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