Loading...
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.