HomeMy WebLinkAbout1549
.
RESOLUTION 1549
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 97-006 FOR A VEGETARIAN FOOD RESTAURANT
AT A 1,480 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING
SHOPPING CENTER AT 815 WEST NAOMI AVENUE, SUITE A.
WHEREAS, on May 19, 1997, an application was filed by Raymond Cheung
for a Conditional Use Permit for a vegetarian food restaurant, Planning Department Case
No. C.U.P. 97-006, on a C-2 zoned property that is commonly known as the Vons
Pavilions Center at 815 W. Naomi Ave., Suite A, and more particularly described in
Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 24, 1997, 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 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 authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and
other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the
~
Arcadia Municipal Code.
1549
1
e
.
.
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. Thatthe granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and cl1rrent zoning are consistent with
the General Plan.
6. That any 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 for'a restaurant upon the following conditions:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete
satisfaction of the Inspection Services Manager.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
3. A modification be granted for 8 existing on-site parking spaces in lieu of 30
spaces. This approval shall not constitute an approval for a general reduction in parking for
the total site. That this parking modification shall be only for the use approved by CUP 97-
006 (a restaurant establishment).
4. C.U.P. 97-006 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.
5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use
permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension onevocation.
2
1549
.
.
.
SECTION 4 The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of June 24, 1997, and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Murphy and Sleeter
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Bruckner, Kalernkiarian
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 8th day of July, 1997, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Huang, Murphy, Kalernkiarian and Sleeter
None
Bell
Bruckner
tv!
erman, Planning Commission
Ity of Arcadia
.~ -1
AITEST! ~
(/~~~~~ ".
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED jTO FORM:
rr;~ . md--
Michael H. Miller, City Attorney
3
1549
.
'Exhibit "An
Legal Description
815 Naomi Avenue
PARCEL I: Parcel I in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as shown on Parcel Map No. 15104 filed in Book
180, Pages 3 and 4 of Parcel Maps in the office. of the Los Angeles County
Recorder.
PARCEL 2: The West 63 feet of the East 252 feet of the North 305 feet of
Lot 3, in Block "An of Santa Anita Land Company's Tract, in the City of Arcadia,
in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6,
Page 137 of Maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder.
Except therefrom the Northerly 5 feet of the Southerly 30 feet thereof
conveyed to the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation, by deed recorded June
13,1986 as Instrument No. 86-744389.
.
PARCEL 3: The Westerly 63 feet of the Easterly 189 feet of the Northerly
305 feet of Lot 3 in Block "A" of Santa Anita Land Company's Tract, in the City
of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded
in Book 6, Page 137 of Maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder.
Except therefrom the Northerly 5 feet of the Southerly 30 feet thereof
conveyed to the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation, by deed recordedJune
13, 1986 as Instrument No. 86-744389.
PARCEL 4: Parcell in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as shown on Parcel Map 17248 filed in Book 184,
Pages 45 through 47 of Parcel Maps in the office of the Los Angeles County
Recorder.
PARCEL 5: That portion of the Northerly 20.00 feet of Lot 2 of Santa
Anita Land Company's Pumping Plant No. I Tract, in the City of Arcadia, in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 10, Page.
183 of Maps in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, bounded Easterly
by the Easterly line of the Westerly 244.77 feet of said Lot 2, and bounded
Westerly by the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of Lot 4 of said Tract.
.
Exhibit "A"
1549
STAFF REPORT
DEVEWPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
June 24, 1997
TO:
Chairman and Members of the
Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: William E. Stokes, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-006
SUMMARY
..
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Raymond Cheung for a proposed
vegetarian restaurant (Bamboo Garden Vegetarian) with seating for 32 persons at 815 W. Naomi
Ave., Suite A. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the
applicant's proposal, subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Raymond Cheung
LOCATION:
815 W. Naomi Ave., Suite A
REQUEST:
A Conditional Use Pennit for a proposed 1,480 sq. ft. restaurant with a
total of 32 seats and related parking modification
SITE AREA:
286,764 square feet (6.58 acres)
FRONTAGES:
496. 77 feet along Naomi Ave. and 359.21 feet along Duarte Rd.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
The site is developed with the 65,000 square foot Vorts Pavilions market and a
20,000 square foot multi-tenant strip commercial building. There are 425 on-site
parking spaces and the site is zoned C-2.
tt
.
.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Multi-family residential and commercial offices; zonedR-3 and C-2
South: Multi-family residential; zoned R-3
East: Commercial retail center; zoned C-2
West: Commercial retail center, zoned C-1
BACKGROUND INFORMA nON
The previous use at the subject location was a 1,480 sq. Ft. Eating establishment (I & Joy
Manhattan Bagel). It provided seating for 19 patrons in accordance with its approved
conditional use permit (C.U.P. No. 95-010) which also included a parking modification for
425 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 447 required by Code to allow such a use within the
existing shopping center (i.e., eating establishments require 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.
Ft. Of gross floor area).
In January of this year, the bagel bakery ceased operation at the site. As per Section 9275.2.13
of the City of Arcadia Municipal Code, if for a period of (I) one year, any use authorized by a
Conditional Use Permit is, or has been, unused, abandoned or discontinued or the conditions
have not been complied with, said Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void and of no
effect. Since the bagel bakery has not been out of operation for more than (1) one year, a similar
use may assume operation in the same location without a new CUP application, so long as the
proposed eatery operates under the same guidelines and conditions.as the previous tenant.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,480 square foot restaurant with on-
site seating for 32 patrons, as shown on the submitted floor plan. The proposed hours of
operation would be from 7:00 am. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
The new CUP application is necessary due to the request for additional on-site seating at the
subject location. The proposed total is for 13 more seats than previously approved for the bagel
bakery. The new restaurant would have been permitted under the pre-existin.g conditional use
permit if it were to operate under the same conditions and maximum seating that was allowed for
the bagel bakery. .
Parking
The proposed restaurant use (1,480 sq. Ft.) requires 10 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of
gross floor area (i.e., 15 spaces of required minus 8 spaces allocated for the original retail
space) which results in a net parking deficiency of 7 spaces: 425 on-site spaces provided in
lieu of 432 required by Code.
CUP 97-006
June 24, ] 997
Page 2
.
.
.
Access to the property is from Naomi Ave. and Duarte Road (eastbound and westbound) and all
but three of the retail spaces are currently leased.
As previously stated, restaurants require 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq,ft. of gross floor area.
The attached traffic counts submitted by the applicant (Exhibit A), accurately reflect the number
of stalls utilized dUring the projected peak operating periods (the counts occurred at 12:00 noon,
3:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.). .
Staff is always concerned with the potential increase in traffic that may result from a proposed
business as well as any future retaiVrestaurant uses which may locate on a given site if vacancies
become available. However, at no time during the operation of the bagel bakery did the
Community Development Division receive any complaints associl\ted with traffic congestion
and/or circulation.
Traffic along Naomi Ave. (directly adjacent to Suite A) has a good amount of vehicular
circulation resulting from the subject retail center and neighboring SavOn drug store. Yet, at no
point does such traffic "bottleneck" into the area which would affect the ingress and egress of
the subject retail center. Although the submitted parking survey (dated May 12-17) does not
factor in the potential impact to the on-site parking if the site's vacant space (Suite A) was
occupied, staff does not foresee (with the additional restaurant seats) the proposed use
compounding any existing parking deficiency or traffic circulation.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
006 subject to the following conditions:
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Conditional Use Permit 97-006, the Development
Services Department recommends the following conditions of approval:
I. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Services Officer.
2.
Fire protection shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Arcadia Fire Department.
CUP 97-006
June 24, 1997
Page 3
.
.
.
3.
A modification be granted for 425 existing. on-site parking spaces in lieu of 432 spaces
required by Code. This approval shall not constitute an approval for a general reduction
in parking for the total site. That this parking modification shall be only for the use
approved by CUP 97-006 (a restaurant establishment).
4. That CUP 97-006 shall not take affectuntil the owner and applicant have executed a form
available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall
constitute groundsJor 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 approve the 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 finding based on the evidence presented, and move for denial
with a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this
application prior to the June 24, 1997 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, William
Stokes at (818) 574-5444.
p#;'~.
Donna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Parking Survey, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Land-Use Vicinity Map, Negative
Declaration, Environmental Checklist and Information Form, and Discussion of Environmental
Evaluation.
CUP 97-006
June 24, 1997
Page 4
. GOLDEN WEST PROPERTIES
9301 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 312
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 274-2m
Fax: (310)274-5152
PARKING SURVEY BY GOLDEN WEST PROPERTIES
FOR: 815 W. Naomi Ave. Unit "An
DATE: MAY. 12 through MAY'.17, 1997
SPACESABAIBLE: 428
DATE TIME TIME TIME TIME
12 NOON 3:00pm 6:30pm 8:30pm
12-May 159 138 122 59
13-May 170 146 120 61
14-May 191 188 133 67
. 15-May 190 172 130 65
16-May 196 198 145 75
17-May 207 300 140 72
EXHIBIT "A"
.
.
.
.
\ ! \
0 R-3 ~
C-2 -
0 -
0 ~ l!;
0 ~......... .- \I: S
" .
CD OffiCES ..""..
@ (i) (j) 0
G) G) 0 @
0 1\0,.1>
DUp.RTf. Bur\ington Coat
factory
.- @ 'iO~s
p,,'itt.lOtlS
Retail
S\I<lps
p(lESIOa<T'S '.
C-2
sQufJU! 1
SHOPP\l'lG
CE>...-rER
-~ C-l ~
0-
~..
,
\ ~I PrOposed Restaurant
\~ ~ . A -
Sutte
;..'if.-
!'lJ\0~\1
0) 00 S/I.'i.Ql'l
i <D 0 0 (!)(!) (!) 0 00", SHOPP\I'lG
<V 0\' - CD @O C~R
-0 CD C-2
ft. 0_ - 0
~,p..o 0 00 0 000~
~\~ =-- '-
~h 0 \0 _r" 0 R-?~ l--o @
0 ._9[-- 00
- .... r---- -
.
.
I \
~ .1
LAND USE AND ZONING
CUP 97-006 i NORTH
815 W. NAOMI A VENUE, SUITE A Scale: I inch = 200 feet
.
.
A. Title and Description of Project:
C.U.P.97-006
File No., CUP 97-006
CITY OF ARCADIA
2.40 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCALDIA,~ 9/007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant establiShment.
B. Location of Project:
Retail Shopping Center located at 815 W. Naomi Ave., Suite A., Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Raymond Cheung
8815 Jenny Wy., Rosemead, CA 91776
(818) 573-8256
D. Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970for,the reasons set forth In the attached Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
.
Date:
Date Posted:
May 21, 1997
May 21, 1997
A/c.&U4-
W.E. Stokes, Assistant Planner
File No. CUP 97-004
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
CUP 97-006
2. Project Address:
Retail Shopping Center located at 815 W. Naomi Ave" Suite A., Arcadia, County of Los
Angeles, California
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number:
Raymond Cheung
8815 Jenny Wy., Rosemead, CA 91776
. (818) 573-8256
4. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Planning Services (818) 574-5423
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
..
Zone Classification:
C-2
.
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 ifnecessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant establishment
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Building Services, Fire Department
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
.
o Land Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation
o Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources
o Geological Problems 0 Energy & MineraI Resources
o Water 0 Hazards
o Air Quality 0 Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Signficance
o Public Services
o Utilities & Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
.
E.I.R. Checklist
7/95
-2-
-DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd 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 signifiCllllt effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect (I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
.mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attach. ed sheets,
[the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
butit must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have beell avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
IJ/:,,5U~
Signature
..5- .2-/ - 97
lID
o
o
o
o
Date
W.E. Stokes. Assistant Planner
Printed Name
City of Arcadia
For
.
-3-
E.!.R. Checklist
7/95
eEV ALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
.
.
L
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project wilL not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2,
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off "site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR 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 XVII. "ealier
Analyses." may be cross-referenced.)
5,
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6,
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Refernce to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
E.I.R. Checklist
7/95
-4-
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the Commercial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 9251 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 applicm;le environmental plans. E.g., the
South Coast Air Quality Management District)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed use is a restaurant which 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)7
(The proposed use is a restaurant which 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 use is a restaurant which is
consistent with the surrounding land uses.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
. or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
-5-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Jncorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
(The proposed use is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
(The proposed use is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal resu]t in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
(The site 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 project will be 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 use 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 ofsoils.)
-6-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(No such features have been identified at the site of
the proposecl use.)
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runofl'l [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a projecFspecific screening analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposa!.)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening' analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
e) Changes in cwrents, or the course or direction. of
water movements? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 or withdrawals, or through
interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening.analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will notaffect ground waters.)
CEQA Checklist
-7- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Tbe proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of the South. Coast Air Quality
Management District.)
. b) ElCpose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
proposal wiu not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or
cause any change in climate? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION lCIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ 1 [ 1 [X] [ 1
(See attached comments.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uSes (e.g., fann equipment)? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Tbe proposed use is consistent with the zone
. designation and general plan. The location. that has
not been identified as hazardous.)
CEQA Checklist
-8- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential in1pacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(There is adequate on-site parking for both the
leasees and patrons to serve the proposed use.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 supponing
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 in1pacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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, threaiened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not lin1ited to plants, fish,
insects, animals and birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? . [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any 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.)
.
CEQA Checklist
-9- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vemat
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 lheloss of availability of a known
mineral resClurce that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a.project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal Involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides. chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project.specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
CEQA Checklist
-10- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( ] ( ] ( ] [X]
(Based on a projecl-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? ( ] [ ] ( ] [X]
(Based on a projecl-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 pellple 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]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Police protection? [ ) ( ] [ ) [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ) ( ] [ ] (X]
(Based on a project-speCific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of puhlic facilities, including roads? [ ] ( ) ( ) [X]
(Based on a.project-spec:ific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. e) Other governmental services? ( ] ( ] ( ] (X]
CEQA Checklist
-11- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
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;)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a neecf for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the followil)g 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 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts;)
c) Local or regional water treattnent or distribution
facilities? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or. septic tanks? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Stonn water drainage? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
13.AES~1lI(;S
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? r ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
-12-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 97-006
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [ ) [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? [ ] [ ] [ ) [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ) (X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. c) A ffect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ) (X)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) bave the potential to cause a physical change
Which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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? [ ] [ ] [ ) [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nol have any such. impacts.)
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ) [ ] [X)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nol have any such impacts.)
b) Affeclexisting recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will nol have any such impacts.)
-13-
CEQAChecklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the pl1lposal result in
potential impacts Involving:
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
hftbilat 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?
("CUlIlulatively considerahle" 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 prohable future project)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Does the project have environmenial 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.)
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.
-14-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
file No.: CUP 97-006
potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
7/95
"
,
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 97-006
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
6a. Tran!lPortation/Circulation. Increased vehicle trips or traffic circulation?
A recent parking survey provided by the applicant revealed that there is adequate
on-site parking for the proposed use.
"
.
.
"
--\
C. UP 91- DO&;
FileNo.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADrA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
May 19, 1997
General Information
1.
Applicant's Name:
RAYMOND CHEUNG
Address:
8815 JENNY WAY
ROSEMEAD, CA 9177Q
2.
Property Address (Location):
815-A NAOMI AVE.. ARCADIA, CA 91007
Assessor's Number:
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Rll.YMOND CHRtJN(; pag<>r' (818) 238-8823
8815 JENNY WAY ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
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:
BUILDING PERMIT, HEALTH, PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
5. Zone Classification:
C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
6.
General Plan Designation:
COMMERCIAL
Proiect Descriotion
8.
9.
10.
e1.
12.
13.
7.
Proposed use of site (project description):
1480 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT WITH ON
RESTAURANT
SI.TE DINING
FACILITIES: INDOOR WITH 10 TABLE AND 32 SEATS
Site size:
18FT WIDE BY 80 FT LONG
1480 SQ FT
1480 SQ.FT.
Square footage per \::iuilding:
Number of floors of construction:
ONE
TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED -428
Amount of off-street parking provided:
60 DAYS
from BLDG. PERMIT
Proposed scheduling of project:
..
Anticipated incremental development:
NONE
,
-
15.
-....
. ~
.....,
i
14.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
N/A
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
CITY ORIENTED
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
17.
18.
.
. ,
N/A
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
N/A
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED DUE TO ADDITIONAL SEATING.
Are the foJlowing items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
o
~
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o
I8J
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o
o
~
~
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
o
~
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
E.l.R.
3/95
-2-
'24.
30.
~
'\
YES NO
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 filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
27.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or 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
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o
Environmental Setting
.1.
32.
181
~
~
f?3I
~
~
!gl
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 wiIl 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.
'\ ;/f /n . ~/.-,d:. .~
Date Si re /'
.
-3-
E.I.R.
3/95