Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1630 e RESOLUTION NO. 1630 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 01-002 FOR A BAKERY TYPE EATING ESTABLISHMENT WITH ON-SITE DINING FACILITIES THAT SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL CAPACITY OF 40 PEOPLE, INCLUDING ANY OUTDOOR SEATING, AT THE 2,970 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SPACE AT 338 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on December 11, 2000, an application was filed by SMI Arcadia, LLC for a bakery and eating establishment with seating for up to 62 people in a 2,970 square foot retail space; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 01-002, at 338 E. Huntington Drive, more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 19433 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California,as recorded in Parcel Map Book 209, Pages 1 & 2 in the Office .of the County Recorder of Said County. . WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 23, 2001 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report dated January 23, 2001 is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public' health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site, or sites for the proposed use are adequate in size and e shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, ~ . . loading, landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 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 subject property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan, that the proposed use is consistent with that designation, and that the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study are appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse , effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-002 for a bakery type eating establishment with on-site dining facilities that shall not exceed a total capacity of 40 people, including any outdoor seating, at the 2,970 square foot retail space at 338 E. Huntington Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use approved by CUP 01-002 is limited to a bakery type eating establishment with on-site dining facilities that shall be limited to a total capacity of 40 people, including any outdoor seating. The bakery shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted, revised and approved for CUP 01-002. 2. All City requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, safety, site design, and water service are to be determined through plan check and shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services Director, which include, but are not limited to the following items: -2- 1630 e e . a. Fully detailed tenant improvement plans shall be submitted for plan check review and approval. Actual occupancy limits (with seating not to exceed 40 people) seating arrangements, and exiting requirements shall be based on the final design, and are subject to approval by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. A seating plan approved by the Building Official, Fire Marshall and Community Development Administrator shall be posted in a conspicuous location. b. Any exterior improvements, including any new signs and sign face changes shall be subject to architectural design review and approval by the Community Development Administrator. c. An Industrial Waste Permit application and all necessary plans (esp. size, type and locations of grease traps) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Services Director. d. Installation and maintenance of Class-K fire extinguishers in the kitchen area(s) subject to approval by the Fire Marshall. e. This approval of CUP 01-002 includes a parking modification and any additional parking adjustments as required by the Building Official to comply with the disabled access parking requirements. This modification does not constitute an approval for a general reduction of the parking requirement for the retail building or the center, but rather only for the bakery type eating establishment approved by CUP 01-002. 3. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to occupancy of the bakery and eating establishment. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 01-002 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which would result in removal of the on-site dining facilities. 4. Approval of CUP 01-002 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and flied the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. -3- 1630 . . . SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions of approval contained in this ResoMion reflect the Planning Commission's action of January 23, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian and Olson NOES: Commissioner Murphy ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner 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 foregoing Resolution No. 1630 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 23, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson and Murphy None ad. ~~;?cd/~4 Chairman, Planning C ' mis on City of Arcadia ATTES'Tl / ecrelary, Planning City of Arcadia rr;;::pTO~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia -4- 1630 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT January 23, 2001 , TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 01-002 at 338 E. Huntington Dr. SUMMARY . This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by SMI Arcadia, LLC to operate a 2,970 square foot Vfe de France bakery and eating establishment with seating for up to 62 people at 338 E. Huntington Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of seating for up to 30 people, subject to the conditions listed in this report. . GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: SMI Arcadia, LLC LOCATION: 338 E. Huntington Drive REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and a related parking modification for a 2,970 square foot Vie de France bakery and eating establishment with seating for up to 62 people. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily. SITE AREA: 9.11 acres FRONTAGES: Approximately 874 feet along E. Huntington Drive Approximately 426.5 feet along S. Fifth Avenue . EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site (Arcadia Gateway Centre) is developed with 3 office buildings, 2 freestanding restaurants, a multi-tenant retail building, a 237 space parking structure, and 586 surface parking spaces. The property is zoned CPD-1 (Commercial Planned Development) and is located within the Central Redevelopment Project Area. . . . SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: South & West: East: Hotels & restaurants - zoned CPD-1 Railroad right-of-way - unzoned 3-story office bldg. - zoned CPD-1 & across Fifth Ave. is a storage facility in Monrovia GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial BACKGROUND The Arcadia Gateway Centre was built in the late 1980s and includes 3 office buildings, 2 freestanding restaurants, a one-story multi-tenant retail building, a 237 space parking structure, and 586 surface parking spaces. A parking modification of approximately 10% was granted based on the "shared-use" of the parking by the various tenant~ of the center. The one-story retail building is situated in the westerly corner of the Arcadia Gateway Centre. There are presently four (4) food service uses in the retail building for which Conditional Use Permits and parking modifications were approved. The other seven (7) tenants are allowed by right in the retail building. There are 107 parking spaces located in front of the retail building. While it is rare for any of these spaces to be used by tenants or customers of the other buildings during weekday business hours, these 107 spaces are heavily utilized. The current occupancy of the retail building is as follows: Tenant Proposed Vie de France Vacancy Eastwood Insurance Maly's Beauty Supply Leslie's Pool Supplies Bear Essentials Crafts & Gifts Nirvana Indian Restaurant Goldsmith & Sons Jewelers 3-Day Blinds Sesame Grill Restaurant Sign Depot Salsa Fresh Grill Starbucks Coffeehouse Total SO.Ft. 2,970 2,457 2,140 1,400 3,720 4,888 1,019 1,030 1,075 2,411 1,266 1,246 1.246 26,868 CUP 01-002 January 23, 2001 Page 2 of 6 e e e PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing a 2,970 square foot Vie de France bakery and eating establishment with seating for 62 people. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily. The proposed self-serve dining qualifies this use as an eating establishment, which requires a Conditional Use Permit and parking modification. A sample menu indicates that in addition to selling breads and pastries, the bakery may serve breakfasts, lunches and light dinners. Parkina A bakery with take-out sales only is considered a retail use and would be allowed by right However, witt) the addition of on-site dining the use becomes an eating establishment, which has a parking requirement of 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The result isa requirement of 60 parking spaces for this 2,970 square foot bakery type eating establishment, rather than the 15 spaces required for a retail use. Therefore, a parking modification of 45 spaces is necessary. Several modifications have been granted for parking for this center. The applicant provided a parking survey, which was conducted during the week of Wednesday, January 3rd through Tuesday, January 9th. The counts of available spaces were taken at 2-hour intervals from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The average numbers of available spaces at those times were as follows: 8 a.m. 83 Average Number of Available Parking Spaces Approximate Times Noon 2 p.m. 4 p.m. 29 38 58 8p.m. 52 10 a.m. 71 8 p.m. 56 While the parking survey seems to indicate that there are sufficient spaces available for the proposed bakery and eating establishment, it must be taken into account that there is currently a 5,427 square foot vacancy (formerly occupied by Coldwell Banker Real Estate). Observations by staff during the week of January 15th (15 available spaces at 1:15 p.m. on Monday & 6 available spaces at 12:50 p.m. on Wednesday) indicate that there are significantly fewer spaces available than during the week of the applicant's survey. Staff is concerned that the proposed bakery and eating establishment with seating for 62 people will generate enough parking demand to result in there being no parking available in the area adjacent to the retail building at lunch times, which could have an adverse impact upon all the businesses due to customer frustration. CUP 01-002 January 23, 2001 Page 3 of 6 . . . Staff thinks that a Vie de France bakery would complement the other businesses in this center, however, seating for 62 people may be excessive. Because of the parking situation, staff recommends that the on-site dining facilities be limited to a total of 30 seats, including any outdoor seating. It is staffs opinion that 30 seats will not generate a demand significantly in excess of what a take-out only bakery would generate or another type of retail or office use. Also, a limit of 30 seats is comparable to the seating provided at the other two (2) eating establishments: 30 seats at Salsa Fresh Grill and 32 seats at Starbucks coffeehouse. From an economic activity perspective, a parking problem may be viewed as an indicator of a successful project. Nevertheless, staff does 'not encourage projects that present parking problems because they typically have an adv.erse impact upon the owners and tenants of adjacent and surrounding properties who cannot control the activities at other properties. In this case, however, any parking problem would be limited to the Arcadia Gateway Centre, and would not result in impacts to other properties. In other words, if there is a parking problem in this center, it should be primarily up to the owner and his tenants to resolve. ~EQA 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 or potentially 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 that could not be made less than significant with mitigation incorporation. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been drafted for this project. The following mitigation measure is recommended: . The on-site dining facilities, including any outdoor seating, shall be limited to a total capacity of 30 people. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The use approved by CUP 01-002 is limited to a bakery type eating establishment with on-site dining facilities that shall be limited to a total capacity of 30 people, including any outdoor seating. The bakery shall be operated and CUP 01-002 January 23. 2001 Page 4 of 6 . . . maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted, revised and approved for CUP 01-002. 2. All City requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, safety, site design, and water service are to be determined through plan check and shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services Director which include, but are not limited to the following items: a. Fully detailed tenant improvement plans shall be submitted for plan check review and approval. Actual occupancy limits, seating arrangements, and exiting requirements shall be based on the final design, and subject to approval by the Building Official and Fire Marshall. A seating plan approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshall shall be posted in a conspicuous location. b. Any exterior improvements, including any new signs and sign face changes shall be subject to architectural design review and approval by the Community Development Administrator. c. An Industrial Waste Permit application and all necessary plans (esp. size,' type and locations of grease traps) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Services Director. d. Installation and maintenance of Class-K fire extinguishers in the kitchen area(s) subject to approval by the Fire Marshall. e. This approval of CUP 01-002 includes a parking modification and any additional parking space adjustments as required by the Building Official to comply with the disabled access parking requirements. This Modification does not constitute an approval for a general reduction of the parking requirement for the retail building or the center, but rather only for the bakery type eating establishment approved by CUP 01-002. 3. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to occupancy of the bakery and eating establishment. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 01-002 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which would result in removal of the on-site dining facilities. 4. Approval of CUP 01-002 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. CUP 01-002 January 23, 2001 Page 5 of 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 1630: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-002 for a bakery type eating establishment with on-site dining facilities that shall not exceed a total capacity of 30 people, including any outdoor seating, at the 2,970 square foot retail space at 338 E. Huntington Drive. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application, the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the January 23rd public hearing. please contact Associate Planner, Jim Kasama at (626) 574-5445. Approved by: ia4<-~~ Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Vicinity Map Plans Negative Declaration & Initial Study Resolution No. 1630 CUP 01-002 January 23, 2001 Page 6 of 6 . . . EMBAssY SUITES HOTa HAMPTON INN HOrn. t u: u.i :;( DERBY RES,TAURANT a:: a li SOUI'LANTATION 3 REsTAURANT UJ ..... <t ~ TONY ROMA'S RESTAURANT TOKYO WAKo RESTAURANT HUNTINGTON DR. BONITA PARK BONITA ST. BJ'S REST. Ol:JVE GARDEN REST. 3-8TORV OFFice BUILDING 3oSTORY OFFICE I s 5 SERENDIPITY SCHOOL MEDICAL SUllDtNG iii ~ AL TERNATtVE HIGH S.CHOOL ~ ?1 VICINITY MAP t NORTH Application No.: CUP 01-002 338 E. Huntington Drive Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet . . BUILDING l.EGEND . CICI<< MEDICAL OFncI 'UIUJlNG , FOUIt SJ'OIroFha Jun.mND C MA OFFICE'"1J.D1NO D 'E.TAJLSJlOn t .ENNIGANf aurAIlaAIIr , OUVE GAMJDI D ,- no., OFFIC. .UlUUNO H J . uvn. '....INO SBUCTIIU A -(~ '., <f... .~ >:PO "0 ~ ~ 0.; r 8 tNClJ'A "An] HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA GATEWAY CENTRE ARCADIA GATEWAY ASSOCIATES . BII/I.DlNG AREAS GROSS. RENTABI;E ~"GlIGLLonra N&aiIc ""... I'OlIllDIM'.na~ -.- """"'..... -..... """"'.- ..'" ......OInalUtUlallJ ....,. "MUU. ,...., U.R'" N.",U ."",al: .,....,. .OUI-,,.",, ,tIUT,_ """"..... ......"".. ""... QI""'r.S1tOI, ",IM_'a&If.lU&UI1' ~...... '.OI,J'. &lM.'_ u..sr 11,f,UU. u.nu1. I.U"" u>>." IU..,,_,_, ,,,,,,s.;.,,,., un", II_I U~J'.I'_' t'OTAi acuuttrQ "au 1.1, 'U.'~f-'. '''.JI''-'. ,,,'VMQHt'JtIIOU) su".a ,,aUlNQ ,i.uJiIo,~ 'U"'~I lAUR#a r,u..o IUUC'fUU ,., II ,., II '.J II ....... iaO""Uj ..ST..u.l UtStAUJ IrDr,U.I""'lIIOntJwlUll mrT.flU JWLWJiIJ.D r{JII".~ FntJ'f'Af:1t 11--. ,." IJ, IU. ~ 6" - ,.., O. 1011I >u _ 1'-" II" ajJ ". DI. lit' Q-IJ UII p.,. 111 [tJ ~-~- --'--- _'_'In, . . rlP__ . /1 Q. ~~=--::-~-=-~~.___.GI'_ ..,.__.__II____"'~--~ ~=:..~~~~--.- .-..---- ..__a___._ ........_\WU =CII!OC1'NU-cJ'Jt.wI,I ~ -t --t ~ I QIOtN~,..g..'1t1'fU:lS2.2O"tVt4lf(Wtl' I~HI-t6"J:Ia"lIPH8'llIHlllC1lW . ......... I .w<<aw:m.VJ"11&' fit) II'li:l'~HHW'.X~.U CllUmr.~ 0.'" W!U I.fCiND ~.,,1tGffl. "" """ R;4 3>0i 1')J 19Qtl. i1>>' "',Q\l mr""~mt ~ WU.tU61.AlfP'IiU- iii ~~ . """- !N1m aM> ~. ....... f'ttM,lP^"20roorCIHUU:J..~~,..r.r.~arr!l'OeN..Nl""'_.IfVr.tm8.'fft.iHi/fffA Pl!:MlPAl8llOroor(./N\C1rWZlIi1!V""'Ar,'.H~lIU..awa/f!fA .lI.Lauml'lti6fD.AMU.~""~M1\1PlMU'NWlttiUAl_ QQ _9~ /"'61.'\ II L__' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ :i:gjgj[]~gjaJo j 1 - t t ~ 'W0 G:~ --~f t \ o t ,I Ii Ie u \ @ W~ ~-~ ..".....00 UI 8 ~ i hI ~~U ~ t 1l...I IJ ~ lLli ~I~ ~!l~ t HIe 11Qlre(!'1!:A;a!W'ENOf_2XIa5Sf11OMfWlAf<J1 ~~~ ~ Foe IifS1ROOM INSf!UA11ON 1lEfM. - ~ _w !QI.-'(lO vot".,f'O' ..... 2 . . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Adopted: - 0 R AFT Title and Description of Project: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 2001-002: A Conditional Use Permit and parking modification for a 2.970 square foot bakery and eating establishment with seating for 62 people at 338 E. Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia. County of Los Angeles. Location of Project: 338 E. Huntington Drive In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Name of Applicant or Project Sponsor: SMI Arcadia, LLC for Vie de France 3701 Wilshire Blvd., #414 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Contact: T. J. at Craft Restaurant Builders, Inc. at (323) 222-5549 Finding: The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public hearing of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the results of the Initial Study, and the consistency of the proposed project with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Inclusion of the following mitigation measure: . Based on information that is to be provided by a parking survey, the seating capacity of the eating establishment will be adjusted to limit the degree of any potential parking ~~~ ' The Planning ,Commission hereby finds that this Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at the location listed below. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia Development Services Dept/Community Development DMsionIPlanning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Staff member. James M. Kasama, Associate Planner (626) 574-5445 Date Received for Filing By Los Angeles County. (County CIel1c Stamp Here) Name of Loa Angelea County Slaffperson TIlle . . . . . FIle No.: CUP 2001..002 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91.007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 2001-002 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia Development Services DeptlCommunity Development Div.lPlanning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia. CA 91066-6021 3. Lead Agency Contact Person & Phone Number: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner - (626) 574-5445/ fax (626) 447-9173 4. Project Location (address): 338 E. Huntington Drive In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 5. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Phone Number: SMI Arcadia, LLC for Vie de France 3701 Wilshire Blvd., #414 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Contact: T. J. of Craft Restaurant Builders, Inc. at (323) 222-5549 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: CPD-1: Commercial Planned Development Form "J" -1- CEQA Checklist 4/99 . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 . 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action Involved, Including but not IIm~ed to later phases of tha project, and any secondary, support, or off-s~e features necessary for Its.lmplementatlon.) A Conditional Use Permit and parking modification for a 2,970 square foot bakery and restaurl:lnt with seating for 62 people at 338 E. Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia. COl.lntyof Los Angeles. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The subject property is in a retail building in a commercial center in a commercial area on a major arterial near a major freeway. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, flnancing approval, participation agreement) The City Building Services, Engineering Division. Fire Marshall, Public Works Services. and Water Services will review the construction plans for the tenant improvements for compliance with all applicable construction codes and will oversee construction and installation of any necessary infrastructure or improvements within the publiC right-of-way. The tenant improvements for the bakery and eating establishment will also be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Health Department for compliance with local health codes. 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: [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agricultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology I Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology I Water Quality [ ] Land Use I Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population I Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation I Traffic [ ] Utilities I Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance Form "J' -2- CEQA Checklist 4/99 . . . . . FlIe No.: CUP 2001-002 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: , [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED 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. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" 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. 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, but because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATNE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE' DECLARATION. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner For. City of Arcadia Date: December 21. 2000 Form 0'" .3- CEQA Checklist 4/99 . . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except 'No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the Infonnatlon sources a lead agency cites In the responses following each question. A 'No Impact" answer Is adequately supported If the referenced infoimatlon 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-speclflc factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-speclflc screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action Involved. including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level. Indirect as well as direct. and construction as well as operational Impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has detennined that a particular physical Impact may occur, then the checklist answers must Indicate whether the Impact is potentially slgnlflcant, less than slgniflcant with mitigation, or less than slgniflcant. 'Potentially Slgniflcant Impact" is approprlata if there is substantial evidence that an effect Is signlflcant. If there are one or more, 'Potentially Slgniflcant.lmpact" entries when the detennination is made, an EIR Is required. 4. 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Slgniflcant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the Incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Signlflcant Impact" to a "Less Than Slgnlflcant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than slgnlflcant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, 'Earlier Ailalyses," must be cross-referenced). 5. EMler analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, en effect has been adequately analyzed In an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(O). In this case, a brief discussion should Identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Signlflcant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were Incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-speclflc conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate Into the checklist, references to Infonnation 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. 7. Supporting Infonnation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources, uses or Individuals contacted should be cited In the discussion. 8. This Is only a. suggested fonn, and lead agencies are free to use different fonnats; however, lead agencies should nonnally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever fonnat Is selected. 9. The explanation of each Issue should identify: a) The significant criteria or threshold, If any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure Identified. If any, to reduce the Impact to less.than signiflcant. Form' J" -4- CECA Checklist 4/99 . . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 leBa Than Slgnlncant PotentlaIIy WiIh Less Than Significant Mltlgation Slgnlncant No Impact IncorporaIlon Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: . e) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ( ) ( ) () (X] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, Including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ( ) [ ) [) (Xl c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Its surroundings? [ ) ( ) [) (Xl d) Create a new source of substant.ial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime vle'!/S In the area? [ ) [ ) () [X] The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In detennlnlng Whether Impacts to agrtcultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomla Agrtcultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomla Department of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing Impacts on agrtculture and fannland.) Would the project: a) Convert prtme Fannland, Unique Fannland. or Fannland of Statewide Importance (Fannland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomla Resources Agency, to non- agrtcultural use? ( I [ ) () [X] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agrtcultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ( I [ I (I (X] c) Involve other changes In the existing environment which. due to their location or nature, could result In conversion of Fannland to non-agricultural use? r ) ( ) [I (Xl The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an eXisting retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above impacts. III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control distrtct may be relied upon to make the fOllowing detenninatlons.) Would the proposal: a) Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? [ I r [) (Xl b) Violate any air quality standard or contrtbute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ) ( I (I (Xl c) Result in a cumulativeiy considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [ ) ( I () (X] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrailons? [ ) [ I [) [Xl e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [ ) [ ) [I (Xl The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and because the proposed use is subjeclto applicable air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, it will not have any of the above impacts. Form-r .s. CECA Checldlst 4199 . . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 Less Than SfgnlrlClllll PolenUally WIth Less Than Sfgnirocant MiUgatJon S1gnillcant No Impact IncorporaIIon Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse Impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species In local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Callfomla Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ I [ I [I [X) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified In local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the Callfomla Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ I [ I [I [X) c) Have 8 substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands BS defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [ ] [ ]. [I (X] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or Impede the use of native wildlife nurseryslles? [ I [I [ 'I [X) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 'resources, such 8S a tree preserva1ion policy or ordinance? [ ] [ ] [I (Xl f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? [ I [ ] [I [XI The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. V . CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause 8 substantial adverse change In the significance of a historical resource as defined In Section 15064.5? [ I [ ] [I [XI b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? [ ] [ ] [I (Xl c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [ ] [ ] [I [XI d) Disturb any human remains, including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ I [ I [] [XI The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury. or death Involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines end Geology Special Publication 42). II) Strong seismic ground shaking? III) Seismic-related ground failure, inCluding liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [ I [ I [ I [ ] [ ] [ ] [X) [X] [X] FOIII1"r CEQA Checkllsl 4199 ~ . . . Iv) landslides b) Result in substential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result In on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil. as defined In Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ( I ( I () (X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building in a commercial center In a fuily developed commercial area. The subject location has not been detennined to be especlally susceptible to any of the above geologic problems and Is not within a Seismic Hazard Area identified by the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. The project will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. No unique geologic features have been identified at the site. The project is connected to the local sewer system. The project will not have any of the above impacts. . . FIle No.: CUP 2001-002 Less Than SIgnIIlcanl PotentIaJIy Wllh less Than SignifiCant Mitigation SIgnificant Impact Incorporation Impact [ ) ( ) ( I ( I [ ) ( I No Impact [X) [X) [ ) ( ) [ ) [X) ( ) ( ) ( ) [X) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [ ) [ ) [) [X) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions InVOlving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [ ) [ ) [) [X) 'c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [ ) ( ) [) [X) d) Be located on a site which Is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result. would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ( ) [ ) [) [XI e) For a project located within an airport land use plan. or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ( ) (' ) [) [X) I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ) [ ) [) [X) g) Impair Implementation of, or physically Interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [) [) [) [X) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury. or death Involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intennixed with wildlands? [ ) [ ) [) [X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. Form 'J" -7- CEQA Checkllst 4199 . . . . . FlIe No.: CUP 2001-002 Less Than Slgnlflcanl Pol""lIaIIy With Less Than SIgn1flcan1 MjUgatlon Significant No Impact IncOIllOIallon Impact Impaot VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [ ) [ ) [I [XI b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennlts have been granted)? [ ) [ ) I) [X) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alterallon of the course of a stream or river, In a manner which would result In substanllal erosion or slllation on. or off-site? [ ) [ ) [) [XI d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? [ ) [ ) I) [XI e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substanllal addillonal sources of pOlluted runoff? [ I [ ) [) [X] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality [ ) [) [) [X] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [ ) I ) [) [X] h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? [ ) [ ) [) [XI I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [ ] [ ] [] [X] D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ) [] [XI The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area. The proposed use wili not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, will not alter absorption rates, drainage pattems, surface runoff, surface water conditions, or ground water conditions. The site is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area, but will not expose people to any additional or increased hazard levels. The project will not have any of the'above Impacts. IX. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would tha project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ) [ ) [) [XI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agen'cy with Jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to, the general plan, speCific plan, local coastal progrem, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of aVOiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [ ) [ ) [) [X) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservallon plan? [ ) [ ) [) (Xl The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fuliy developed commercial area and will not have any of the above impacts. Form "J" .a. CECA CheckIIsl 4199 . . . .' . FUeNo.: CUP 2001-002 Less Than SlgnirlC8f1l PolenlIaIly WIth Less Than Significant MllIgallon Significant No Impact IncorporatJon Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result In the loss of availability of a known minerai resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the residents of the state? (] ( ] (] (X] b) Result In the loss of livallabllity of a locally important minerai resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ( I ( I (I [X] The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. XI. NOISE - Would the project result In: a) Exposure ot persons to, or generation of noise levels In excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other agencies? ( I ( I (I (X] b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? ( I ( I (I (X] c) A substantial pennanent Increase In ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ( ] ( ] [] [X] d) A substantial temporary or periodic Increase In ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ( ] [ I [] (X] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levelS? ( ] ( ] (] [XI f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working In the project area to excessive noise levels? ( ] [ I (] (X] The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building in a commercial center in a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above impacts. XII. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or Indirectly (for example. through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? ( ] [ ] (] (X] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ( ] ( ] (] (X] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ( ] [ ] (] (X] The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building in a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result In substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities. need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities. the construction of which would cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ( ] ( I (] (X] . b) PoUce protection? ( ] [ ] (] (X] Form oJ' .s- CECA Checldlsl 4199 . . '. . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 Less Than S1gnlflcant pptentlally WIIh Less Than Slgnlllcanl MllIgallon SlgnIlIcanl No Impact lncarporatlan Impact Impact C) Schools? [ I [ ) [) [X) d) Parks? [ ] [ ) () [Xl e) Other public facilities? ( ) ( ) () [X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. XIV. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ( ) ( ) () (X) b) Does the project Include recreational facilitles or require the construction or expansion of recreatlonal facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? r ) [ ) [) (X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and wlll not have any of the above Impacts. XV. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an Increase In traffic which Is substantlalln relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (l.e., result In a substantial Increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratlo on roads. or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either indiVidually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result In a change in air traffic pattems, including either an Increase in traffic levels Dr a change in location that results In substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.. Sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)? e) Result in Inadequate emergency access? f) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altematlve transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? [) ( ) () (X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building in a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and with the possible exceptlon of inadequate parking, will not have any of the above Impacts. A parking survey Is to be provided by the applicant, and If warranted the seating capacity of the proposed eating establishment will be adjusted to reduce the potential for parking problems. XVI. UTIUTIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed Wl!stewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater traatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, tha construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Fonn"r .1~ [ ) ( ) [ ) ( ) [ ] [ ) ( ) ( ) [ ) [ ) (X] [ ) ( ) (X) [ ) [ ] (X) [ ) [ ), [X) ( ) ( ) ( ) [Xl [X) ( ) ( ) ( ) [X) ( ) ( ) (X) CECA Checklist 04199 . . . . . File No.: CUP 2001-002 Lesa Than SIgn/1lcant P0tentla1Iy Wdh Lesa Than SIgnIIlcanl Mitigation S1gn1llcant No Impact Inc;orporallon Impact IrnpacI c) Require or result in the construction of new stonn water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facllilles, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ( I ( I (I (XI d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources; or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ( I ( I (I (X) e) Result in a detenninatlon by the wastewater treatment provider. which serves or may serve t~e project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addition to the providers existing commitments? ( I ( I (I (X) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pennitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ( I ( I (I (X) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ( I ( I (I (X) The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be in an existing retail building In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area and will not have any of the above Impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substanllally 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 Califomia history or prehistory? ( I ( I (I (X) b) 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 connectlon with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects.) ( I (Xl (I (I c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or Indirectly? ( I ( I (I (XI The proposed bakery and eating establishment will be In an existing retallliulldlng In a commercial center In a fully developed commercial area. Parking is limited. and modifications have been granted to other similar uses in the subject center. Depending on the data from a parking survey that Is to be provided by the applicant, the seating capacity of the proposed eating establishment could be adjusted to reduce the potential for parking problems so that there will not be any of the above impacts. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES No earlier analyses, and no additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to analyze the project. ------------------------- Form-r -11- CECA Checklist 4199 - . e Dale Filed: . t . . . FileNo, {]of? 2~o/-o(}z.. /2- //- 00 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 9/007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM General Information e 1. Applicant's Name: SMI ARCADIA .LLC 2. Address: 3701 Wilshiire Blvd. #914 Los Angeles, Ca 90010 318 Property Address (Location): ~ E. Huntington Dr. (between 2nd & 5th side of Huntington Dr.) so. Assessor's Number: 3. Name, address .and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Mr. Benny Woo (General Contractor) 9411 Dakota Av. Garden GrOVFL Ca q?A44 . (213) 324 J914 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: Condit1onal Use Permit, City Building Permit, County of LA Department of Health SErvices plan approval. 5. Zone Classification: CPD-l 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Proiect DescriDtion 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. . 14. 7. Proposed use of site (project description): 2/1701ft Proposed use is an eating establishment in an existing retail/commercial complex. Site size: 3'.l6,889 sq. ft. Square footage per building: Total all buildings 181,000 sq. ft. Number of floors of construction: va1;ies 1..4 821 provided for entire site Amount of off-street parking provided: February/March 2001 Proposed scheduling of project: Anticipated incremental development: N/A 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. . . . 15. 16. . . I f commercial, indicate the type, Le. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: The proposed location is a City oriented complex. with of sales area. ~~i~a hours :00 AM - Loa 1ng W1 occur t rough rear door. (findustrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A approximately ., :00 PM. 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: CUp required for food 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. 24. 25. 26. . 27. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or publicJands 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. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage pattersn. 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, flanunable or explosives. YES NO D I!r D !H D Ilr D at D ar D lJt" D or D at D (!( E.I.R. 04/12100 l'age2 e . . . . 28. Substantial cha,nge in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc,) 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,natural gas, etc. 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 31. Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? 32. A significantly environmentally hannful increase in the flow rate or volume of stonn water runofl'? 33. A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 34. Stonn water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas,that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? 35. Hann to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? Environmental Settinl! YES NO D IJr D ur or D D aY D uv D UY D l1t" D CY' 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists befote 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. ' 37. 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, Tear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certifY that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ' , j;;r -t'/ _~_"'" Date ~~ Signature ~ E.I.R. 04/12100 Page 3 ~ :.4-1.;11 --------~ , , . . " \ ~-. e Aug. '87 . . Sep. '87 July '88 Dec. '88 Sep. '89 Jan. '97 M-87 -69 CUP 87.018 Reso. 1345 MM 88-005 CUP 01-002 Arcadia Gateway Centre - Parking History City Council approved 745 spaces in lieu of 830 forthe following original proposab 47,300 sq. fl. medical bldg. 70,200 sq. fl. in 2 office bldgs. 13,000 sq. fl. in 2 restaurants 26.900 sa. fl. retail bldo. 284 281 130 135 Total 830 85 space deficiency Planning Commission approves 7,400 sq. ft. Bennlgan's with 260 seats. No parking modification was necessary, but the 2nd restaurant was limited to 5,600 sq. fl City Council approves 4.61 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for 821 spaces In lieu of 908 for the fOllowing revised project: Required Parklno 6/1,000 = 284 4/1,000 = 295 3.511,000 = 60 10/1,000 = 134 511.000 = 135 5.09/1,000 = 908 Parking Provided bv Modification 217 340 78 62 124 821 87 space deficiency Use 47,296 sq. fl. medical bldg. 73,753 sq. fl. offices (1 to 3 flOOrs) 16,878 sq. ft. offices (4'" floor) 13,357 sq. fl. restaurants 26979 so. fl. retail Totals 178,263 sq. fl. CUP 88-028 Planning Commission conditionally approves 3 eating establishments in retail bldg. Resa 1397 The medical bldg. was complete, but the 2 office bldgs. and a 2nd restaurant were not yet under construction. - Max. 6,000 cumulative sq. ft. & Max. 12 seats per eating establishment . Parking modification of 30 spaces in .lieu of 120 for eating establishments, or 821 in lieu of 998 for the entire center. 177 space deficiency Planning Commission conditionally approves a 280 seat, 9,200 sq. ft. Olive Garden Restaurant, which exceeded the 6,000 sq. fl. allowed by the City Council's approval of MM 88-005. The additional 3,200 sq. fl. of restaurant requIred 32 more spaces, but the developer rearranged some parking to provide 6 more spaces for a net additional deficiency of 26 spaces for this restaurant. However, the 2 office bldgs. were not yet fully occupied. - CUP 88-028/Reso 1397 was revised to allow only 2 eating establishments in the retail bldg. (revised parking mod. to 30 spaces in lieu of 90 to reduce deficiency by 30 spaces) - An existing 7.208 sq. ft. of office In the retail bldg. was required to remain general office space, which reduced the parking deficiency by 7 spaces. - Effectively adjusted parking modification to 827 spaces in lieu of 993. 166 space deficiency CUP 89-015 Reso 1422 Reso 5509 CUP 97-001 Reso 1543 Reso 5974 Planning Commission conditionally approves a 1,020 sq. fl. restaurant with seating for 24 people. This restaurant replaced an eating establishment and thereby reduced the parking deficiency by 10 spaces. It had become apparent that some general office uses (Coldwell Banker Real Estate) generated a parking d~mand greater than the eating establishments (and on an all day basis as opposed to only at meal times) and the 12 seat limit had proven unrealistic. ' - Deleted condition no. 2 of Reso 5509 to allow the 7,208 sq. ft. of offices In the retail bldg. to become retail. No immediate change in parkIng situation. - Amended condition no. 3 of Reso 5509 to allow 3 eating establishments In the retail bldg. without a max. cumulative sq. fl. and with as much seating as allowed by the Bldg. & Fire Codes. No immediate change In parking situation. 156 space deficiency -1- CUP 01-002 Planning Commission approves a 1,246 sq. fl. Starbucks coffeehouse, which Increased the parking deficiency by 19 spaces. The City Council Repealed Reso 5509, which eliminated the limit on the number of eating establishments In the retail bldg. 175 space deficiency Planning Commission approved a BJ's Pizza with 235 seats in the former 260 seat Bennigall's Restaurant bldg. No effect on parking deficiency. Planning Commission approved a 1,000 sq. ft.. 20-seat expansion of the 1,411 sq. ft., 60-seat Sesame Grill Restaurant (formerly an eating establishment). Conversion of an eallng establishment to a reStaurant had reduced the parking deficiency by 7 spaces, but the 1,000 sq. fl. expansion converted retail space to restaurant and increased the deficiency by 5 spaces. 173 space deficiency in addillon to the Modifications and CUPs, several spaces have been eliminated due to compliance with ADA parking and access requirements. Modifications are not required for ADA compliance for uses that are otherwise allowed by right. Based on this history, the parking for the current uses in the Arcedla Gateway Centre should be as follows: Parking Provided Based on Modifications 217 340 78 68 56 17 16 12 12 14 830 oct. '97 CUP 97-010 Resa 1554 e Reso 6016 Oct. '98 CUP 98-021 Reso 1581 Oct. '98 CUP 98-022 Resa 1582 Use 47,296 sq. ft: medical bldg. 73,753 sq. fl. offices (1 to 3 noors) 16,878 sq. ft. offices (4th noor) 13,357 sq. ft: restaurants 11,979 sq. ft. retail 3,540 sq. ft. offices In retail bldg. 3,430 sq. ft. restaurant In retail bldg. 2,492 sq. ft. eating est. In retail bldg. 2,457 sq. ft. vacancy in retail bldg. 2.970 sa. ft. vacancv in retail blda. Totals 178,152 sq. fl. Parking Reaulred 6/1,000 = 284 4/1,000 = 295 3.5/1,000 =60 10/1 ,000 = 166 5/1,000 =60 4/1,000 = 15 10/1,000 = 35 20/1,000 ='50 5/1,000 = 13 5/1 000 = 15 993 . Difference -67 +45 +18 -98 -4 +2 -19 -38 -1 -1 -163 163 space deficiency Presently, there is a 163'space parking deficiency throughout the Arcadia Gateway Centre. The lack of parking in the area immediately in front of the retail building Is more noticeable because there are only 107 spaces in this area, Which by Code does not provide the required number of spaces. Nevertheless, there have been CUPs ,and Modifications approved for the 2 restaurants and 2 eating establishments currenlly operating in the retail building. The proposed Vie de France bakery type eating establishment (CUP 01-002) would increase the overall parking deficiency for the entire center to 208 spaces and result in the following tenant mix and parking situation for the retail bUilding: e Tenant Proposed Vie de France Vacancy (retaiQ Eastwood Insurance Maly's Beauty Supply (office) Leslie's Pool Supplies Bear Essentials Crafts & Gifts Nirvana Indian Restaurant Goldsmith & Sons JewelerS 3-Day Blinds Sesame Gnll Restaurant Sign Depot Salsa Fresh Grill Starbucks Coffeehouse Totals Sa. Ft. 2,970 2,457 2.140 1 ,400 3,720 4,888 1,019 1,030 1.075 2,411 1,266 1,246 1.246 26,868 Parking Required bv Code 60 13 9 6 19 25 11 6 6 25 7 25 25 237 -2- Proportionate Share of Available 107 Spaces Based on Sa. Fl. 12 10 8 6 15 19 4 4 4 10 5 5 5 107 Deficiency in relation to 107 Spaces Available for the retail blda. 48 3 1 o 4 6 7 2 2 15 2 20 20 130