Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1530 . .' . RESOLUTION 1530 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 95-010 TO OPERATE AN EATING ESTABLISHMENT FROM 5:00 A.M. TO 6:00P.M. DAILY WITH 19 SEATS FOR ON-SITE DINING AT A 1,480 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SPACE AT UNIT #A OF 815 NAOMI AVENUE. WHEREAS, on October 9, 1995, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by I & Joy Manhattan Bagel to operate an eating establishment from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily with 19 seats for on-site dining at a 1,480 square foot commercial space, Development Services Department Case No. CUP 95-010, at property commonly known as unit #A of815 Naomi Avenue, more particularly described in Exhibit "A". WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 14, 1995, 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 is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: L That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and 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 granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. - 1 - l530 . . . 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the envirornnent, and, that based upon 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. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons, this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit to operate an eating establishment from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily with 19 seats for on-site dining at a 1,480 square foot commercial space at unit#A of8l5 Naomi Avenue upon the following conditions: 1. The eating establishment and the site shall be maintained and operated in a manner that is consistent with the plans and application materials submitted for CUP 95-010. 2. A Modification for 8 spaces in lieu oDO is granted for CUP 95-010. This Modification does not constitute an approval of a general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire commercial center, but only for the specific use approved by CUP 95-010 (i.e., an eating establishment open from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). 3. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety features shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department. 4. CUP 95-010 shall not take effect until the applicant and property owner have executed and filed the Acceptance Fonn available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 5. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to installation of the on-site dining facilities. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 95-010 shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation which may result in removal of the dining facilities and/or closure of the eating establishment. SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of November 14, 1995, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter and Daggett NOES: None 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. -2- 1530 . . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of November 1995 by the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Sleeter and Daggett NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Murphy ATTEST: ,,6?~~ ' ' Secretary, Plannmg ~ City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~If ~. Michael H. Miller, City Attorney -3- 1530 . Exhibit "A" Legal Description 815 Naomi Avenue PARCEL I: Parcel 1 in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles; State of Califomia, as shown on Parcel Map No. 15104 filed in Book 180, Pages 3 and 4 of Parcel Maps in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. PARCEL 2: The West 63 feet of the East 252 feet of the North 305 feet of Lot 3, in Block "A" of Santa Anita Land Company's Tract, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 137 of Maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Except therefrom the Northerly 5 feet of the Southerly 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation, by deed recorded June 13,1986 as Instrument No. 86-744389. . PARCEL 3: The Westerly 63 feet of the Easterly l89 feet of the Northerly 305 feet of Lot 3 in Block "A" of Santa Anita Land Company's Tract, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of Cali fomi a, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 137 of Maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Except therefrom the Northerly 5 feet of the Southerly 30 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Arcadia, a municipal corporation, by deed recorded June 13, 1986 as Instrument No. 86-744389. PARCEL 4: Parcel I in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as shown on Parcel Map 17248 filed in Book 184, Pages 45 through 47 of Parcel Maps in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. PARCEL 5: That portion of the Northerly 20.00 feet of Lot 2 of Santa Anita Land Company's Pumping Plant No. I Tract, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book lO, Page 183 of Maps in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, bounded Easterly by the Easterly line of the Westerly 244.77 feet of said Lot 2, and bounded Westerly by the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of Lot 4 of said Tract. . Exhibit "A" 1530 ~ - , STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 14,1995 TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator B~ames M. Kasama, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-010 A 1,480 sq. ft. bagel bakery with indoor and outdoor, on-site dining. SUBJECT: SUMMARY Conditional Use Permit application no. CUP 95-010 was submitted by "I & Joy Manhattan Bagel" to operate a ] ,480 square foot bagel bakery with a total of 19 seats for on-site dining at unit #A of 815 Naomi Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit appli~ation subject to the conditions in this report. . GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: I & Joy Manhattan Bagel LOCATION: 815 W. Naomi Avenue, unit#A REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit for a I,480,sq. ft. bagel bakery with a total of 19 seats for indoor and outdoor on-site dining. The hours of operation will be between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. SITE AREA: 286,764 square feet (6.58 acres) FRONTAGES: 496.77 feet along Naomi Avenue and 359.21 feet along Duarte Road GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: . The site is developed with the 65,000 square foot Vons Pavilions market and a 20,000 square foot multi-tenant strip commercial building. There are 425 on-site parking spaces. The site is zoned C-2for General Commercial. . SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: . . North: South: East: West: Multi-family residential and commercial offices; zoned R-3 and C-2 Multi-family residential; zoned R-3 Retail center; zoned C-2 Retail center; zoned C-l PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit fora 1,480 square foot bagel bakery with seating for up to 19 people. The plans show 11 indoor counter seats and 8 outdoor seats at 4 tables. The storefront has been recessed to provide the outdoor seating area. The hours of operation will be from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicant states that their busiest times are between 6:00 a.m. and 11 :00 a.m. The bagel bakery without on-site dining facilities would be a retail use, and would be allowed to occupy the subject building without a Conditional Use Permit. The adding of on-site dining facilities changes the use from a retail use to an eating establishment. Section 9275.1.45.1 of the Municipal Code authorizes eating establishments in the C-2 (General Commercial) zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Section 9275.1.53.7 requires a Conditional Use Permit for any retail walk-in business that is open to the public between midnight and 6:00 a.m. and located less than 150 feet from residentially zoned property. The bagel bakery is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to begin operations at 5:00 am. and is across the street from R-3 (Multiple Family) zoned property. Parking The bagel bakery as a retail use would comply with the parking requirement of five spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (8 spaces) under which this commercial center was developed. As an eating establishment, however, the required parking for the bagel bakery is 20 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (30 spaces). This results in a parking deficiency of22 spaces. There are 425 on-site parking spaces. All of the 425 spaces are shared by V ons Pavilions and the other shops in the multi-tenant strip commercial building. Fifty of these spaces are within 100 feet of the front entrance of the bagel bakery, and, most of these 50 spaces are also convenient to the other businesses in the southem portion of the strip commercial building. However, the bagel bakery with on-site dining facilities for only 19 people should not utilize a disproportionate share of the parking spaces within 100 feet. Conditional Use Permit No. 87-9 was granted to Penguin's Yogurt for a similar situation. Furthermore, because the bagel bakery's peak business time is in the moming, their parking demand will not conflict with the other businesses. CUP 95-010 November l4, 1995 Page 2 _ t . . . There are many Conditional Use Permits with parking Modifications for similar eating establishments with limited on-site dining facilities, and staff has not observed any problems with any of them, including the Penguin's Yogurt. It is staff's opinion that a limited anlount of on-site dining provides a desirable convenience for the customers of a retail food business and does not result in an excessive parking demand. Staff has visited the subject site on several different days, at different times, and has not observed any parking problems in the vicinity of the bagel bakery location. It must be noted that there are three vacancies (including the unopened bagel bakery) in the southern portion of the commercial building. However, occupancy of all three vacant units should not result in a parking problem. CRQA Pursuant to the prov1S1ons of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the prnposed 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 incluqing land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services, Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Pernlit No. CUP 95-010 subject to the following conditions: I. The bagel bakery and the site shall be maintained and operated in a manner that is consistent with the plans and application materials submitted for CUP 95-0 I O. 2. A Modification for 8 spaces in lieu of 30 is granted for CUP 95-0 I O. This Modification does not constitute an approval of a general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire commercial center, but only for the specific use approved by CUP 95-010 (i.e., an eating establishment open from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). 3. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety features shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department. 4. CUP 95-010 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 the conditions of approval. CUP 95-010 November 14, 1995 Page 3 . \ . . . . , 5. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to installation of the on-site dining facilities. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 95-010 shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation which may result in removal of the dining facilities and/or closure of the eating establishment. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this Conditional Use Permit application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision, specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission. 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 which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this matter prior to the November 14th public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Jim Kasama at (818) 574-5445. Approved by: ~~r~--' Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Site Plan, Floor Plan & Legend Land Use And Zoning Map Negative Declaration & Initial Study CUP 95-010 November 14, 1995 Page 4 --.._~ -- .. '. -..... " . ".~~-", ' TmTIT-- - ----.-- ..b___._ ,---.. j I i Ii: I . -.--- -., s..- - ~~~~~; ~)- '-C..- , !' 1 ~ - ~ : . -....-..-...... - I" 1 '~ , . I ~.=-~ . .... :>~ ~ ..... ; .....~ !;.t - 8.. :~~. I . ~ . ~ j J) , II ~~: .A i I -ll , . II * . l' .. : -4 '1W I~OVN --'-'- --',- ---.- U' . ' - n ~~ \- -~~ ~ - I I, r- I ~ I . . I , 1 I . I . 1 I I , I I " : . : . I I : I 1-. o o. (. ..oz (.IN'T A If :r. ! )0'; g~ O"l'E.J 13 C JEo.t.." Q,ltP. Ie" l> OPe-A! r: EtI\p\"'1"""o.l.r F CtI-lTe- R.. t'c:N9U1 ~S =3 I ~ (> i ~- f -+ , !\A,P., C.~e:ATtooj5 SA<-O ,J 1<Ob'l'S :r 1090;, C>- or :r , ope.! OPE"" ~ L Ii) " C.e.LjSTA<-.. " c-<..crAt.!efs " I I ': K,-.J<l.S rn ., ': rOlTEf.<{ ': G. f."TS i -, I- J (HI I ~(//P~ - 1: tr~---- t-........: ----- ~ -~~~ "-~--C r .r----"'L._-, r~ I I I I 'i'---i' · I ~I I I . . . . . . @ B B @ @ ~ @ @ B B ~~~ ~~, A UtUWl...a.EW 8 CnQQ1,t,ft1lll @ @ @ B B C 1W18100..rtI @ @ iJ b"ElS @@@@@ B . NO. DESCRIPOON 1 BEVERAGE COUNTER (NOT USED) 2 BEVERAGE (PEPSI) & ICE MACHINE ( 3 I DEU CASE (4 i PASTRY CASE I 5 T CASH REGISTER ( 6 3-l1ER DISPlAY CABINET I 7 I SAND'vVlCH UNIT w': REFRIG. j 8 TOAS'lffi 9 I SINGlE CONT. SINK (STAINlESS STEEL) HAND j 1) 10' LONG X 30" ss.. WORK TABLE wi GALVANIZED UNDER SHRF - ~ PREP. SINK en I NOT USED 12 ! COUNTER 'G NOT USED 14 REACH-lN REFRG. SINGLE DOOR (0P110NAlJ 15 I WALK-IN REFRIG. wi FAN ABOVE & \IISIBLE THERM 'I) I WALK-IN FREEZER wi FAN ABOVE & VlSBLE THERM .17\ OVE~ 300.000 MAX. "B1UIHR-HOOD TO BLOWER (33) 1J KErn..E &. HOOD TO BLOVv'ER (33)-GAS m.ooo BTUIHR-3/4" ~E 11 DISPlAY REFRG. ~ CONDIMENT C1R 21) DAy-oLD COUNTER ~ MOP SINK 1\ SAFE 2,l) I NOT USED ~ I ff DOUBLE com A1NER SINK (21 ! NOT USED I I STORAGE Bra. YES ':21 i CAPPUCCINO MACHINE (295 I TIMECLOCK I 00.' I BLENDER '3"\ : SUCER 34> I WATER HEATI:R (GAS) 55 GAi...-80,ooO aTJ '33) i 2 EXHAUST BLOWERS <34> ; 81A? COOLER 3&\ : CQFrEE MACHINE sa' .~ COFF-E SEAN GAlf\'DER '9;. : BAG STORACE MANUF. NA ICE-D-MA 118 I FEDERAL FEDERAL I SANYO CUSTOM I BEVERAGE-AIR ISAVORY I , . I ADVANCE 'T ABCO IAERO INA I CUSTOM 1Nf- I BY OWNEr; i I ! I ARTIe I ARTIe I BAXTER GROEN BEVERAGE-AIR CUSTOM i CUSTOM !ADVANC!:: I BY OWNER ! INA : iADVANCE 1 1Nf.. i INTERr'J!ETR2> I I LA CIMBAl,,; ! ! ACROPRlNT I BY OWNER IGENERAL I I BY OWNER I BY OWNEr, : CUSTOM \ . . . -~O 0' \ ~ ~ \ .1 \, 1-- I \ "~\ r7::\ \ 0 0<:0 <:0 0 ~ <i>0 - O' 0 J2- 0) ~,~ 0 0 00 '5' ~'o . ':::- \ ~ "V ~~\ 0 0 r--- 0 R-3 o _L9 .!--- G LAND USE AND ZONING t NORTH o o CD G) CD l R-3 @ O\J....R"fE - I "Ol'lS I,,,"\I.\ONS @ c<\DEll"f'S t){{c.;o . 5QU,,\l.E 5HOfl.t1'lG CEl'l1'E\l. J C-l ...... cow.Mli'-CV'\' - l'l,,0l'\\ \ ~ ~ c--- , . , .. CUP 95-010 815 W. NAOMI AVENUE, UNIT#A \ C-2 OfnCUs """"",,,,'.NT ItoTEl. C-2 -\ 1 Ji.,'E, 00 CD 00,\ CD 00 o CD 00'--' - @ 00 \ \ . ""tlK ::J u r;: ~ o ~ - - . i5 ~ 2 - \lUll SHOPPING - CI1l'l1'E\l. 5"".01-1 S\\O??Il'lO caITER C-2 ---, \ Scale: I inch = 200 feet f ( FileNo.: CUP95-010 . CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-0 I 0 A Conditional Use Permit for a 1,480 sq. ft. bagel bakery with a total of 19 seats for indoor and outdoor on-site dining. The hours of operation will be between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. B. Location of Project: 8\5 W. Naomi Avenue, u.nit#A . Arcadia, CA 91007 C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: I & Joy Manhattan Bagel D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None Date: October 10, 1995 Date Posted: October 19, 1995 BYF ~ ~ sociate Planner ' . . ( ( CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 9L007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-010 2. Project Address: 815 W. Naomi Avenue, unit #A Arcadia, CA 91007 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: I & Joy Manhattan Bagel l6677 Roscoe Boulevard . North Hills, CA 91343 (818) 830-3300 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person & Telephone Number: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner (818) 574-5445 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-2 I General Commercial . -L- File No.: CUP 95..()tQ CEQA Checklist 7/95 " . . . ( ( File 1'10.: CUP 95-010 8. Description of Project: (Describe tlle whole action involved, including but not limited to later~phases of the project and any secondary. suppon, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if nc'Cessary .j A Conditional Use Permit for a 1,480 sq. ft. bagel bakery with a total of 19 seats for indoor and outdoor on-site dining. The hours of operation will be between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g.. permits, finallCing, development or participation agreements) City Building Services I City Fire Department I City Engineering Division I City Maintenance Services Department I County Health Department I South Coast Air Quality Management District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTlALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise [ J Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( ( File No.: CUP 95-010 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I fllld that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REpORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner For: The City of Arcadia ~ ~~ , Date: October 10, 1995 -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( t File No.: CUP 95-010 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that arc adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cwnulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction rclated as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potcntially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when thc determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside docwnent should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. -4- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( Would dIe proposal result in poteotial impacts involving: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would dIe proposal: a) Conflict widl general plan designations or zolting? (The proposal is consistent with the commercial designation in the General Plan and is a use for which a Conditional Use Pennit is authorized by Section 9275.1.45.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposed use wiD be required to comply with the regulatioJlS of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable enviromnenlal plans. E.g., the South Coast Air Qnality Management District.) c) Be compatible wilh existing land uses in the vicinity'! (The proposed use is a commercial operation in a conunercially zoned area and will occupy an existing cODlmercial building.) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e;g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (There are 110 agricultural resources or operations in the,area.) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an eSlllblished community (mcluding a low-income or mioority community)? (TIle proposed use is a commercial operation in a commercially zoned area and will occupy an existing commercial building.) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would die proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The proposed use is neighborhood based c=ercial operation and wiU IIOt generate an increase in the population;) -5- Potentially Significant Impact [ I [ I [ I [ I [ ) [ I ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potemially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ( I ( ] [ I ( I ( J [ I Less Than Significam Impact I I I I I I I I [ I [ I No Impact [XI [XI IX) IXI (X] IXI CEQA Checklist 7/95 ( ( File No.: CUP 95-010 POlentiaUy . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would die proposal resuh in Significant Mitigation Significant No pmential impaclS involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Induce substantial growdl in an area either directly or indirecdy (e.g., dlrough projeclS in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? I ) I I I J IXI (The proposed use will occupy an existing commercial building.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I I ( I I I [XI (The proposed use will occupy an existing commercial building.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to pmential impaclS involving: a) Fault rupture? I I [ I [ I [XI (TIle site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified faull) . b) Seismic ground shaking! ( I [ J [ I IXI (TIle site for dIe proposed use is not more susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any odler site in the area. The proposed use will occupy an existing building that complies with current seismic slaDdards.) c) Seismic ground failure, inclnding liquefaction? [ I [ I [ I [X] (The site for the proposed use is not within the viciuity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.) d) Landslides or mudflows? [ I [ ) [ J [Xl (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and not within an inundation area.) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fiU? [ ) ( I [ I (X] (The proposed use will occupy an existing commercial building.) f) Subsidence of the land? [ I ( I [ I [X] (TIle site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to subsidence.) . CEQA Checklist -.6- 7/95 . . . ( Would the proposal result in potential impaclS involving: g) Expansive soils? (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject 10 expansion of soils.) h) Unique geologic or physical fearores? (No such fearores have been identified at the site of the proposed use.) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no such changes are included in the proposal.) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (The site for the proposed use is not wilbin an inundation area.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen. orrorbidity)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Based on a project-specific screening aualysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) e) Changes in currents. or Ibe course or direction of water movements? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or water movemenlS. ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, eilber through direct additions or willldrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) -7- Potentially Significant Impact ( J I I [ I I I ( I [ ) ( ) [ J ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potentially Significant U.dess Mitigation Incorporated I I I I I I I I [ I I J [ I [ I Less Than Signiticant Impact I I I I ( I I I I 1 ( I [ ) ( I No Impacl (Xl IXI [Xl IX] IX] IXI [Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( Would Ule proposal result in potential impacts involving: g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? (Based on a Jlroject~specific screening analysis. the proposal will not affect ground waters.) h) Impacts to ground water quality? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not affect ground waters.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nOlaffect ground waters.) S. AIR QUALITY Would Ule proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of dIe South Coast Air Quality Management District.) b) Expose sensitive receptors [II pollutants? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proPosal will riot have any such affects.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such affecrs.) 6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (TIte proposed use is consistent with the commercial 'activities for wltich the site was developed, and the surrounding improvemenrs adequately serve the site.) -8- Potentially Significant Impact [ I L I 1 I [ I [ I [ ) [ I [ I ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ I ( J [ I J I [ I L J [ I [ I Less Than Significant Impact I I [ I [ ] [Xl [ I [ ] [ J [X) No Impact [X[ [XI [XI [ J IXl [XI [Xl I ] CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( Would dIe proposal result in potential impacts involving: b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerons intersections) or incompatible nses (e.g.. faml eqniplllelll)? (TIle proposed use will occnpy an existing commercial building in an existing commercial cemer. The location that has IlOt been identified as hazardollS. ) c) Inadeqnate emergeocy access or aCcess to nearby nses? (TIle site of me proposed nse is readily accessible and the proposed use will not inhibit access to adjacent or nearby lISes.) d) Insnfficient parking capacity on-site or off"site'? (There is adeqnate on-site and off-site parking to serve dIe proposed lISe. The specific prodncts being provided by the proposed lISe, and the liInited amount of seating will not result in a need for long-term parking, and therefore there will not be a conflict with the other uses at the site.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies snpporting altemative transponation (e.g., bllS tnrnonts, bicycle racks)? (Based on a projeet-specific screening analysis. dtere are no existing or potential conflicts with policies snpporting alternative transponation.) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts'? (Based OD a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any SIlch impacts.) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Wonld the proposal resnlt in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (inclnding bnt not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any SIlCh impacts.) -9- Potentially Significant Impact I I [ J I I ( I I J [ 1 [ I ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I I [ I ( I I I I I [ I [ I Less Than Significant Impact I I [ J [Xl I I [ I [ I [ I No Impact (XJ IXI [ I [Xl [X] (Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( Would dIe proposal result in potential impaclS involving: b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. dIe propOsal willnOl have any such impaclS.) c) Locally designated natural commwlities (e.g.. oak forest, coastal habitat. etc.)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the propOsal will nOl have any such impacts.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. tile propOsal will not bave any suchimpaclS.) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. tile propOsal will not have any sucb inlpaClS.) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would tile proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conselVation plans? (The proposed use will occupy an existing commercial building. Any tenant improvemenlS wiD comply with tile State's energy conselVation requirements. ) b) Use non-renewable reSOnrces in a wasteful and inefficielll manner? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. tile propOsal willllOt have any such impacts.) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residenlS of the State? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the propOsal will not have any such impacts.) -10- Potentially Significam Impact I I ( I ( I ( I I I I I I I File No.: CUP 95-010 Potentiall y Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I I r I [ I [ I I I r I I I Less TIlan Significant Impact ( I I I I I I I I I [ I ( I No Impact IXl IXI IXl [X] IXl [Xl (XI CEQA Checklist 7195 . . . ( Would dIe proposal result in potential impacts involving: 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals or radiation)'! (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, dIe proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impaCIS.) c) The creation of any health hazard or pOlential health hazafd? (TIle proposed uSe is subject to the regulations of the County Healdl Deparunent which should prevent any such impacts.) d) Exposure of people 10 existing, sources of potential health baza(ds? (The proposed use is subject to the regulatiollS of the COWlty Health Deparunent which should prevent any such impacts.) e) Increased lire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not bave any such impacts.) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal wiil not have any suCh impacts.) -11- Potential Iy Significant Impact I I [ I [ I I ] I ) l J I I ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potelllially Signilicam Unless Mitig-"tion Incorporated I I I I [ I ( J I ] I ) ( ] Less 111an Significant Impact ( I [ I I. ) I ) [ ] I I I ) No ImpacI IXI [Xl [Xl [X) [XI [Xl IXI CEQA Checklist 7/95 ( ( r File No.: CUP 95..010 pocemially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Titan Would die proposal result in Significalll Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorpof'dced Impact Impact 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Wonld die proposal have an effect upon. or resnlt in a need for new or altered govenunem services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? I I I I ( I IXI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Police protection? I I I I I I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Schools? I I I J I I (XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? I I [ I [ I IXI (Based ou a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will nOl bave any such impacts.) c) Other governmental services? [ 1 I I I 1 IXI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. dte proposal will not have any such impacts.) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Wonld die proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? I I I I I I IXl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 11) CommunicatioIlS sysceIDS? I I [ ] [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any.such impacts.) c) Local or regional water treamlent or distribution facilities? ( I I I [ I (X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. die proposal will not bave any such impacts.) d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ I ( ] I ) (Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will not bave any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist -12- 7/95 ( ( , File No.: CUP 95-010 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less TIllln Wonld dIe propo~1 resnlt in Significant Mitigation Significalll No rot~ntial impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Stonn water drainage? [ I I I I I IXl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the propo~1 will not have any such impacts.) t) Solid waste disposal? [ I I I I I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. (he proposal will not have any such impacts.) g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I 1 I I IXl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any sucb impacts.) 13. AESTHETICS Wonld dIe proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? I J I I I I IXI (Based on a project-Specific screening analysis. dIe proposal will not have any such impacts.) . b) Have a demollStrable negative aesthetics effect? I I [ I I I IXI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such inlpacts.) c) Create light or glare? r I [ I 1 J IXl (Based ou a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will notllllve any sucb impacts.) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Wonld the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? I I I I I I IXI (Based on a project-Specific screening analysis. the proposal will no! have any sucb inlpacts.) b) Disturb archaeological resources? I I I J I I [X) (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ [ [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any suth impacts.) . -13- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . ( Would the proposal result in pOlential impacts involving: d) have dIe potential to canse a physical change which would affect nniqne ethnic cnltural valnes? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. dIe proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. dIe proposal will not have any :''\lch impacts.) 15, RECREA TION Wonld the proposal: a) Increase dre demand for neighborhood or regional parks or odlerrecreational facilities? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, dIe proposal will not have any such impacts.) 16. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have dIe potential to degrade the quality of dIe enVironment, substantially reduce tile habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self~susraining levels. dueaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the DU\Ilber or restricl the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the Dl8jor periods of California history or prehistory'? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal wiIlnot have, any such impacts.) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-teml. to the disadvantage of long-tetm. environmental goals? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) -14- Pntentially Significant Impact I I I I [ I [ 1 [ I [ I ( File No.: CUP 95'()1O Potelllially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I [ [ I I 1 I ] I I ( I Less TItan Significant Impact r I [ [ [ J I I ( I I I No Impact IXI IXI [XI [XI [XI IXI CEQA Checklist 7/95 " . . . f W \\uld the proposal result in potential impaclS involving: c) Does Ule projectltave impacts that are individually limited. bnt cwnulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means uuuthe incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection widl the effects of past projects. ule effeclS of other current projects. and lhe effeclS of probable future project) (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not ltave any such impacts.) d) Does ule projecl have environmenral effects which will cause substantial adverse effeclS OIl hwnan beings. eiuler directly or indirectly? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, tlte proposal will1lOl have any such impacts.) 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional docwnents were referenced pursuant to tlle tiering. program EIR. or other CEQA processes to analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from tlle proposal. -15- Potentially Significam Impact [ I [ ] ( File No.: CUP 95-010 Potemially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I I I I Less Than Significant Impacl I I I I No Impacl IXI [X] CEQA Checklist 7/95 " . ( ( file No. cur2 "!G'-O/O CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA. CA 9J(J()7 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: 10/09/95 General Information e 1. Applicant's Name: I & JOY MANHATTAN BAGEL 16677 ROSCOE BLVD., NORTH HILLS, CA 91343 . Address: 2. Property Address (Location): 815. WEST NAOMI, UNIT A, ARCADIA, 90007 Assessor's Number: 2260-023-055 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: THERESA MCCARTNEY, I & JOY MANHATTAN BAGEL 16677 ROSCOE BLVD., NORTH HILLS, CA 91343. 818/830-3300 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: BUILDING PERMIT. HEALTH PERMIT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 5. Zone Classification: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL. 6. General Plan Designation: COMMERCIAL. Project Description 10. e1. 7. Proposed use of site (project description): ON-SITE DINING. FACILITIES: 11 1480 SQ. FT. BAGEL BAKERY WITH COUNTER STOOLS INDOORS AND 8 (2 chairs @ 4 tables) SEATS OUTDOORS. TOTAL 19 SEATS. 8. 18 FEET WIDE BY 80 FEET LONG (STORE 18'w x 70' L). Site size: 9. Square footage per building: 1480 sq. ft. Number of floors of construction: 1 Amount of off-street parking provided: TOXJIT. !':'l'lH.T.!': PROVTDF.D - 42B . '. 12. .13. 14. 15. 16. 17. . 18. ( ( Proposed scheduling of project: 8 WEEKS FROM BLDG. PERMIT. Anticipated incremental development: NONE If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: NIl'. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, squar~ footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: CTTY ORTENTED. 297 SO. FT. OF SALES AREA. LOADING FACILITIES IN REAR OF STORE (LOADING & PARKING IN REAR). MONDAY - SUNDAY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF Sam - 6pm. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: NIA If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: NIA If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED DUE TO CHANGE IN BUSINESS OPERATION. 9275.1.45.1 EATING ESTABLISHMENT IN AC-2 ZONE. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 19. 20. .1. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. YES NO 0 a 0 ~ 0 ~ E.I.R. 3/95 Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. "2- .22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. f f YES NO -3- ~ Ga 19 19 [f e:J li} [i} ~ 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. -Environmental Settiug 31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. ~(o Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 0 Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0 drainage patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0 Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 0 Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, 0 flammable or explosives. Substantial change in demand ~or municipal services (police, fire, water, 0 sewage, etc.). Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, 0 etc.). o 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, stateme~ts, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. '. <l.. ) ~ ~.s---~~~"- .ate Signature }- E.I.R. 3/95 ., ( ( PROJECT DESCRIPTION QUESTION 31 ~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS: A GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE, AT GROUND LEVEL, SHOPPING STRIP, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "ARCADIA HUB", WITH SIDEWALK AND PARKING IN FRONT OF STORES, AND LOADING ZONES IN THE REAR OF STORES. NO LANDSCAPING PRESENT (THREE TREES IN PLANTERS IN CENTER OF SHOPPING STRIP). EXISTING USE IS FOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. QUESTION 32 PROJECT IS LOCATED IN SHOPPING CENTER, SURROUNDED BY RETAIL COMMERCIAL SHOPS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WERE PLANNED AND DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. SIDEWALKS, CURBS, ~ AND PARKING. NO LANDSCAPING:TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, PLANTS OR ANIMAL LIFE, NO CULTURAL OR HISTORICAL ASPECTS TO MENTION. BEHIND COMMERCIAL SHOPS FACING BALDWIN, TO THE SOUTH OF OUR PROJECT, ARE,RES:I!DENTIAL APARTMENT HOUSES. .