Loading...
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