Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1546 . RESOLUTION 1546 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-003 TO OPERATE AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA WITH A SEATING CAPACITY FOR 30 PERSONS. WHEREAS, on April 4, 1997, applications were filed by Richard DiradoUl'ian to operate an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons, to be located on a C-2 zoned property that is commonly known as 850 S. Baldwin Avenue, and more particularly as Lot I, Tract ofPaI'Cel Map as per book 90 on pages 85-86.ofParcel Map. WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on May 13, 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 RESOL VES.AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the factual data submitted by the Development SeI'Vices . Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Peffilit 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 Pennit 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 featUl'es are adequate to adjust said use with the land wid USes in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the AIcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type . to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. . . . 5. That the granting of such.Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the new exterior design elements for the subject building are in compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. 7. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3, That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit, for an outdoor dining upon the following conditions: 1. Fire safety shall be provided to the.satisfaction of the Fire Department. 2. Water service shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Water Division. 3. All work done within the public right of way shall be done to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. 4. That the restaurant shall provide valet parking during the lunch and dinner hours. 5. That the owner have the option of installing rod-iron in lieu of wood lattice, subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. 6. That the owner shall re-strip the existing parking lot as per the approved plans. 7. C.U.P. 97-003 and ADR 97-013 sluill 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. 10. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation, SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of May 13, 1997, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Murphy and Sleeter 2 1546 . . . NOES: ABSENT: None Kalemkiarian 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 13th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Commi$sioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Murphy and Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Kalemkiarian ~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia Yh:7(fm~ Michael H. Miller, City Attorney ~~~n City of Arcadia 3 1546 STAFF REPORT D~OPMrnNTSER~CESDEPARTMrnNT May 13, 1997 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 97-003 & ADR 97-013 SUMMARY . This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Richard Diradourian for an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity fot 30 persons at850 S, Baldwin Avenlie. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-003 and of the proposed architectural design, subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard Diradourian LOCATION: 850 S. Baldwin Avenue REQUEST: A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons. Concurrent with the consideration of the requested conditional use permit, the applicant is also requesting approval of the proposed design concept plans. LOT AREA: Approximately 32,250 square feet (.74 acres) FRONTAGE: 132.74 feet along Baldwin Avenue. . . . . EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is currently developed with a restaurant, and is zoned C-2. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Mixed retail; zoned C-2. South: Mixed retail; zoned C-2. East: Multiple family; zoned PR-3. West: Mixed retail; zonedC~2, PROPOSAL AND & ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit add an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons within a proposed I, I 0,0 sq. ft. area, as shown on the submitted site plan (copy attached). The existing restaurant building will not be altered, The applicant is proposing that the outdoor dining area be open between the hours of7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. in the winter and 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. in the summer. The owner of Chez Sateau wishes to have a separate outdoor dining area to attract an "infonnal" clientele to the establishment. The new dining area will include a 120 sq. it, service building. The proposed service building will be used to prepare the limited food and beverage items to be served within the outdoor area. The proposed service building will eliminate the need for the servers to use the main restaurant while the outdoor dining area is open, Parking and traffic circulation Currently the restaurant provides valet parking. The parking area will be redesigned to accommodate the outdoor eating area, and to use tandem parking spaces, as shown on the submitted site plan. The total number of on-site parking spaces exceeds the minimum required for the restaurant. Staff believes the proposed parking lot layout will not pose a problem for vehicles entering or exiting the site, provided the restaurant maintains valet services during the lunch and dinner hours Landscaping The landscaping indicated on the site plan is partially existing and proposed. The landscaping within the parking area covers 5 percent of the paved area. In addition to the CUP 97-003 May 13, 1997 Page 2 . . . landscaping within the parking area, there will be a triangular landscaped area in front of the outdoor dining area and sidewalk. Architectural Design Review: Concurrent with the consideration of this conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's design concept plans for the proposed outdoor dining area and service building. Staff believes that the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. The design elements of the subject building (i:e., windows, decorative redwood lattice and fencing, stucco, landscaping, etc.) will provide the necessary visual treatments, Also, the architectural design of the structure and the exterior materials will match the existing restaurant and would be visually harmonious with the surrounding developments (see attached building elevations). Staff believes it would be more appropriate to leave the proposed redwood lattice in it's natural color with a stain preservative, in order to reduce maintenance and deterioration. The plans show the redwood lattice to be painted white Attached fo~ your consideration are the proposed plans. 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.97-003, subject to the following conditions of approval: I. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department, 2. Water service shall be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Water Division. 3. All work done within the public right of way shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. CUP 97-003 May 13, 1997 Page :3 . . . 4. That the restaurant shall provide valet parking during the lunch and dinner houts. 5. That CUP 97-003 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have el{ecuted a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its inimediatesuspension or revocation, FINDINGS AND MOTIONS There are no applications for the May 27th meeting, therefore, in order to expedite the processing of this application, staff has prepared two resolutions' for consideration by the Planning Commission. One resolution is for approval of the proposed application to the Planning Commission, the second resolution is for denial of the proposed application. If the Commission determines that the proposed project is appropriate the attached resolution may be adopted as presented or as modified by the Planning Commission. 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, find that the design concept plans are in compliance with the ADR criteria, and adopt Resolution 1546, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Permit 97-003 to operate an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the Commission should move to adopt Resolution 1546, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit 97-003 to operate an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons. CUP 97-003 May 13, 1997 Page 4 . . . Should the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to the scheduled public hearing, please contact John Halminski at your earliest convenience. ;?Z:~~~ Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, environmental documentation, site plan elevations, Department memos and conditions of approval from Building. CUP 97-003 May 13, 1997 Page 5 . ~ ...~ ..--~' u ~~ ~5' "'~ 11.84 " ...~ ~&: mOl RETAIL "jg UJ ~~ .:> <f " o RETAIL /17.1./ ~..t!.!,.tJ_..: .'~ "'..Zl." .._ .......~. ~t; ~ . ' . Q' ....::g . . _ P/ll"'{' oft 8 1.0 t 2% DO'S CAFE ) 1~8.4e ~13,n .;, ta.I1!>- To -r-7~ -r 1'0:',';;'- , 70 70 e8.1 I I COLOR" I 15' TILE :;:.~ I, 10 ~~ I C-2 I I ~-.J~'L I MIXED RETAIl: ' I ~i 10, I l:i I ,0 1 I (717): : C70{' ' 70 '9,2~~ oJ (0 l') ~cO ~..., ... FAIRVIEW 0 \9 "9.44 1 I r 2, gl 7 ELEVEN ''5~ - ~ I 0 I C-2 143.~3 ' -J .,. <f 01 MEX. REST. ~.... ai" JlI 1'1.&.,00, ~~ r> ~U ;;~ tt; 'PR-3 ... "'.~r to .{\J ... ' . '" q..tO . ' .. [\) 5 ~775 '$ '1&121 o'~ '214.31 . !O) -:i! ...' C 2 a .~ .. ~:: - .. :;f '" " . 'l.ll.c.4. .. ~ ___~_______ rl)_.. ~ ~ : RETAIL no, &:0 fi . ri'~ ~ ~l------:"r--- .. -~~~ '" .so.. _ .dSO,~ _ ..:!s.;,,- .:'!,o..s.,'_l: . ,'I I, ,., () \) t:: 01 ........ Q '!l - , .93' R-3 ::! i:\- RETAIL I ~~ ~~. - .. . I ___,IS4.83__-1-00lo (,9/4) J I !: ;;; &zaJ ....1 ..: i:' ~ 'l:;/o 0/ .., UQ. STORE: ~ ~colg ~I\i -~~ cs (:124) "0:1'2 10'/ I.. }-Ili u~_ <C ... rr: .. h .... 1 (653) 69./ (645) '<>3 o co T .~ AVE . iL"', 53 I~." . I (660) I -~ .. ", "Q' :-('V - iJ ~ ~ ~TUX SHOP' <il.. ~I IS ~ ' ",,,, .J 140.4' - 1111 --- ---:1~.35 ~ ..,~ ~-' ~ ~ RETAIL ~'., . RETAIL ",.'" '.ii1I , , '" 144,07 . 100 (G.!J2) \00 (6 C-2 Ii d] Ifl III - PARKING 314.07 20 '-.j oJ VICINITY MAP 850 S. Baldwin Avenue t NORTH CUP 97-003 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet . File No.: CUP 97-003 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: CUP 97-003 A Conditional Use Permit to operate an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons. B. Location of Project: Chez Sateau . 850 S. Baldwin Ave. Arcadia, CA 91007 C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Richard Diradourian 2154 Glenada Ave. Montrose, CA 91020 D, Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the' reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: _Nl2m: . Date: April 17, 1997 By yJ4 ~. . . CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADfA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-003 2. Project Address: 850 S, Balwin Avenue Arcadia, CA 91007 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Applicant & Lessee: PropertY Owner: Richard Diradourian Ryo Sato 2154 Glenada Ave. 850 S. Baldwin Ave. Montrose, CA 91020 Arcadia, CA 91007 4. Lead Agency Name &.Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person & Telephone Number: John Halminski, Assistant Planner (818) 574-5447 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-2 General Commercial -1- File No,: CUP 97-003 CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . File No.: CUP 97-003 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation, Attach additional sheets if necessary,) A Conditional Use Permit to operate an outdoor dining area with a seating capacity for 30 persons. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing, development or participation agreements) City Building Services I City Fire Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the folloWing pages. [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Population & HouSing [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Water [ ] Air Quality [ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Hazards [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINA nON (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION win be prepared, [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . FileNo,: CUP 97-003 [ ] I find that'the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. jf-M- lure ' - -~... April 17. 1997 Date John Halminski Print Name City of Arcadia For -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . File No,: CUP 97-003 EV ALUA nON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e;g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g" the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2, All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts, 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one Of more, "Potentially Significant Impact" 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 File No,: CUP 97-003 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LANDUSEANDPL~NG Would the proposal: iI) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (The proposal is consistent with .the Commercial designation in the General Plan and is a use for .which is authorized by Section 9275.1.45 of the Zoning Ordinance,) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (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 Quality Management District) c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ . (The proposed use is an eating establishment which is consistent with the surrounding land uses,) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts ITom incompatible land uses)? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [X] (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)? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (The proposed use is an eating establishment which is consistent with the surrounding land uses,) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or .local population projections? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (The proposed use is an eating establishment 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 CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed project is consistent with the zone designation and general plan,) c) Displace existing housing; especially affordable housing? (The proposed project is consistent with the zone designation and general plan.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity 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 building will comply with current seismic standards.) c) Seismkground failure, including liquefaction? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault zone, however no such hazards have been identified, including liquefaction, in the vicinity of the identified fault zone.) d) .Landslides or mudflows? (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and .not within an inundation area,) eJ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (The proposed project is within an existing parking area and will not require any significant grading;) f) Subsidence of the land? (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject.lo subsidence,) g) Expansive soils? Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No.' CUP 97-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [Xl [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] CEQAChecklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (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 althe site of the, proposed use,) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption mtes, drainage patterns, or the mteand,amount of surface runoff? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, 00 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 oot within an inundation area.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g" tempemture, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) d) Changes in theamouot 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.) g) Altered direction or mte of flow of ground water? Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No,: CUP 97-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo,: CUP 97-003 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 affect ground waters.) h) Impacts to ground water qnality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal ~ill not affect ground waters.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed use will be required to comply with . the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) 6. TRANSPORTATION 1 CIRCULATION Would the proposal resulfin: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (The proposed project will not increase existing traffic flows on Baldwin Avenue nor will affectthe existing parking situation, The proposed . substandard parking layout takes into account the CEQA Checklist 3f96 . . . Would the proposal resultio potential impacts involving: restaurants valet parking service provided to all patrons,) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or'incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? (No proposed changes to the parking. lot design are substandard, However, the restaurant provides valet parking to all patrons.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ilearby uses? (The site of the proposed use iueadily accessible and the proposed use will not inhibit access to adjacent or nearby uses.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Due to the valet parking on-site, there are no existing or potential conflicts with the existing and or proposed parking layout.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians. or bicyclists? (Based on the project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with pedestrians or bicyclists). f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e,g,. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation:) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not 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)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any'such impacts,) Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No,: CUP 97-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 3196 File No.: CUP 97-003 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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, coas~1 habitat, etc,)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh, riparian and vemal 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) Contlict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed 'project is consistent with the zone designation, and general plan.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based 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,) CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo,: CUP 97-003 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts:) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts:) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts,) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a pr,oject-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such'impacts,) . c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 97-003 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.) 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 govemmentalservices? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 for 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 sucb impacts,) . b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have.any'such impacts,) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on,a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) 'Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on . project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not bave any such.impacts,) e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on. project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screenihg analysis, the proposal will not have any such. impacts,) g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on,a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) . 13. AESTHETICS CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 97-003 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? , [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (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 slichimpacts.) c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) d) have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have, any' such impacts.) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within lbe potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will,not have any such impacts.) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional . parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, ,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 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 w ill 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 futore project.) (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Does the project have environmental effects whicb will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will riot have any such impacts,) Potentially Significant Impact [ I [ I [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 File No.: CUP 97-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ I [ I [ 1 [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 No Impact [Xl [Xl [Xl [XI [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Potentially Significant Impact 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to analyze any noted .!fect(s) resulting from the proposal. File No,: CUP 97-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated LeSs TI18n Significant Impact No Impact CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . c.up 9l- DD3 FileNo, CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENT AL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Richard C. Diradourian, Address: 2154 Glenada Avenue, Montrose, California 91020 2. Property Address (Location): 850 South Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia, Ca. 91007 Assessor's Number: 5778- 001-103 3, Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Richard C. Diradourian, Architect 818 249 1888 2154 Glenada Avenue, Montrose, Ca. 91020 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: 1. Buildinq and Safety, 2. Health Department 5. Zone Classification: C-2 6, General Plan Designation: Commercial Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Outdoor restaurant with moveable seating. Accessory building to the main restaurant structure to service the new outdoor seating area . 8. 32,250 square feet Site size: 9, Squarefootage per building: Existing: 5,100 square feet. New outdoor area: 1,200 sq. ft. 10. Number of floors of construction: one e11. 12, Amount of off-street parking provided: Proposed scheduling of project: June 1, 1997 13. Anticipated incremental development: completed in October 1, 1997 , 14, , . . 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: nfa If commercial, indicate the type, i.e, neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: City commercial district servicing area. 1,200 sq. ft. of restaurant area., Hours of operation would be from. 7.00 A.M. to ~:oo P.M. (winter) 10:00 PM(summ) 16, If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: nfa 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. . nfa 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 is required for an increase In the seating capacity of a existing restaurant. Existing Parking layout will be re-stripped. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. 20. Change in scemc views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 22. Significant amounts 'of solid waste or litter, 23. . Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. New restuarant area will have a portion of the new space designated as an outdoor barbecue facility for foo,d served in the open area. Coffee and croisants served in the A.M. hours -2- YES NO 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 WJ I . ~ ,j E.l.R. 3/95 .24, 27. 28, 29, 30. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns, 25, Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more, Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. o Environmental Settin~ .31. 32. YES NO o ~. o o o ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site, Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity, Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the of my ability and that the facts, statements,and info mation presented are true and cor e be y k wledge and belief. Date . -3- E,I.R, 3/95 . . . . . RICHARD C. DIRADOURIAN, A.I.A. Architect - Construction Management 2154 GLENADA AVENUE, MONTROSE, CA 91020 . (818) 249-1553 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Project: 850 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia, California Question NumQer 31: a. Existing Project site is an open air asphalt surface parking lot. b. Site Is relatively flat. Existing slope is for water sheet flow of rainwater. c. An existing restaurant is located and In operation on the site. d. SEE PICTURE NO. 1.6; "\ Question Number 32: a, Surrounding properties include other restaurants and commercial business enterprises In the commercial business district area of Arcadia. b. Business area:small shops, retail stores. c. General height are one story structures of under 18 feet In overall height. d, Most businesses fronting on Baldwin Avenue abut to the existing property line. e. SE:E PICTURE NO.2 & 3. GENERAL STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT: The Owner of the current facility, Chez Sato Restaurant, wants to open an informal coffee shop type of facility that takes advantage of the California climate. With this concept in mind, the location of this open air restaurant was located away from the existing formal building. The informal outdoorsey nature of the new facility is completely different than the sit down, formal china and silverware dinner atmosphere of the current restaurant. The new area will have its own food preparation area, and adjacent outdoor seating. The Owner did not want the two different typ of cliental juxtaposed next to each other for this reason, hence the separation noted on the submitted plans.