HomeMy WebLinkAbout1707
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1707
A RESOLUTION OF THE PlANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. CUP ()4.{)05 TO AlLOW SEATING AT AN
EXISTING TAKE-OUT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CELESTE'S
KITCHEN) TO ACCOMMODATE 68 PATRONS INCLUDING
INCIDENTAl OUTDOOR DINING AT 136 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2004, an application was filed by Oscar Sierra to
allow seating for 68 patrons at an existing take-out food establishment; Development
Services Department Case No. CUP 04-005, at 136 Las Tunas Drive, more
particularly described as follows:
The westerly 200 feet of the easterly 582.52 feet of lot 68 of Santa
Anita Colony, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, as per map recorded in Map Book 42, Page 87 in the Office
of the County Recorder of Said County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 8, 2004, 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 June 8, 2004 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 no
onsite parking for the proposed restaurant.
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.
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 Pelinit 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 of the 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 04-005 to allow seating for 68 patrons
at an existing take-out food establishment at 136 Las Tunas Drive.
SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect
the Planning Commission's action of June 8, 2004 to deny Conditional Use Permit
Application No. CUP 04-005, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Saderian, Hsu, Lucas, Olson and Wen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
...
.c"'7n"'7
.
.
.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No. 1707 was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on June 22, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Olson and Wen
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
~c~
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
h
ecretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~0.~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
.,
of"7'n"7
,
v
e
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
June 8, 2004
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 04-005 to allow seating at
an existing take-out food establishment (Celeste's Kitchen) to
accommodate 68 patrons including incidental outdoor dining at 136 Las
Tunas Drive.
SUMMARY
. This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Oscar Sierra, proprietor of
Celeste's Kitchen, to allow seating at an existing take-out food establishment to
accommodate 68 patrons including incidental outdoor dining at 136 Las Tunas Drive.
The Development Services Department is recommending denial of this application,
based on the factors listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Celeste's Kitchen (Oscar Sierra, Proprietor)
LOCATION: 136 Las Tunas Drive
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to allow seating at an existing take-out
food establishment accommodating 68 patrons including incidental
outdoor dining at 136 Las Tunas Drive.
SITE AREA: 35,719 square feet (.82 acres)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 148 feet on Las Tunas Drive
Approximately 86 feet on Live Oak Avenue
e
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 1
e
e
e
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
This subject property is a through lot located between Las Tunas
Drive and Live Oak Avenue, and includes three existing business: C
& L Auto Body, Alex Di Peppe's restaurant, and Celeste's Kitchen.
The subject property is zoned CoM.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Montessori School; zoned CoO
South: Commercial; within Temple City
East: Auto Collision Center; zoned CoM
West: Arcadia Wash and the American Senior Living Housing
Project; zoned C-2
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
BACKGROUND
In February 2003, the Development Services Department issued a business license
for a take-out only food establishment at the subject site. The business license was
issued with the condition that no seating be permitted at the subject location. A
restaurant or eating establishment with seating requires a Conditional Use Permit
application. The applicant was recently cited by Code Services for operating a
restaurant with seating for approximately 45 people without an approved conditional
use permit.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
Celeste's Kitchen offers a full menu of lunch and dinner entrees, and is also
requesting permission to serve beer and wine or allow patrons to provide their own
wine while dining at the restaurant. The proposed hours of operation for Celeste's
Kitchen are as follows: Tuesday through Thursday 11 :30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Friday
and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The
applicant is proposing seating for 68 patrons. 52 seats inside and 16 outdoor dining
seats.
There are currently three businesses on the site: Celeste's Kitchen occupies a 1,620
square foot unit, C & L Auto Body occupies a 7,600 square foot unit, and Alex Di
Peppe's Pizza House occupies a 1,250 square foot unit. C & L was approved by
Application Nos. CUP 83-11 & 85-18 and Alex Di Peppe's has been operating as a
sit-down restaurant since 1983. Prior to AJex OJ Peppe's, a restaurant has operated
continually at the location since 1958, and at that time a conditional use permit was
not required to operate a restaurant.
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 2
e
-
e
Between 1997 and 2003, the subject unit was occupied by the Candy Shack, a
permitted retail establishment. In 2003, a license was issued for Celeste's Kitchen, a
take-out only establishment, which is considered to be a retail use. When the
business license was issued, staff advised the applicant that a Conditional Use
Permit application for a restaurant would not be supported because of inadequate
parking. However, over time, tables were added at the establishment. In staffs
opinion, the proposed restaurant use is too intense for the site.
ParkinQ
C & L Auto Body requires 38 parking spaces by code and maintains 37 total spaces,
29 of which are located adjacent to Live Oak Avenue within a gated area. The
majority of this parking along Live Oak Avenue is occupied by vehicles waiting to be
serviced by the body shop. Eight of the 38 body shop parking spaces are located
adjacent to Las Tunas Drive in front of their office area. This parking area is utilized
by the body shop customers and employees.
The Parking Regulations require ten parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor
area for restaurants. The 1,250 square foot Alex Di Peppe's restaurant requires 13
parking spaces by Code, and they maintain seven spaces behind their restaurant.
There is no on-site parking provided for Celeste's Kitchen as all the existing spaces
are utilized by other permitted uses on the site. Based on the current parking
requirements, the 1,620 square foot restaurant is required to maintain 17 parking
spaces, and none are provided. Las Tunas Drive is a designated primary arterial,
and staff would not encourage street parking along Las Tunas.
Based on recent staff visits to the project site, there are very few available parking
spaces under the existing site conditions. Celeste's Kitchen was not originally
intended to be a restaurant and has always been used as retail space. When staff
approved the take-out business, the applicant was cautioned that staff would not
support a sit-down restaurant based upon the parking requirements; and that the
property was not designed to accommodate an additional restaurant use.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provIsions of the Califomia 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
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 3
e
e
e
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. The mitigation
measures are those conditions of approval that address the potential noise, parking,
and police service impacts.
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 of the 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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 04-005 due to the fact that there is no available on-site
parking for the proposed restaurant. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve
the restaurant, staff recommends reducing the amount of seats to 20 and eliminating
outside dining.
If the Planning Commission determines that based on the evidence presented this is
an appropriate use for the site, and moves to approve Conditional Use Permit CUP
04-005, staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. The restaurant approved by CUP 04-005 is limited to a total of 20 seats,
incidental outdoor dining is prohibited and the seating area 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 9:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 4
e
e
e
2. 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 signage. This includes wall signs, window signs, and temporary banners.
3. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for
CUP 04-005, shall be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of
any approvals, which shall result in closing of the restaurant.
4. Approval of CUP 04-005 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.
5. 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 Govemment 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Denial
The Planning Commission should move to deny this Conditional Use Permit
Application No. CUP 04-005, 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.
Aooroval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve Conditional Use Permit Application
No. CUP 04-005, the Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration,
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 5
e
-
e
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 June 8, 2004 public hearing, please
contact Joe Lambert at (626) 574-5444.
o a . utler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo & Zoning Map
Land Use Map
Photographs
Correspondence and plans submitted by applicant
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Environmental Information
CUP 04-005
June 8, 2004
Page 6
~
N
- D 100 2DD Fest
I
, .
...
, ,
"
'I; .
,. " .
'_, il " ,,~ .g"l<
': .; ~ ,. ~....... ~ ~
.
~lff1lJ'
Oli. .
l' .
,.,
....
~
:',-',
-
~
~ 136LasTunasDr
D Arcadia
I CoM ~ Zone
-'~,..,
~ 3~ LrB1~ r{JjJf!D@)~ rDruwe
CCUfJ ~@@4J,c@@5
?is
.pmentSelVices Department
Engineering Division
FreplJ19dby: R,S GotJzaIg~ May 2004
--
~77}
HAS DR
~151
AKAVE
~
N
o
-
100
200 Feet
,
~6!l)
~.f) ~59/
~61)
SAY -ON
---
.............
---
.-
1fts
.opment Se,.,;ces Depsrlment
., Engineering Division
Frepaodby: RSGonzaI>z. May. 2004
~S1}
~$D)
SENIOR
I\PTS.
UNDER
:::ONST.
~43)
~4S}
"1J ~"I
!;Q ~"I
t.n
i:
is:.
o
z
~
m
-
~"I
~.36)
~3li1
~12}
~02)
l8al
~16J
~081
OMM RCIA -OFFI E
(141)
(m)
(119)
~11}
~1I31
~Ol}
~35J
LAS TUNAS DR
~08) ~o~
~Z4/ ~20}
(114)
(8~
AUTO
REPAIR
~23)
(119)
(125)
LIVE OAK AVE
CitY cff ;4faufUL
1'ernpCe City
~
)>
a
Q)
0..
iii"
~
en
=
136 Las Tunas Drive
CUP 2004-005
e
-
e
from across Las Tunas Drive
Celeste's Kitchen, C & L Auto Body to the left
e
r
.--
....'
,."4,,,/' . /:.,
~ l' ".~
...~~....-- - ~'
~.. ~~..-:
-~ /- ~~"
HAY 13 2004
-
-
Parkin
area in front of C & L Auto Bod
;:"',,'~J7.
'-f" .. ,.
Parking area behind Alex Di Peppe's restaurant
.
e
"' . .----"-.- . .- ...-.
Wp ~ :tltv jzL~ )A.<; ~;f~.h
AM~~~"-tf'
. ~ 911., ~ RECEIVED
, ~cyJ/' ~ JUN 032004
11 i . Com Development Cerv_
1.3)Y E ~~ ~ munItYOevoloJJIIlOlllDiriaion
~(1v 9/o~&
.
e
-
.
Page 1 of!
Joe Lambert
From: DebRadwan@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 7:24 PM
To: jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us
SUbject: Celeste's Kitchen
I am sending this to request that Celeste's Kitchen be given the permit needed to designate it asa dine-in facility.
When a wonderful establishment moves into town, we should be doing everything we can to keep these
businesses here and florishing. Let's help these businesses so that Old Town Pasadena isn't the only place to go
for a hip meal. Thank you for your consideration.
6/1/2004
e
-
e
Page 1 of!
Joe Lambert
From: Heaven003@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 10:12 AM
To: jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us
SUbjec;t: celestes's kitchen permit
as a citizen of arcadia i am completely endorsing of 'celeste's kitchen' being permitted as a dine in restaurant. the
restaurant is a perfect addition to the east las tunas business district which is very much in need of new and
exciting businesses to breathe life into the area. in just a short time celeste's kitchen has developed a great
following of customers and it Is no wonder, given the sensational french food being offered, the owner and his
wife are a simple couple wanting to run a peaceable business in a beautiful community of families and we should
offer them that opportunity. thank you.
6/1/2004
Page I ofl
Joe Lambert
e
From: jack [kweleba08@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 9:15 AM
To: jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us
Subject: Conditional Use permit, 136 Las Tunas
Good Moming Mr. Lambert,
I am writing to let you know that my husband and I are both very much in favor of approving
the Conditional Use Permit to allow seating as stated at Celestes Kitchen, on las Tunas, in
Arcadia. I have been there several times now and I can atest to the fact that the owner /chef
Oscar Sierra is a delightful man, an accompli sed chef and an asset to the area. He and his
wife work very hard to make the dining experience enjoyable, and his gourmet cuisine with a
French flair is definately the kind of meal you enjoy while seated in his restaurant.! It's very
nice to have a "high end" menu such as he offers right in our own area. Many folks believe you
need to go out of Arcadia for such a dinner, but hopefully people will soon see that delicious
food is available right here in Arcadia.
If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it, you will see how Celeste's Kithcen should
definately be considered a dine in restaurant, not a fast food or take-out establishment. ( I
recommend the fabuous beef tenderloin!)
Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Kim and Jack Weleba
~ 2655 mayflower Ave
., Arcadia
.
6/1/2004
e
~
-
e
e
L01AAl!A-SlM11Q.I'T.
lOUl.OO~OT~."-'IOPf
.OO~~..ft
_ ::a'::~'IUlIO
111I =~~UUJ!D
-~""'IQ".-
IIilIiI ~.-:.:.:.::--,
~QUI~""IICl.t.__
OCN'''O\' C'"''''t'ltlE\..
f\.OOIl
~
--L.1
~
~Or!~ ~N
"
Q
..
C
.
..
~
..
c
"
rl
13,
db
Hi
~
U
~
Q,
......
d.....
A-1
--
e
-
e
...
~LB~
_ ~'"5L"'"
~
--
---
;
1 '" J .... ~ ,... hi
...
FLOOR PlAN ~
---
N
:"
rl
lal
hll
I
M
~
I ~_
IM_
A-2
--
e
-
e
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT)
1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project:
Application No. CUP 04-005: A Conditional Use Permit, to allow seating at an existing take-out restaurant
(Celeste's Kitchen) to accommodate 68 patrons including incidantal outdoor dining at 136 Las Tunas
Drive.
2, Location:
136 Las Tunas Drive, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
3, Entity or person undertaking project:
Celeste's Kitchen
136 Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 254-8364
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 Commlssion/City Council's findings are as follows:
The proposed use is consistent with the zarling and General Plan land use designation of the
project site and will not heve a significant effect upon the environment.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects Its independent judgment.
A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at:
City of Arcadia Development Services Deparlment
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 adoptthls Negative Declaration are as follows:
City of Arcadia Development Services Deparlment
Community Development Division
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, 91007
(626) 574-5423
Joseoh M. Lambert
Staff
Date Received tor Filing
Neg Dee
7102
e
-
e
File No. CUP 04-005
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
c
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Application No. CUP 04-005
2. Project Address (Location)
136 Las Tunas Drive
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Celeste's Kitchen
136 Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 254-8364
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development $eNicas Department
Community Development Division - Planning SeNices
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:
CoM
8. Description of Project:
-1-
CECA Env. Checklis.l Part 1, 7/02
e
-
.
File No. CUP 04-005
Conditional Use Permit Application No. 04-005: A Conditional Use Permit to
allow seating at an existing take-out restaurant (Celeste's Kitchen) to
accommodate 68 patrons including incidental outdoor dining at 136 Las Tunas
Drive.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's
surroundings.)
The properties to the north are zoned C-O, and are developed with
commercial land uses. The property to the west is zoned C-2, and is being
developed with a senior housing project. The property to the east is zoned
C-M and is developed with an auto repair use. Properties to the south are
with Temple City.
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
[ ] Biological Resources
( ] Geology/Soils
[ ] Hydrology/Water Quality
[ ] Mineral Resources
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Recreation
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ J Mandatory Findings of Significance
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Noise
[ ] PUblic Services
[ ] Transportation / Circulation
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[Xl 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
-2-
CEOA Env, Checklist Pari 1, 7/02
e
File No. CUP 04-005
[ ]
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.
[ ]
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 EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
-. By:
For:
.
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
The City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
r;r~;4H
Sign r.
5/3/04
Date
Joseph M. Lambert
Printed Name
Donna L. Butler
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation Is required for all answers except "No Impacf' 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-speciflc
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~slte as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as
operational impacts.
-3-
CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02
e
.
.
File No. CUP 04-005
3. "Potentially 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 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 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 CECA 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 are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed In an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Signlflcant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated: describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or reflned 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 m~igation measure identified, if any, to raduce the impact to less than significant.
-4-
CEQA Env. ChecklislPart 1,7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 IZI
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, bt,lt not Iim.ited 0 0 0 IZI
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrede 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?
e
o
o
o
IZI
o
o
IZI
o
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate a restaurant use within an axisting
commercial building. The project sita 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
commercial 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 Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califomia
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 Califomia
Resources Agency to non-agricuitural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a WlIIiamson
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?
e
o
o
o
IZI
o
o
IZI
o
o
o
o
IZI
CECA Checklist
5
7/02
e
File No.: CUP 04-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Signlflcant
With
Mitigallon
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 othar 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 agricunural
rasources.
3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management 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 10 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
epplicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (Including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
e
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
o
o
o
o
IZI
o
IZI
o
IZI
o
IZI
o
IZI
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate seating in an existing take-out restaurant
within an existing commercial building. The project site is alreedy 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 tha South Coast Air Quality Managemenf District. As such, no adverse impacts
ara anticipated.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directiy 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 California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service?
. b) Have a substantial adverse Impact,on any riparian habitat or other
o
o
o
o
o
IZI
o
IZI
CEQA Checklist
6
7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the Callf()rnia Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have ,a substantial adverse effect on federally protected weUands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but
not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrotogicatlnterruption or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or 0 0 0 IZI
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 0 0 0 IZI
resources, such as,a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 0 0 0 IZI
e Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate seeting in en existing take-out rastaurant
within an existing commercial building. Tha project site is elready developed with commercial buildings and no
adc1itional construction is proposed. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 0 0 IZI
historical resource as defined in !i 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 0 IZI
archaeological resource pursuant to !i 15064.5?
c) Directly or indlrecliydestroy a unique paleontological resource or 0 0 0 IZI
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, Including those Interred outside of 0 0 0 IZI
formal cemeteries?
The project site is alraady developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed.
As such, no adverse impacts on cunural resources are anticipated.
e GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
CECA Checklist
7
7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e
a) Expose people or structures to potential substential adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
0 0 0 IZI
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
sUbstantial evidence of a known feu/t? Refer to Division of
Mines end Geology Special Publication 42.
o
o
o
IZI
i1) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 IZI
ill) Seismic-related ground failure, Including liquefaction? 0 0 0 IZI
v) Landslides? 0 0 0 IZI
. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 IZI
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would 0 0 0 IZI
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?
o
o
o
IZI
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or allemative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
o
o
o
IZI
While this entira region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject Iocetion 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 solis. The proposed project
consists of a conditional use permit to locate seating in an existing take-out restaurant 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.
7.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAlS . Would the
project:
.
CEQA Checklist
8
7/02
e
. e)
a)
Create a slgniflcant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
File No.: CUP 04-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
SilInlflcanl
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
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
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 sefety regulations. As
such, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
e HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
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 h;uardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would It create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan hes not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
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 sigificsnt risk of loss, injury or
death Involving wildland fires, Including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
CECA Checklist
9
7/02
e
-
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
slJbstantially wtlh 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 pre-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,
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 pattem of the stle or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area, as mapped on
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
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury'or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
e J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
File No.: CUP 04-005
PotenUally
Signlflcant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
MltigaUon
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
No
Impact
IZI
(gJ
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
CECA Checklist
10
7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? 0 0 0 IZI
I) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm 0 0 0 IZI
water runoff?
m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material 0 0 0 IZI
storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause signiflcsnt harm 0 0 0 IZI
on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies?
0) Potential for discharge of storm water to Impair the beneficial 0 0 0 IZI
- uses of the receiving waters or areas thatprovlde water quality
beneflt?
p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of 0 0 0 IZI
storm water runoff that can use environmental harm?
q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or 0 0 0 IZI
surrounding areas?
Tha 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. There will be no change to the existing drainage and runoff generated by the project site. As
such, no adverse impacts ara anticipated.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 IZI
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 0 0 0 IZI
an agency with jurisdlcllon 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?
e c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 0 0 0 IZI
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
e
community conservation plan?
File No.: CUP 04-005
PotenUally
Significant
Impact
Less Then
S!gnlftcant
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 CoM
zone, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable
anvironmental regulations. The proposed project consists of e conditional use permit to locate seating in an
existing take-out restaurant within an existing commercial building. The project site is alraady 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 ofa known minerai resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result In the loss of availability of a locally-Important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
o
o
o
o
o
o
No mineral resources are known to exist at the site. 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?
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c)
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
CECA Checklist
12
7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e
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 ere enticlpated.
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 indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
o
o
o
IZI
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
IZI
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
IZI
.
The project site is surrounded by similar uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the
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 associeted with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered govemmental 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 IZI
Police protection? 0 0 0 18l
Schools? 0 0 0 18l
Parks? 0 0 0 IZI
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 IZI
The project site is alraady 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 recreational facilities such that substantial physical
o
o
o
IZI
CECA Checklist
13
7102
File No.: CUP 04-005
e Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 0 0 0 IZI
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adv~rse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate seating in an existing take-out restaurant
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. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAlFFlC. Would the project:
a) Cause an Increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 0 0 0 IZI
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 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 lavel of service 0 0 0 181
. standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in e change in air traffic pattems, including either an 0 0 0 IZI
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., 0 0 0 IZI
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result In inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 IZI
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 IZI 0
g} Confllct with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting 0 0 0 IZI
altemative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
--
CECA Checklist
14
7/02
e
e
e
File No.: CUP 04-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate seating in an existing take-out r8staurent
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, ara less
than significant.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
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 sufficiant permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
gl Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations
releted to solid waste?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
IZI
The project site is already developed with a commercial building and no additional construction is proposed.
The project site is surrounded by similllr uses and no additional commercial construction is proposed at the
project site. As such, no adverse impacts ara anticipated.
CECA Checklist
15
7/02
File No.: CUP 04-005
e Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 0 0 IZI
environment, SUbstantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory?
b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 0 0 0 IZI
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c)
.
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
o
o
o
IZI
The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit to locate seating in an existing take-out restaurant
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 resun in cumulative impacts to the
surrounding neighbOrhood or limit the future development of the neighborhood. As such, no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
.
CECA Checklist
16
7/02
e
.
.15,
FileNo.
CvtP 4--<S'
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 9/007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
Generallnformalion
I. Applicant's Name:---.C.aJ OS f.t' S
Address: J ~" vJ. lo..'i
k1 h~eY\
A-O((o.d1Cl 1
T \JYI.CU :b Y.
IWr\tH :bY" .
VJ. k.s
cPt
Cf ItlOT
rA q lOo~
A-y('qc:{iQ,
2.
Property Address (Location): -"3 G:,
Assessor's Number: 5 '1"8 & ~ () J. 2.- n8~
5}g'6'- Ol."2.-o0~
3.
N~e, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
~r.A" '5j,Y'\'(). (bz..~)..1.5"f-83((;>"1
4.
List and descnbe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those
required by city, regional, state and fedeml agencies:
5.
Zone Classification: ARc.. M
6, General Plan Designation:
Prolcel Description
7.
Proposed use of site (project description): .:ra 1<1. OJ.\- ~Dl.U 'f"Q,1'\ +
C~an~o -Iv Sit~tJtlH\ ~UYOJ\ f
Sitcsize: \\~20
~o be
8.
9. Square footage per building: ~ /&11-0
10, "Numbcr of fioors of construction:
II. Amount of off-street parking provided: ~ it,
12. Proposed scheduling of project: M 11 MIlS Ul'~ L\ C~y CU\C.~
13.
Anticipated incremental dcvelopment:
14.
If residcntial, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household sizes expected:
If commercial, indicate the type,i.e. n,ighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,
and loading facilities, hours of operation:
e
'1'1-15 lomfJ tl\ t). MI'lC l.l~{ s.ktd' LUI~ (DMt.rC4L\~ CI\
\It
,4-r~ Of)tY~i'Il~ M.-TIot 1I~)(j""o~~~o'f"'^o F.S,," 1I:00.oM'T09:ooPoM,,So.l:'Soo--'''''p,'h
16. [findtIstria~ inilil:ate type, estimated employment persmf!, and loading facilities: 3..... oM
17.
[f institutiona~ indicate the major function, estimated employment per shifi, estimated occupancy, loading
facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
18.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly
why the application is J.-equirep:
6.1" -rhl MOlWlrn "'~t ~i-\t
a"A
W>>.~ .... 'f~"W1't--foV' -tQ.1iII. 011+ ~6.+Q.Lm~nd
neeJ~4e .'n C.Mt'ljll. -to si.b/l)wn E>'tA.c.-t
-t~,- 11 sa
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional
sheets as necessary).
19.
- 20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
25.
26.
27.
e
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours.
YES NO
0 ~
0 .~
0 r3
0 ~
0 ~
0 e(
0 [2(
0 ~
0 [2("
YES NO
0 ~
E.!.R,
04/17/03
Page 2
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.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage pattersn.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Is site on tilled land or on any slopes, of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable
or explosives.
28. Substantial change in demandfor. municipal services (POlice, fire, water, sewage, etc.)
29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, Oil, natural gas, etc. 0 [Z(
- 30, Rclationship toa larger project or series of projects. 0 ~
31. Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment 0 ~
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous
materials handling or ~tOl'3ge delivery or loading dockJ;, or other outdoor work areas?
32. A significantly environmentally harmful increase in the now rate or volume of storm water Gf
0
runoff?
33. A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding 0 t1'
areas?
34. Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the bencficial uses of receiving waters 0 3
or areas that provide Water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
35. Harm to thebioJogical integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? 0 ~
Environmental Settlnl!
.36.
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.
37.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any
cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type ofland uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of
land use (onc-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 beliet
,l.1-~-o 'f
Date
~
e
E.l,R,
04/17/03
Page 3
:# 3G:. .
e
~~1-
e
e
i"hll B.., i IJ 11\5 Wo..s ~vi l t- I T\ l qSS . "T ~Il. \,'}s~ 0 ~
+~'l sik if) 0. +a.\Q \9u1- ~Q.sfa.I.m~n+. ihl fee d +ttCl+
rs SeYlleJ l'i ~oY' 0.. ~i+ down 'R.4.s.~"''("o.~+.
T~~ pt'Oplll fho.n O)rr\~s -to ~t- Cl+ ('ctrrts.f~/s
"'Jo.\'lh ~ ll"\\tl~ -\-~ltlV' WleCll ClI.n~ f~Cl+ ts l.U"-'1
We Wa.V\t- -to c.~nCQll. +~ll. USQ: fa ~ Si+- clowt)
fla.ce. -rk b\Jildit\~ 1"5. lou..+~J tn 0.. to+ +~-I-
T'3. WlG\iV\l, us.C(. ~r 0.. "Bod,\ s"-or' ~"+~e V'~r
yo..+t 0 j:. ~lt b\Ji ldi "j. -to +~Il w(St- 'bick. ~o.r. '"'
RQ.':>~IJ YQ"r'\f .
: -rht. s.,1-t is S,,\"(f)\)ncl. b~ 0.. 12u-to"wo"V\-f 40 +k:t
~+ - C>\ 10J"{ Sl,or +0 fltl. Sco+ CW1d.J.o -f4.1l. flo&t.
;'" 1-hll ~u-t" s.-Jt t.>f +hlt s~(t+ ~+- ts So(rot.l~c.J
""\ bl.llOiV\ess- "'nd. 0" ~t. tvnyq" Sidt D ~ +h.t
Strtt+ (~<>.$ T\lY\C\.s ;nY'.) f?-t- i'~ S"ryo"Y\c::{acl ~~
StY\,lfl ~Y'tI~ l1 hOM("{S. T1tt U Soil.. CSl" +"'t~ :S*ee ~ f..s
&-1.",''1(, CDtv\e'(C\'"o,,\ 0" ~ Se\l~ Side c...nd
1<.JvsiJe.n{{o.\ en thL J..Jo<"'~ Siclo..
-r~t..'S>;tk \.tCl,S 0.. fo..'<~O'\j ..:+t. 4t, +Lu. tAS+- .l)-n.,\I.UCl.~ +c
~ vJtSf.