HomeMy WebLinkAbout1560
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1560
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. CUP 98-001 TO PERMIT A 713 SQ. FT. EATING ESTABLISHMENT
(SUBS-2-GO) WITH SEATING FOR 15 PEOPLE AT I W. DUARTE RD.,
UNIT #H.
WHEREAS,. on December 3,1997, an application was filed by Mr. Ming Wang for a
713 sq. ft. eating establishment with seating for 15 people; Development Services Department
Case No. CUP 98-001, to be located at I W. Duarte Road, Unit #H, more particularly described
in Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 13, 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 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 the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said
use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features
required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan, that
the proposed use is consistent with that designation, and that the granting of the Conditional Use
Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
.
.
.
6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study are
appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the
meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when considering the project
as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed project would have any
potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and
therefore, a Negative Declaration should be approved.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 98-001 to permit a 713 sq. ft. eating establishment with seating for
15 people at I W. Duarte Road, Unit #H, subject to the following conditions:
I. 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 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
4. A modification be granted for 55 parking spaces in lieu of 144 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 98-001 (an eating
establishment).
5. That CUP 98-001 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.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of January 13, 1998, by the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian and Sleeter
NOES: Chairman Murphy
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.
- 2-
1560
.
.
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1560 was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 27, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter
Commissioner Murphy
None
None
~C.h~~~--~.7
a1rm ng ommlSSlon
City of Arcadia
ecretary, Planrung Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mi:!!/,~{~}!!R
City of Arcadia
- 3 -
1560
.. :,. ;.-'t,..":
=. .,;..~' ..:::-:'
,;: ~ ~". .
.... ;,
=._". ......
>-
",-"':"4'
, .. ..' ~~.
~ . "...~ . .
.
..
.,
"
j
,
. .~
Those portions of Lot 3 of Tract No. 950, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as
per mal' recorded In Book 17, Page 25 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as
follows:
Parcell:
Beginning at a point In the easterly line of said Lot 3, distant northerly thereon 219.97 feet from the
southeasterly comer of said Lot; thence westerly at right angles to said easterly line, 140.00 feet; thence southerly
along a line parallel with said easterly line 5.04 feet; thence westerly at right angles to said parallel line, 10.00
feet; thence northerly along a line parallel with said easterly line of Lot 3;a distance of 25.04 feet; thence easterly
at right angles to said last mentioned parallel line, 150.00 feet to said easterly line of Lot 3; thence southerly along
said easterly line, 20.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2:
Beginning at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 3, distant northerly thereon 125.00 feet from the
southeasterly comer of said Lot; thence westerly at right angles to said easterly line 140.00 feet; thence northerly
along a line parallel with said easterly line, 94.97 feet; thence easterly at right angles to said last mentioned
parallel line, 140.00 feet to said easterly line; thence southerly thereon 94.97 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 3:
That portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 950, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per
map recorded in Book 17, Page 25 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the southerly line of said Lot, distant southwesterly thereon 141.75 feet from the
southeast comer of said Lot; thence north a distance of 237.11 feet more or less to a line extending west at right
angles to the east line distant north thereon 214.93 feet from the southeast corner of said Lotrthence west along said
last described line a distance of 40 feet to the west line of the easterly 180 feet of said Lot, measured along the north
line thereof; thence south along said west line, a distance of 243.44 feet more or less to the southerly line of said Lot;
thence northeasterly along said southerly line a distance of 40.50 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting
therefrom that portion of said Lot described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the southerly line of said Lot, distant southwesterly thereon, 141.75 feet from the
southeast comer of said Lot; thence north a distance of 147.18 feet more or less to a line extending west at right
angles to the east line of said Lot, which passes through a point in said east line distant north thereon 125 feet from
the southeast comer of said Lot; thence west along said last described line, a distance of 40 feet to the west line of
the easterly 180 feet of said Lot; measured along the north line thereof; thence south along said west line, a
distance of 153.51 feet more or less to the southerly line of said Lot; thence northeasterly along the southerly line a
distance of 4050 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 4:
A portion of Lot 3, Tract 950, as shown on Map recorded in Book 17,Page 25 of Maps, in the Office of the County
Recorder of said County described as follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 3; thence northerly along the westerly line of Santa Anita
Avenue a distance of 125 feet; thence at right angles.westerly a distance of 100 feet, thence southerly and parallel
, with the westerly line of said Santa Anita Avenue to the northerly line of Duarte Road, a distance of 140.86 feet;
. thence northeasterly along the northerly line of Duarte Road, a dist.ance oi 101.25 feet to the place of beginning.
. Except that portion of Lot 3, Tract No. 9!j0 as per map recorded In Book 17, Page 25 of Maps, in the Office of the
County Recorder of said County, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lot 3; thence southwesterly 101.25 feet along the southerly line of said
Lot; thence northerly 4.05 feet parallel with the easterly line of said Lot to the true point of beginning; thence
northeasterly 89.71 feet parallel with said southerly lot line to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
northwesterly and having a radius of 23.00 feet; thence northeasterly 12.73 feet along said curve to its intersection
with the non-tangent easterly line of said Lot, said intersection being distant northerly 7.51 feet from the
southeasterly comer of said Lot; thence northerly 17.45 feet along said easterly lot line to the beginning of a tangent
curve concave to the northwest and having a radius of 15.00 feet; thence southwesterly 21.21 feet along said curve to
a tangent line that is parallel with and 12.00 feet northerly of the southerly line of said Lot; thence southwesterly
along said parallel line 88.44 feet; thence southerly 8.10 feet parallel with the easterly line of said Lot to the true
. point of beginning.
Exhibit "A"
.
.
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
January 13, 1998
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 98-001
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Ming Wang for a proposed 713 sq.ft.
eating establishment (Subs 2 Go) with seating for 15 persons at 1 West Duarte Road.
.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal
subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff report.
GENERAL INFORM A TION
APPLICANT:
Ming Wang for Subs 2 Go
LOCATION:
I W. Duarte Road, Unit #D
REQUEST:
A Conditional Use Permit for a proposed 713 sq.ft. eating establishment
(Subs 2 Go) with seating for 15 persons.
LOT AREA:
Approximately 33,202 square feet
FRONTAGE:
Approx. 114 feet along Duarte Road, and 210 feet along Santa Anita Ave.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a 9,200 sq.ft. retail center that consists of two
retail buildings with 55 on-site parking spaces and one loading zone. The
site is zoned C-2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Office building, C-2; and Los Angeles County Park, zoned S-2
South: Arcadia.Public Library; unzoned
East: Mixed commercial and gas station; zoned C-2
West: Mixed commercial, zoned C-2; and Arcadia High School, zoned R-l
PROPOSAL
The applicant is seeking a required conditional use permit to operate an eating establishment with
seating for 15 patrons (11 indoor and 4 outdoor), as shown on the submitted site plan. This
business is already a "food take out" operation within a retail space of approximately 713 sq,ft.,
which is within a 9,200 sq. ft. retail center, as shown on the submitted site plan. Business hours
would be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
PARKING
Eating establishments require 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area. Within the
proposed eating establishment there is 713 sq.ft. of gross floor area, which amounts to a parking
requirement of 14 on-site spaces. The existing on-site parking ratio of 5.97 spaces per 1,000
sq.ft. of gross retail floor area results in a net parking space requirement of 10 spaces for the
proposed eating establishment.
The existing 9,200 sq.ft. commercial center was originally built for a retail purposes, and began
with a parking ratio of5.97 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross retail floor area (55 spaces provided)
which exceeded the code requirement of5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail (46 spaces). However,
the existing amount of on-site parking (55 spaces) does not comply with the current code
requirement of 134 spaces for the existing mix of uses (i.e., 5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross
retail floor area plus 16 spaces for the on-site yogurt shop seating - CUP 88-004, 18 spaces for
the tutoring center - CUP 93-004, and 54 spaces for the EI Pollo Loco - CUP 96-010). With the
addition of the proposed restaurant use the total number of on-site spaces required for the retail
center would be 144.
The attached traffic counts were submitted by the applicant, which indicates the number of
available stalls during projected peak parking periods in reference to the proposed use (counts
occurred at 12:00 p.m. for a two week period). The survey indicates that on an average, during
the times of the survey, 34 on-site parking spaces were available. Staff has made random traffic
counts and concurs with the applicants parking survey.
CUP 98-00 I
January 13. 1998
Page 2
.
.
.
Since the addition to the center of EI Polio Loco (CUP 96-010), the City has not received any
complaints nor has the center experiences any parking problems.
ANAL YSIS
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 staffs 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. 98-
001, subject to the following conditions of approval:
I. 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 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
4. A modification be granted for 55 parking spaces in lieu of 144 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 98-001 (an eating
establishment).
5. That CUP 98-001 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.
.
CUP 98-00 I
January 13. 1998
Page 3
.
.'
.
.
.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall
constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
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, find that the project will
not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare a resolution which
incorporates the Commission's decision, specific findings 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 permit application, the
Commission should make specific findings based on the evidence presented, and 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.
rr]:' ~1i~LL
Corkran Nicholson
Planning Services Manager
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, environmental documentation, floor plan, parking
survey
CUP 98-001
January 13, 1998
Page 4
. .
,
100'
~ 53.
. CAMPUS DR -.n C"- 4 C"
.... ...... ...
...
R-3
PARKING C" '<t -,
110 I~ .'1. :~-r
(8) (r2) I ')\.
(lj;) (/'11 I
I.. oil ('IS.I
/35 53.~ .
I~ ,.. LUCILE ~
.... ..
MIXED MEDICAL OFFICE
I - ~., 00
I 01 '.s-~
..J C-2 I ~ I.&.l EGG PACKING/DISTRIBUTION
0 I
0 ~ 2/5
C-2
) '215.
150
51 .3 0
VI
en MIXED
w .tJ
~ " ..
II. a'" GAS c>:i RETAIL
II. ..,0;- "'!:! J
~ '-
R-1. en STATION
..J ...
0 - \2.9& 5
. 0 100' ~ (3)
II. ... \~\.&9
ell RO
leI) , o.
80:9
... 5/#.0'1 5.};
a:> ",'" ..... 10~.G4 tP ("IV I.. '
oUp.R1E. >- ....- ... (2 - ..-(;1 "IfJ.J(14.J E
<t 21."
.,,',, I- Ib/;' t"- . "...1.
1,-0'1 .~ ~ MIXED .J)
1 S '(;?D) ~. - " GAS STATION ~
'11.\\'1 Z RETAIL
'11.11' <t ~ I - oil
l!lf:) 0 PUBLIC LIBRARY <t C-2 u:
t CO'
l- llS (;'1.09'2'"
Z II>
<> 0 1(;7.24 <t ..
I'; .- 50 50 So Ca5
g N en a I '" IS.T
I I <Q
N UNZONED 0) , PR-3,
G 5 0 GJ", '23
.3 0 ~:>. I "...
s:: "so 50 511 ,..:
~ -I
.
CUP 98-001
1 W. DUARTE ROAD
SCALE:1"=100'
LAND USE AND ZONING
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
'I
l
j\ i) i
-:=1
Ci
~ !
.
r~opfl:ry OWNEf:.: .
SAN TA "DlJAl(TE FLA2.A
I IN 'DuARTE 1?D. 4l- D
ARC/\l>IA cA ""007
(,:> (, - 44 b - 5533
I
I
I
-I
~I
I
I
t
I
,
I I
I 11
P. (
. 'I
' -' ;;
I I:
I 9!
,
I
i
J
1-lJ
,
r-
~
<:(
"::J
A I
ffi
\
, i
,. :
fXI!.TI. eUIl.Dbl6
'oICrO!IO.FT,
20' 'TO toP or PAtl.N"eT
.
\ \
: I
\ \ .
i
I
\ .
\
\ I
"
".~"'"
, -....---
IS" __._..........__
__J' .
-
.
Iii j I
I ,
! .~.:
. I ,_0.' . ~ ," .
.. '
I
"'"
'I~
":'~-=- ---.31
I
L___J_
El(ISTIN4" BulLDI~
5800 SQ. FT
:lo'n) 'TCf Of f.<<A~
-,
I . sues ~ ....
t ~ SUITE It -. "-,
.
,;"._...___-.-J_
I '
I !
J
<to'
~~~v~ ~~DV~ ~~~~~~
-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-----.___._0___.__-'---'-'_._.___.___.___._,_,_____.___,___,__
SITE STATISTICS;
SITE: AReA = 33..:202 SQ FT
BUILl>lrJq AREA = '1444 :;:a F T
COV€:RAGrE = ;6.44 %
LANDSCAre = 1'150 SG, 'iT
':OvERA4",- = 6 %
pA~Kll\I~ = 5S STALLS
ft':' . ;l LANDSCApED
. _.: AREAS
.... "".
(~\
\
I
\"--_//
llo..z.
~".
..:.:'::.:._...~.. '," ... +..... :.
" . "...; ...; ~ ';4 :~',. ~.:'.: ~':.. . ~
,,~~'..~.. ,'::!;. ~.. -,.-:.;~ '~/"f~..~ ~".';~:.. ,,':' w:.' ;'-'... ..
;.Aik~~ ... .v..... . .~...t~'w'. t
~J~~~~.K.~~~~~~jj.J~:,;..~. ~t:
. -' _.~.'.-...
(., \J f' <H3 -DO I
.
. 9' 3" ----j
/ " "11-'"
. 4"-j1~ 9 5 0 '1 ;) i
_/ 0
@ @
\ 0 /'") 0 cl,
. 3 0 ., ~'
., D D D \
60
Q~
'j (l nc
20 '-j - . I
-
14
" :0
@ - -----;@)
(j)9 I @)
,
.J ~I~
@ .@
~ 0 I
CD .1.... ;3
/ v ~I
.-11 .. 7 L/.
/ "
I ~llc II 4- I II
8 40 4-
FLOOR PLAN
i
ij
1
. Sheel1 .
PARKING SURVEY FOR 1 W. DUARTE
. DATE TIME # OF CARS
17-Nov 12:00 PM 22
18-Nov 12:00 PM 17
19-Nov 12:00 PM 20
20-Nov 12:00 PM 26
21-Nov 12:00 PM 18
24-Nov 12:00 PM 16
25-Nov 12:00 PM 24
26-Nov 12:00 PM 18
27 -Nov 12:00 PM HOLIDAY
28-Nov 12:00 PM 17
29-Nov 12:00 PM 23
"55 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
.
.
Page 1
.
.
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-00 I
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
CUP 98-001
A proposed conditional use permit to operate a sandwich shop.
B. Location of Project:
1 W. Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Ming Wang for Subs 2 Go
10142 La Rosa Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
(626) 446-5222
D. Finding:
This project wiIl 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:
-~
Date: December 16, 1997
Date Posted: December 18, 1997
.
.
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
E~ONMENTALCHECKLISTFORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-001
2. Project Address:
I W. Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Ming Wang for Subs 2 Go
10142 La Rosa Drive
. Temple City, CA 91780
(626) 446-5222
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
7. Zoning Classification:
C-2 General Commercial
.
-1-
File No.: CUP 98-001
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-001
.
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 <!perate a sandwich shop with seating for 15 patrons.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., pennits, financing, development or participation agreements)
City Building.Services I City Fire Departnlent
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 folIowing pages.
[ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise
[ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
. [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
.
-2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-00 I
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by IheLcad 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ 1 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.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have,a 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 ErR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
rJA- ~.
Si~ature
December I7 1997
Date
John Halminski
Print Name
City of Arcadia
For
.3..
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-001
EVALUATION 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,
cwnulative 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 JpIpact" entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact 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 [he proposal result in
potential irnpactsinvolving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with geneml plan designations Ot zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the Commercial
designation in the Geneml Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 926 I.I 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. Kg., the
South Coast Air QualityManagement District)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed sandwich shop 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 sandwich shop 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 sandwich shop 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
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
.
File No.: CUP 98-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[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 sjte for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity of an identified 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.)
/) Subsidence of the land?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence.) .
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
File No.; CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
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 ai 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 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.)
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
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
File No.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water?
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? .
(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?
(Based on a project-specific screening. analysis, the
proposal will nouffect ground waters.)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(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?
(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?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors?
(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?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will have minimal increases in trips and
traffic to the site. Due to the hours of operation
and limited seating. In addition, a parking survey
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
.
File No.: CUP 98-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Xl
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[ ]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
indicates that approximately 75% of the on-site
parking spaces are available on a regular basis.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incgmpatible
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 us.e 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 75%
of the on-site spaces are available on a regular
basis. 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 hazards or
barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.. bus iurnouts,
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 have any such impacts.)
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
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ I
.
File No.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ 1
[Xl
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[ I
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
.
W ou Id the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such.impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(Based ona project-specific screening aJ)a1ysis, the
proposal will not have any such.impacts.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e;g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
(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)?
(Based on a project-specific. screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(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?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
deSignation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
(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?
(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
h~dous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
File No.: CUP 98-00 I
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[XI
CEQA Checklist
3/96
. . FileNo.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result iil 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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(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? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(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? [ I [ I [ ] [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? [ I [ ] [ I [XI
(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? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such. impacts.)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an. etTect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [ I [ I [ ] [XI
(Based on a project-speCific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Police protection? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
. . FileNo.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact hnpact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such. impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening an!llYsis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 fur new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] I ] [X]
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
. . FileNo.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
W ou Id 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.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics elTect? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Cr~te light or glare? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl
(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 alTect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
eJ Re$trict 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
3196
.
.
.
.
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.)
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 California history 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-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
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.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
.
File No.: CUP 98-001
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ I
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents 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 98-001
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.('1 /Q C;;-,-,
FileNo. / l-f/ 10-
Oaf
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed: /2../3/tn
I I
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: MIIJG WANG-
Address: /0 14.2. LA NasA 7>~ . ~ E CIT)' CA '7/ 780
2. Property Address (Location): / t1.) ])/JART€ Rl> # If ARrA 1>1 A eA l}loo 7
Assessor's Number: 57780/40.2. I
3. Name, address and telephone number of persC!n to be contacted concerning this project:
MR. NI/IJ(j NAN If
b.:l6 - 4~6 -S.l.lL
/ 1/\.1 "1>UAfi>TE HD. #- H /lRrAl>/A CIJ 9/007
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:
.
5. Zone Classification: C ,,2
6. General Plan Designation: J(ES TAU~A!l/T..5
Proiect Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description):
l(ESTAU1MNT
8.
9.
10.
Site size: 33202 S2 FT.
, ~
Square footage per building:
Number of floors of construction:
.944.1/- Sf FT.
j'
i
_1.
12.
Amount of off-street parking provided:
Proposed scheduling of project:
55"
13. Anticipated incremental development:
.
.
14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
.
15. If commercial, indicate the type, I.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
R"ES7AUKAAlT C .). ~P{.;AI ,MoN -'\..- .5/JT /OAM -"- .7/.1'4. ChSr-LJ 5'c/Nj)~
/.s S"cM7;...I6 C"'Pl9c/~" "7DT/I<:. 5'&77 7tf,?
/
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o
o
o
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
-2~
~
~
~
B'"
~
E.I.R.
3/95
,
.4.
.1.
.
.
YES NO
-3-
ra'
u:(
~
l3"
ur"
g"
lia"
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.
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 a~d belief.
/~ - ~ - 97 .~-7 t^~ t--J~/
Date SIgnature
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o
-
25.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
o
o
o
26.
Is site on fil1ed land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
27.
Use or disposal of potentiaIly hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable OJ:: explosives.
28.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
o
29.
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
o
30.
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o
Environmental Settine:
32.
Certification
E.I.R.
3/95