The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1721 - .. . RESOLUTION NO. 1721 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP 05-01 TO ALLOW A TEAHOUSE WITH SEATING FOR 8 PATRONS WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER AT 655 W. DUARTE RD., UNIT B. WHEREAS, on December 7, 2004, an application was filed by Tien Chu to allow a teahouse with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 05-01, at 655 W. Duarte Rd., Unit B; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 11, 2005, 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 11, 2005 is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: A. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit would be detrimental to the public health and welfare and injurious to the property and improvements in such zone or vicinity because the existing parking facilities are inadequate and there is not sufficient onsite parking for the proposed teahouse. B. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized, however, the applicants did not satisfy the parking requirements for the requested conditional use as specified in Sections 9269.5 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code. C. That the site for the proposed use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, in that there is not sufficient onsite parking, to accommodate the proposed use. Resolution 1721 1 . . . D. That the site abuts a street that is adequate in width to carry the kind of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use, however, there is not sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the use. E. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because although the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan, there is not sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the use. F. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study is appropriate and that the project could have less than a significant effect upon the environment within the meaning ofthe California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, but the project was not approved, and therefore, a Negative Declaration could not be approved. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01 to allow a teahouse with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center at 655 W. Duarte Rd., UnitB. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of January 11, 2005 to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Olson and Wen None Hsu 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. Resolution 1721 2 . -- .- I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No. 1721 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on February 8, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen None None GkCh' P18...L. ~ airman, anmng ommlSSlon City of Arcadia ary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM; ~p~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia Resolution 1721 3 - . . ~' STAFF REPORT Development Services Department January 11. 2005 TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Joseph M. Lambert. Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01 to allow a teahouse (Bobaloca) with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center. SUMMARY This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Tien Chu to allow a teahouse'with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center at 655 W. Duarte Rd., Unit B. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of this application. based on the factors listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Tien Chu LOCATION: 655 W. Duarte Road Unit B (in the Arcadia Center) REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a teahouse with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center. SITE AREA: 110,932 square feet (2.55 acres) FRONTAGES: Approximately 389 feet along W. Duarte .Road Approximately 310 feet along W. Arcadia Avenue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject lot is developed with three commercial buildings totaling approximately 50.400 square feet. The proposed teahouse location CUP 05-01 January 11 , 2005 Page 1 - . . ~') is an approximate 1,000 square foot unit located within a 10,122 square foot building at the southwest corner of the site. The entire site is zoned C-2: General Commercial. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Multiple-family residential - zoned R-3 South: Offices - zoned C-2/H-4 East: Offices - zoned CoO West: Offices - zoned C-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial BACKGROUND The shopping center was constructed in 1959 and has recently undergone fac;ade and parking lot improvements. The major tenant in the center is the Arcadia Supermarket. Prior to the remodel the proposed unit was a liquor store. and the unit has been divided into two new leasable units of which the subject unit occupies approximately 1,000 square feet. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to operate a teahouse and cafe (restaurant) with seating for 8 patrons in the 1,000 square foot unit within the 10,122 square foot commercial building. as shown on the submitted site plan. The proposed teahouse (Bobaloca) would serve various coffee and tea based drinks, as well as pre-packaged food items. The proposed hours of operation would be from 10:00 AM to 12:00 AM, seven days a week. The proposed use is considered a restaurant because of the proposed seating. If seating was not a part of the proposal. this use would be evaluated as a retail use and would be permitted by right. Prior to reconstruction the existing lot did not conform to the Municipal Code in terms of stall sizes, drive aisle dimensions. or landscaping. The parking lot was recently redesigned and reconstructed as part of a fac;ade improvement project providing a more functional and attractive design. The newly reconstructed parking lot provides adequate landscaping and significantly improved onsite circulation. Although the new parking layout is a significant improvement. it did not result in any additional parking spaces. The on-site parking provides 213 parking spaces for the entire shopping center. Pursuant to the newly adopted parking regulations, the existing on-site uses require 283 parking spaces. Therefore, there is currently a parking deficiency of 70 spaces. CUP 05-01 January 11, 2005 Page 2 ~ . . . The subject is currently evaluated as retail space, and parking for retail is calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, which in this case requires 5 parking spaces for the subject 1,000 square foot unit. If the teahouse were approved, it would be evaluated as a restaurant, which requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, a teahouse within the subject unit requires 10 parking spaces, and would increase the required on-site parking to 288 spaces, or a total deficiency of 75 spaces. The subject shopping center currently has several intense uses including the Arcadia Supermarket, four sit-down restaurants, a computer gaming center, tutorial school, bank, and various retail uses. Some of the retail uses are take-out only restaurants, which are typically more intense than normal retail but are still evaluated as retail uses in terms of parking requirements. These take-out restaurants are permitted by right, without CUP approval. The proposed teahouse is a restaurant use because seating is included. The proposed use is similar to a coffee shop, such as a Starbucks or Coffee Bean. Although only 8 seats are proposed, the ability to have seating creates the potential for an intense use. According to the Building Official, the proposed teahouse could accommodate 30 patrons, based on the Building Code. Given the maximum number of allowed seating (per the building code) it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce the 8 seat maximum. Based on staffs experience, the parking lot usually operates at capacity during lunch and dinner hours; and throughout the day, parking spaces are usually scarce in the vicinity of the subject unit. In staffs opinion, the shopping center parking lot cannot support any additional sit down restaurants or teahouses with seating due to the noted parking deficiency. It is staffs opinion that permitting a teahouse with seating would result in a significant increase of traffic at the shopping center and a greater demand for parking. The site was originally developed as a retail shopping center with a grocery store and several retail support uses. This center was never intended to support several sit-down restaurants. Over the years, the restaurants and other intense uses have been approved through the CUP process. However, the Planning Commission approved most of the existing restaurants at a time when the supermarket building was vacant and the site did not have the same traffic volumes that exist today. In staffs opinion, a teahouse with seating is a much more intense use than a retail use, and would significantly intensify the parking deficiency at the shopping center. Code Reauirements All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, restrooms and site design CUP 05-01 January 11 , 2005 Page 3 . . . shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall, and Community Development Administrator. FINDINGS Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all ofthe following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 1. 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. CEQA Pursuant to the proVIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01 due to the site's intense uses and the existing parking deficiency. CUP 05-01 January 11, 2005 Page 4 . . . If the Planning Commission determines that based on the evidence presented this is an appropriate use at this site and moves to approve Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-01, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The teahouse approved by CUP 05-01 is limited to the approximate 1,000 square foot unit (655 W. Duarte Rd. Unit B) that shall be constructed in compliance with the Building and Fire Codes, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall and Community Development Administrator. The hours of operation on any day shall be between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. 2. The use approved by CUP 05-01 is limited to a maximum of 8 seats, and any expansion upon the use approved shall require approval of a separate conditional use permit. 3. All onsite signage shall be in compliance with the City's sign ordinance (AMC Sec. 9262.4 to Sec. 9262.4.20). All signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Building Division. All signage shall be removed unless an SADR approval or Building Permit is on file in the Development Services Department regarding said sign age. This includes wall signs, window signs, and temporary banners. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 05-01, shall be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals, which shall result in closing of the restaurant. 5.. Approval of CUP 05-01 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. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. CUP 05-01 January 11, 2005 Page 5 . -- .' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Denial The Planning Commission should move to deny this Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01, because the proposal cannot satisfy all of the required prerequisite conditions for a Conditional use Permit, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 05-01, the Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration, state the supported findings, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision, specific findings, and any conditions of approval. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the January 11, 2005 public hearing, please contact Joe Lambert at (626) 574-5444. Approved; ~r / O - . '--''Y- ./:7;, <"/.' --.;::::: .. .' / /.?;?U.~~ ~ ~ $' L- ~ Donna L. Butler :;; Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo & Zoning Map Land Use Map Plans submitted by applicant Negative Declaration & Initial Study Environmental Information CUP 05-01 January 11, 2005 Page 6 ~ N 1011 0 1011 Feet . I I 655 W Duarte Road (aka 627-655 W Duarte Rd) CUP 05-01 ~ N 100 0 100 Faet J"""""'q -- , ARCADIA AVE (1038) Retail ~ Commercial ~ (1108) ~ --./ ~ (1110) (679) (671 ~ q: ~ (1200) II> (1210) 1ts DeVlilopment Services Department Engineering DMsion Propaied by: R.S._~ Ilecomber. 2004 (m) (6Q DUARfE RD (660) {66~ . (664) (566) I I I I Multiple Family Residential (623) (615) (611) fBl~ (6U) (83~ (638) Commercial Offices \ 655'W Duarte Road - (aka 627-655'W Duarfe Rd) CUP 05-01.- . . " ,. . . ~ \.. ---1-...____ .. .. - .. ... BUIlDING A .-- -. / -. --... 1SII:I..8-- VJ1-11a 12U\.Y' -- -- ~ WSl8'JG '-ICI U. - I ~-- BUIlDINGC -!lDL'" - ""'" " SITE PLAN.- , 'I ]JlUlDltl>>lll:f(t&.110 ... -- \\GroupO\dwg\DWG04\04570\A-1.dwg, 12[1/2004 U:24:40 PM . N G ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING JlIS.lE-CIll.l:lllllrIXiIlCIl1EVNiO ~.O"'li:l -,.. BCIlAl.OCA I5lve.rD.llllmi:~ ~ClIII>U.Cflmot ISSUES & REVISIONS " =-- """ " qFEEt ~CT__ OCSIO ~- -- A-l . - - " BOBALOCA FLOOR PlAN 1/~'.cr . ~"IIl:Il:rD'" iii'- f - r :; ~ or_.. I IIOIIAl.OCA EAST ELEVATION _"" ........0_ -~ _ .',..- :E.... '?t;: ::.:::::B; _,,:, .::.;. 6.,_ ;:': . : :::.::= : _".: ,'- .,....,..., 90lITH ELEVA11DN t/IM'G' ...... L ..v_ I J ~-- . ~ W 'Ir:'l " - .aao..-..... ARCHItECTURE 4 ENGINEERING hME.GtUIIlIlDQ~ ~1t1:J .e~P,llfI"lliIllaO ~~.OttaIIJ t. BO ........... ISSUER & REVlSK:lN8 IlUlllNIC_ - -- .... - ...-- o 1 - B08'\L~WE8T ELEVATION ....."" c (EllIS'1'NI) P-l- ~ .. ..... .-. .- -. ,'=. ':0:. - ",. .- 7._ m-" ......_ .' .. --. ~.~".- .'...._ . -- - . - - .. "'" Gl qlU \\GroupO\dwg\DWG04\04570\A-2.dwg, 12{7/200412:36:10 PM BOlITM B.EVAT1ON ",...... -- ..-- - ~- A-2 . . . Date Received for Filing NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) 1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project: Conditional Use Permit Application No. 05-01: A Conditional Use Permit to allow e tea house with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center. 2. Location: 655 W. Duarte Rd. Unit B. City of Arcadia, County of Angeles 3. Entity or person undertaking project: Tien Chu 3354 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting 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. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Planning CommissionlCity Council's findings are as follows: The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site and will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration refiects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial StUdy may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia. 91007 (626) 574-5423 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 Department Community Development Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, 91007 (626) 574-5423 -J-:'fIf I ~ Staff Neg Dec 7/02 . File No. CUP 05-01 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Application No. CUP 05~01 2. Project Address (Location) 655 W. Duarte Rd. Unit B. City of Arcadia, County of Angeles 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Tien ChiJ 3354 E. Colorado Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 . 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia - Development Services Department Community Development Division - Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-2 8. Description of Project: . Conditional Use Permit Application No. 05-01: A Conditional Use Permit to allow a tea house with seating for 8 patrons within an existing commercial shopping center. -1- CECA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No. CUP 05-01 . 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The properties to the south and west are zoned C-2, and are developed with commercial land uses. The property to the east is zoned C-O and is developed with a commercial/and use. The property to the north is zoned R-3 and is developed with multiple-family residential land uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources . [ ] Geology/Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] HydrologyiWater Quality [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Utilities and Service Systems \ [ 1 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. -2- CEOA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 File No. CUP 05-01 . [] 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. [] , find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia - Development Services Department . Slg~~ December 15. 2004 Date Joseph M. Lambert Printed Name Donna Butler For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impacr answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No' Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the Impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one Involved (e,g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). . 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-slle. cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impacr is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impacr entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the Incorporation of mitigation . measures has reduced an. effect from "Potentially Significanllmpact" to a "Less Than Significant -3- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1,7/02 File No. CUP 05-01 . 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 CEOA 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. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they areavsilable 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 Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated; describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential Impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should. where appropriate. include a reference to the page or pages where the statement Is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. . 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance 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 significant. . -4- CEQAEnv. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 . File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially SighlfiCant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Im"pact 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 181 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 0 0 0 181 to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? . . c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o o 181 o o o 181 o The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to aI/ow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. The project site is surrounded by similar commercial uses and is part of a larger shopping center. As such, no adverse impact is anticipated. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? o o 181 o o o 181 o o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 5 7/02 . . . Potentially Significant Impact File No.: CUP 05-01 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan and with the zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality managel'(lent or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively 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)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o o o o o 181 o o 181 o o 181 o o 181 o o 181 The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. The continued use of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, o o o o 181 o o 181 CEQA Checklist 6 7/02 . . 6. . policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federaUyprotected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially Significant Impact o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o No Impact 181 181 181 The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources. 5. CUl rURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 18I The project site is already developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed. As such, no adverse impacts on cultural resources are anticipated. GEOLOGY AND SOilS - Would the project: a) Expose people or. structures to potential substantial adverse o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 7 7102 . . . effects, including the risk ofloss, 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 .cir based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II) Strong seismic ground shaking? Iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? v) Landslides? b) Result in substantial 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 Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o o o No Impact 181 181 181 181 18I 181 181 18I While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposad. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 7. 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? o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 8 7/02 . . . 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? c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a slle which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 safely hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a siglficant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o o o o o Less- Than Significant Impact o o o o o o o No Impact IZI IZI 181 181 181 181 181 The project site is already developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed. The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. The proposed project does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. As such. no adverse impacts are anticipated. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 9 7/02 File No.: CUP 05-01 . Less Than Potentially Significant less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact impact Incorporation b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 0 0 181 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (I.e.. the production rate of prB'-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, 0 0 0 181 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 0 0 0 181 including through the alte.ration 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? . e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity 0 0 0 181 of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality 0 0 0 181 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on 0 0 0 181 a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede 0 0 0 181 or redirect .flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or 0 0 0 181 death Involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 0 0 0 181 k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? 0 0 0 181 . CEQA Checklist 10 7/02 . . . I) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm water runoff? m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading dC;lCks, or other outdoor work areas? n> Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? 0) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially Significant Impact o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o No Impact 181 IZI 181 IZI 181 181 The project site is already developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed. The projecf site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. There will be no change to the existing drainage and runoff generated by the project site. As such, no adverse impacts, are anticipated. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b> Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conserVation plan? o o o o o o o o o 181 181 181 CEQA Checklist 11 7/02 . . . File No.: CUP 05-01 Potentially SignifiCant Impact less Than SignifiCant With Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact The proposal is consistent with the Commercial land use designation ofthe General Plan and with the C-t zone, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposed project c:;onsists of a conditional use permit to aI/ow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known minerai resource that 0 0 0 181 would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-Important minerai 0 0 0 [8) resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land. use plan? No mineral resources are known to exist.at the sita. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 11. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of 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? o o 181 o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ground borne noise levels? o o o 181 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 0 0 0 181 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 [8) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 0 0 0 181 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? 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? o o 181 o CEOA Checklist 12 7/02 File No.: CUP 05-01 . Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. Therefore, there will not be any new sources of. noise at the project site. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectiy (for example, through extension of roads or other inffastructure)? o o o 181 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the cOnstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? o o o I2SJ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o o o 181 The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at tbe project site. Also, there will not be any new construction of residential units. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. . PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 'environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 Police protection? 0 0 0 181 Schools? 0 0 0 181 Parks? 0 0 0 181 Other public facilities? 0 0 0 181 The project site is already developed with a commerCial building and no additional construction is proposed. The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. Therefore, no Impacts to public services are anticipated. 14. RECREATION - Would the project: . a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreatlonel facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? o o o IZI CEQA Checklist 13 7/02 . . .. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Signiflcant Impact o File No.: CUP 05-01 less Than Signiflcant With Mitigation Incorporation o less Than Slgnlflcanl Impact o No Impact 181 The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction Is proposed. As such, the project will not create a significant impact upon recreational services. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in'traffic which is substantial in relatlon to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system .(Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to-capacity ratio 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 or 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 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 181 o 181 181 181 181 181 o 181 The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. Part of the conditional use permit process will include an analysis of the parking situation and a determination by staff on the adequacy of parking. As such, the impacts if any, are less than significant. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: CEQA Checklist 14 7102 -l . I / . . a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Govemment Code Section 664737 (SB221). e) Result in a determination by the Wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? File No.: CUP 05-01 Pote~tially Significant Impact o o o o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o o o o No Impact 181 181 181 181 181 181 181 The project site is already developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed. The project siie is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the project site. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, subsllmtlally 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 o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 15 7102 . . . the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 cOrlnection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact o o File No.: CUP 05-01 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o Less Than Significant Impact No Impact o 181 o 181 The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to allow a teahouse use within an existing commercial building. The project site is already developed with commercial buildings and no additional construction is proposed. The conditional use permit shall not result in cumulative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or limit the future development of the neighborhood. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. CEQA Checklist 16 7/02 .' FileNo. CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574-5400 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: 12-7-04 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Bobaloca 10612 Shoemaker Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670 (562) 944 5181 2. Address of project (Location): 655 w. Duarte Road, Arcadia, Ca 91007 .. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Tien H. Chu 3354 E. Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena, Ca 91007 (626) 440-1688 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: city Building Permit and Health Department approval 5. Zoning: 6. General Plan Designation: commercial C2 Proiect DescriDtion 7. Proposed use ofsite (project description): proposed drink sales (non-alcoholic) . ? .. , . approx. Site Size: 125,600 Sq. Ft.! Acre(s) 8. _. Square footage per building: 1 , 106 (the proposed tenant space) S.F. 10, Number of floors of construction: one (1) 11, Amount of off-street parking provided: '6 12. Proposed scheduling of project: start 1-20-05 13. Associated projects: none 14. Anticipated incremental development: N/A . 15. 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 16. If commercial, indicate the type, Le. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: neighborhood type. sales area=660 S.F. loading use regular parking stall. hours of operation=10AM to midnight 7 days/ week. 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shiff. and loading facilities: N/A 18. 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 19. 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 . ~ \ --- EnVfronlnfoFarm -2- 4/01 ";'0. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items . checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES .!'1Q o Ga o liJ o liJ o iii o (M o l!I 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts ofsolid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage pattems. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) Relationship to a larger project or series of projects Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? o ua 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmental Settina 0 Ga 27. 0 lil 28. .0 (M 29. 0 tEl 30. 0 GI 31. 0 Qj 32. 0 lil 33. 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. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) 35. -. - 8. SiteSize:approx. 125, 60CSq. Ft.1 Acre(s) . I ! . . , \ , , , Answers to question 35 & 36. 35. The project (tenant Improvement) is at the Southwest corner of Building C of the existing 'retail center which is on the North side of Duarte Road. The existing topography is generally flat. Soil is stable (existing buildings have been there for some time and parking area is paved with asphaltic concrete). Plants, animal, cultural, histroical & scenic aspects are::in- significant. photographs are attached. 36. The surrounding properties to the proposed site are single story commercial. Plants, animal, cultural, historical & scenic aspects are in-significant. photographs are attached. .. 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, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Slg Date 12-7-04 Bobaloca For . " -- . EnvironlnfoForm -4- 4/01