Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1543 (3) . . . RESOLUTION 1543 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 97-001 TO OPERATE A 1,020 SQ, FT, RESTAURANT AT 300 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE, WHEREAS, on December 9, 1996, an application was filed by Probhakar V. Reddy for a 1,020 square foot restaurant, Planning Case No. C.U,P. 97-001 at 300 East Huntington Drive more particularly described as follows: Parcell of Parcel Map 19433 as recorded in Parcel Map Book 209 - I & 2 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 14, 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 I, That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the attached report is true and correct, Section 2. This Commission fmds: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Pennit would be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2, That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use Pennit is authorized as established in the zoning ordinance, 3. That the site for the proposed restaurant does not have adequate parking to accommodate said restaurant. 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. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Commission recommends to the City Council denial of Conditional Use Permit 97-001 for the construction ofarestaurant. -1- ~ . . . Section 4, The decision, fmdings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of January 14, 1997 and the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 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. Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATIEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia Approved as to form: Michael H. Miller City Attorney -2- ~ .' File No, 1J.J~97 -aJ/ " . CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACf NEGA ~ DEa..ARATION CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA A. Description of project: mpBJ aJA//J"/JtJ-U4z /,cV;; ~~ /Z) ftJ'awp . A ? o'?~ '''''9'-fl7 R3;;7?!V#/h.JT /.vI &/ AI.177/../(--. .#??.../7~ 723f~ ~/ A(////.71</.c:.. B. Location of project: 1\ ~ ~ hP'dfZd/a-7r-J/) n,a, c Name of applicant or sponsor: ~,!.)~d;;(? V .r~y . 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: "</L/A/h Date: l:(-/tf -'Y?~ ~~-~: Signature Date Posted: ~/I/#/~ ~/a~,(A1-!TAz:;w.u. Title . . . , fileNo. t:7g~"f'7-("YJ/ CIlY'OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA', CA 91007 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: //tP 'J? 7-ay 2. Project Address: .....~/);t!; //L/~/A7'7J<./ /),e/,vc; /&,r /Yz',2 . 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number: fttJ4~t!I<'.#R. y . g~1/ c9!35/ '/fkJJzP.-I/ AvE .~~~ / ' .4/?,..u:;r-cz...&-~ t14.9/;&, j' / (?or) ~ ';;4- //.-,/Jt') Lead Agency Name.and Address: /"..Y7f' ~ A~~~ ~ /r/. #//-</77,(/~;7,t)A/ /;:k? ./k'~/#' .& ;7/,01:7 4. 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: ~/f(/.4 L. &.p~ (' &I!!?),?}"'~-,~? , 6. General Plan Designation: r2?k7-/&PC/~ 7. Zone Classification: ~/.L:?-/ . ~ .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,) t1?.u'(//77.o~/~/ /".(jf=' 17~.-rr- 77J ~~ ,,4 ~:r.>b JA'~:17- h./ .4 / ' .I."~L. ,..;..::V/82.- 9, Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g" permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) ,A/L?A/~ ' . 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 0 Public Services o Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems o Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics o Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources o Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Signficance . E,I.R. Checklist 7/95 -2- '. -,., . " . DETERMINATION cr. be compleled by "'" Load ^&<"<Y.) On the basis ot'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 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, ~ D D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) 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 attached sheets, if the-effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless .mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an , earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, incltid41g revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, Az~<,-~ " Signature D D /.,;J-/-1-1"~ Date (/..:h~/U4 L .~./??-/"5lZ- Printed Name ~~/ OF,4-A?dk?/4- For . E.I,R, Checklist 7/95 -3- . . . EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1, A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the informationsources 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 involvedi 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 appropiriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant, If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entires, 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 Impa,ct" 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 a~equately 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- , i', . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zarling? (soiuce #(s) ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g, impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses?) ( ) . e) Disrupt or divide'lhe physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-irtcome or minority community)? ( ) 2, POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth, in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g, through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of majoroinfrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) . b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o o -5- Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpomted o o o o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o o No Impact ~ 8'" llt"" 3'" lZV (!t"" ~ ~ o l!3'" ~ E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 . . . '. ;' c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) e) Erosion. changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, orfill? ( ) f) Subsidence of the land? ( ) g) Expansive soils? ( ) h) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns Or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure 01 people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e,g, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount ofsurIace water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction ofwarermovements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground warers, 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? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground warer? ( ) h) Impacts to ground water quality? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -6- Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant hnpact o o o o o o o o o o o o o o No hnpact ~ w/ (2( l1" ~ iI' l:(" p/ (E(' B'" ~ liJ' ~ [I(' E,I.R, Checklist 7/95 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ; . i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 tB" ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 ~ to an exislit)g or projected air quality violati~n? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) 0 0 0 ~ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature 0 0 0 e( or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) 0 0 0 ~ 6. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION . Would the proposal result in: ~ a) Increased vehicle, trips or traffic congestion? ( ) 0 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. 0 0 0 oY" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 [B"" nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 [J ~ off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 oY' bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ra' alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, . bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air t~affic impacts? ( ) 0 0 0 r;/ . E.l.R. Checklist 7/95 -7- . . . '. :. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or re5ultin a need for new or altered government servicesln any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result ina need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () . d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) Potentially Significant . Impact o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -9- Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated o o o o o o o o o o o o o o t.essThan Signiffcant Impact o o o o o o o o o o o o o o No Impact 'I!r' IJV g' lOt' iJ-' B' u;y ~ cV' lit" Iia' lB'" e( ff E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 Potentially .' .' Significant Potentiall y Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact " . f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) 0 0 0 la" g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) 0 0 0 j:<Y 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( , ) 0 0 0 Er b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics 0 0 0 Ia" effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) 0 0 0 ~ 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) 0 0 0 IiJ-' b) Disfurb archaeological resources? ( 0 0 0 .l4 . c) Affect historical resources? ( ) 0 0 0 i4'" d) Have the potential to cause a. physical change 0 0 0 I;V which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses 0 0 0 uY" within the potential impact area? ( ) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 (J/' regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) 0 0 0 ~' . -10- E.I.R. Checklist 7/95 Potentially , . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than '. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e16. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 e- the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish Qr wildlife population to drop below sell-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? ( ) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 la" short-term, to the disadvantage of long~term, environmental goals? ( ) c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 uV 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 pro})able future projects). rf d) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effeCts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? < . E.!.R. Checklist 7/95 -11- - . . " " CUP 97-001 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM la-e The proposed restaurant will not have any impact on the land use and planning of the area. The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant is going into an existing retail multi"tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed to the site. 2a-c The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant with seating for 24 persons is going into an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed to the site. There will be no impact on population and housing 3a-h The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant is gqing into an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building"and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed to the site and there will be no geologic problems as a result of the restaurant going into this site. 4a-i The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant is going into an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. With the exception of new toilet and kitchen facilities, there are no changes proposed to the site. 4a-i The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant-is goirtginto an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed to the site. It is not anticipated that the restaurant will cause or create any additional air quality impacts to the area. 6a-g The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant is going into an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restllurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed to the site. It is not anticipated that the restaurant will generate a significant amount of additional traffic to the site. 7a-e There will be no impacts to biological resources asa result of the restaurant. The site is already developed with a neighborhood center. 8a-c There will be no increase in energy consumption or impact on non-renewable resources. 1 -, . . . 9a-e There will be no increase to potential hazards as a result of the proposed restaurant in an existing retail center. 10a-b The proposed restaurant will not cause an increase to noise levels within the area. 11a-e There wilt'be no additional government services required as a result of any approval for a restaurant on the site. 12a-g No new utilities or services will be required as part of the operation of the proposed restaurant. 13a-c As noted above, the restaurant is going into an existing retail building; no changes are proposed to the site. 14a-e The proposed 1,020 sq. ft. restaurant is going into an existing retail multi-tenant building located within a neighborhood center containing two independent restaurants, three office buildings, retail building and a parking structure. There are no changes proposed -to the site. 15a-b The proposal will not affect recreational needs within the community. 2 ~ ,. File No. C-U:P q \ - CO L CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE IIRCIIDIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: Generilllnformation 1. Applicant's Name: Probbakar., V. Reddy 8851 Central Ave. Suite E,..Monclair CA Address: 91763 ... .... . .' .- . -'r- - - 2. Property Address {Location}: 300 E. Huntington Dz:iye,' Arcadia CA Unit B-12 Assessor's Number: 3. Name,.address and telephone nU[Ilber of person to be contacted concerning this projei=t: Prqbhakar ~:. ~eddy, " 8851 Central Ave. 'Suite E, Montclair CA 91763 , " '" , . , , 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this ~ project, including those requirl!d by city, re~i()n(ll, state and federal agencies: Remodeling, electrical, plumbihg, conditional us~ permit 5, Zone Classification: CPD:-' Zone 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Authentic Indian Cuisine Restaurant 8. Site size: Build A 46,302/ Build B 66,222/ Build C23,268/ Build D 26,979 This is the building for restaurant/ Build E 7,357/ Build F 9;250r 9. Square footage per building: 1, n?n . Number of floors of construction: One 10. 1_ Amount of off-street parking provided: 823 Stolls 12, Proposedscl:1eduling of project: January 15, 1997 13. Anticipated incremental development: N/A - ~ , ,. 14. . 15. 16. 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 j If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: Mixed use commercial office, -:'retail, restaurant Six days a week 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM Lunch S1X aays a weed :>:00 !:'1'I to 11.66 1'11I If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A , - - 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, e'stimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project N/A 18. . , If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Restaurant with alcoho~ beverage use Are the following items applicable to the_project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. . YES NO Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. Change in sceriic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads, Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. -2- o ~ o ~:" o ~ u.: o o ~ E.LR. 3/95 . . ~ ...... ~- ....l .... 24.' . 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30, Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. YES NO 0 'l8( 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 w.. 0 !& 0 ra Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 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. Environmental.Setting .31. 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, conunercial, 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 32. , 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 ~t of my knowledge and belief. December 9,1996 . ~.~~I'c:::..:-~~ Date Signatur.e . E.l,R. 3/95 -3-