.. WlI
1l>f'.,.......,...T.
C'llo~-...,1't'?
. .
1'o!2~TM_
~T"""""
.
-l
)
\ '.
~ -
j
....~-__~.r..-
:
o
._C~,!",;.'
, \
, \
, \
\ ,
\ ,
SOUTH
, -t
,
,
\
\
~ JffiBl :: ':JffHl..JErn[";
WEST
EAST
.-
,
,
I
I
I
.
~
1
j
r
,
~I
w
::l
Z
~
<(
I:: Ii
~
~
~ Ii
.
Post Office
=
WHEELER AVENUE
__u__:: ______~
-----;
-{
-----;
-l
Private..2 'ng Lot-l
(ee ) -{
-----;
-l
,
-----;
-{
-----;
-l
I
LllJlllLd
.
r
Private Parking Lot
Alley
~: Pedestrian Access Easement
subject site ~ '
r-
Parking District No.2
(222 Spaces)
~ Scale
.
J
W
::l
~
....
IIJ
a::
ii:
FileNo.: CUP98-013
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
CUP 98-013
Consideration of a conditional use permit to operate a coffee bar with related parking
modifications for both the coffee bar and proposed dental office in the rear 2/3 of the
building. The proposed coffee bar will occupy the front 1/3 of the building.
B. Location of Project:
29 E. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
. C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Arcadia Presbyterian Church
121 Alice Street
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626)445-7470
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, ifany, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
None
.
Date: June 18, 1998
Date Posted: June 18, 1998
By: ;/,/. ;)i.~l
)600 HaIminski, Assistant Planner
.
.
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON ORNE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-013
2. Project Address:
29 E. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91 006
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Arcadia Presbyterian Church
121 Alice Street
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 445-7470
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
John Halminski, Assistant Planner
(626) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
-1-
File No.: CUP 98-013
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 98-013
. 7. Zoning Classification:
CBD Commercial Business District
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. Attacb additional sheets if necessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit to opemtea coffee bar with related parking modifications.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., pennits, financing, development or participation agreements)
City Building Services I City Fire DepartmentlEngineering 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
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation / Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
DETERMINA nON
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[Xl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGA TIVE 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
.
-2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-013
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] 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
Unless 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.
/::1- !~
S' ature .
, ...A--
June 18, 1998
Date
John Halminski
Print Name
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-013
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 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 Environmentallmpact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 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 15063(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
W ouid the proposal:
a) Contlict 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 9265.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance.)
II) 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 applicallle environmental plans. Rg., the
South Coast Air. Quality Management District.)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in tbe
vicinity?
(The proposed coffee bar 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 pbysical arrangement of an
establisbed community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
(The proposed coffee liar 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 coffee bar is consistent with tbe
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 98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[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 ofan identified fault.)
b) Seismic grolind 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.)
g) Expansive soils?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to,expansion of soils.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
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 amounlof surface 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) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface 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.)
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions orwnhdrawals, 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.)
g) Altered direction or rate.offlow of ground water?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 98-013
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ I [ ] [ ] [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? [ ] [ I [ ] [X]
(The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of the South Coas,t 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? [ ] [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ I [ ] [Xl [ ]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will have a minimal impact on automobile
traffic to the site. Due to the additional public
parking to the rear of the project (Le., parking
district No.2), no such impact will occur.
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
~
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sbarp
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
and 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 (i.e.,
Parking District No.2). In addition, off-site
parking is adequate and will 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.)
t) 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) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not bave any such impacts.)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would tbe proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but .not limited to plants; fisb,
insects, animals and birds)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., beritage trees)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
FileNo.: CUP 98-013
Potentially
. Significant
Pot'mli~lly 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) Locally designated natural 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 have any such impacts.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal wiRnot have any such impacts.)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
.
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardnus substances (iacluding, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides" chemicals or radiation)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 98-013
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.siIch 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:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Exposure of people. to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered government services in any of
the.following areas:
.
a) Fire protection?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
FileNo.: CUP 98-013
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) Police protection? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any.such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any.such impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [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? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Communications systems? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Local or .regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Stonn water drainage? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
t) Solid waste disposal? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 98-013
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.)
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(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 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ I [ ] [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ I [ I [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? [ I [ I [ I [XI
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
15. RECREATION
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.)
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, suhstantially 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?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
h) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nothave 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.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
FileNo.: CUP98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[XJ
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
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 iiny such impacts.)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
File No;: CUP 98-013
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
FileNo.
Cltf Qg-O\3
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: A rcadta f~.sJ'f+tlKlttM CivrcJ..
Address: 1 '2-1 A--/rce Sf . Arc~.{"" c;. Cfl6tJ{.
, ,
2. Property Address (Location): 1<1 E. IXNH:h"tj-lo.. J)('"
Assessor's Number: r:; 773 0 I '2- ooJ!
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Ja.rry jJ."" s..ero t I 4 t!J ,,1-,",r-f2. I2d I Arc..a:.4.r, cA ql'~ 6
K.Ji>/447"f?--3b
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:
. CliP -h,.,.- ,f>d,,-J;..i'1 am.d sf.e,c..i-l t'4.-h:>-;/ ure
5. Zone Oassification: C B D
6. General Plan Designation: ~ ......e..l~ I
Proiect Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): J)~ ofIiu.. 0wtI Co.fl'.-. )kv.r<2
9.
10.
.1.
12.
13.
8. Site size:
7 tJl5>(!) $~
Square footage per building: (fro~.s d)
Number'of floors of construction: ~ (I)
Amount of off-street parking provided: 7 ~ a. u.C;
Proposed sclleduling of projec't: OfMl. c..#,. h"V-U- -~ '1 )10)93
Anticipated incremental development: f) f-- v-Aa,./ ~ G2. z., l'>l.<m +is Ja-:/e.r
14.
.
15.
16.
17.
18.
.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
-HA .
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
Ci ~ = s n
C ~ W4" ..., "'",..., #/P...J".//h>1} FritS. 4/'.... of, mllfJ,fifJlt:f-
1Ja"J..J ~u..: r..~..- Fr; 9-""" -Iw 7/ht,. SJ 9AHt.-m .r~M
,
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
A/A
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be. derived from the project:
#A
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
CUP.../!w- ~#'2.Q. J.dV,rP. cu.d -/;y. fa~}t..;-n.q
.,/
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.
22.
23.
.
YES NO
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or-public
lands or roads.
o
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o
o
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust,ash,smoke,f1lJl;les or odors in vicinity.
o
-2-
~
rn
~
~
I!I
E.I.R.
3/95
. .
_4.
25,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
J
YES NO
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
[J
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
[J
[J
[J
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}
[J
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
[J
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
[J
Environmental SettinlJ
.1.
32.
~
~
~
IKI
~
1;8)
~
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. 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
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 correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I A~A. Pr..sJ.y n.,.,t2;r av"J..
S/:J.7. 48 ~., ~ J.I..,,<l~
Date Signature
.
-3-
E.I.R.
3/95