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.