Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1702 (2) . . . '-' RESOLUTION NO. 1702 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-013 WITH A PARKING MODIFICATION FOR A 2,165 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITHIN THE EXISTING 4.475 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 29 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on 'October 22, 2003, a Conditional Use Permit application with a parking modification was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Hanfu Lee to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 31 patrons within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building at the property commonly known as 29 E. Huntington Drive (Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013); and, WHEREAS, a publiC hearing was held on January 13, 2004, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds, 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 because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the proposed project. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper 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. All yards, spaces, loading, landscaping, parking, and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. "'l . 4. That the site abuts a major street that is adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. S. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 03-013 with a parking modification to operate a 2,16S square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 31 patrons within the existing 4,47S square foot commercial building at 29 E. Huntington Drive, upon the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday with live music inside the restaurant area from 11:30 a. m. until 1 :00 p.m. and from 7:00 p.m. until midnight from Fridays until Sundays. 2. The maximum number of on-site seating shall be limited to 31. 3. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 03- 013. . . 4. Approval of CUP 03-013 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicants have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. S. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided . . . for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of January 13, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Baderian None Commissioner Wen SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 2004, by the following votes: AYES: Commissioner Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Baderian NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Wen ~~~PI~~ Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ~~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~P.~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney e . It ,. STAFF REPORT Development Services Department January 13, 2004 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-013 with a parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant within the eXisting 4.475 square foot commercial building at 29 E. Huntington Drive. SUBJECT: SUMMARY The applicant, Dr. and Mrs. Hanfu Lee applied for a Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 31 patrons within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building at 29 E. Huntington Drive. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday, with live music inside the restaurant area from 11 :30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., and from 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Satl:lFElays and Sundays. ,/, / :\ 1'Yi~~ (<lfP~ P'f PG. yl~/c<.l). The Development Services Department recommends approval of the applicant's request, subject to the conditions of approval. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Dr. and Mrs. Hanfu Lee (property owner) LOCATION: 29 E. Huntington Drive REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant within the existing 4.475 square foot commercial building. LOT AREA: 7,000 (.16 acres) . . e ;- FRONTAGE: 50 feet along Huntington Drive. 50 feet along the northerly alley. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is. improved with a 4,474 square foot, one-story commercial building, and is zoned CBD (Central Business District). SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: South: East: West: Public Parking Lot (City Parking District No.2) Retail; zoned CBD General Offices; zoned CBD Mixed Commercial; zoned CBD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial BACKGROUND In 1996, the applicant purchased the subject property, which was developed with a 2,381 square foot commercial building. At that time, the Central Business District (CBD) required that the front 1/3 of the building be used for retail purposes. In order to comply, the applicant proposed a 1,386 square foot addition at the rear of the building for his dental practice. However, due to a deficiency of on-site parking, the applicant applied for a modification to permit a dental and retail use. On November 26, 1996, the Planning Commission approved MOdification Application No. MC 96-051 for 7 parking spaces in lieu of 14 spaces, and to utilize City Parking District NO.2 for the remaining parking spaces that were not available on-site. The modification expired without being implemented. On July 14, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit Application No. 98-013, which was submitted by the Arcadia Presbyterian Church to operate a 1,371 square foot coffeehouse within the front 1/3 of the subject building, A parking modification for 7 parking spaces in lieu of 31 spaces was granted for the combined uses (dental and restaurant), which was mitigated by the availability of spaces within Parking District No.2. The CUP and the related parking modification for the restaurant use expired without being implemented. In August of 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2112, which amended the CBD zoning by repealing the front 1/3 retail requirement along CUP No. 03-013 January 13, 2004 Page 2 I. .. e ( Huntington Drive. Although, the regulation was repealed the applicant still had intentions to remodel the building. On March 28, 2000, Modification No. MC 00-016 was approved for 7 parking spaces in lieu of 25 spaces for a dental and retail use. The number of required parking spaces differed from the previous modification request due to a difference in the area dedicated to each use. Following the approval of parking modification MC 00-016, the applicant found a potentiai restaurant tenant to occupy the front portion of the building. On September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 00-14 to use the front retail portion for a coffeehouse. The approval was slightly different from previous plans due to a larger waiting room for the dental office. Consequently, the CUP expired since the tenant chose not to pursue the project. Currently, the applicant still has a valid business license for the restaurant use; but it does not extend the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The rear expansion to the building was completed on October 30, 2002; and the dental practice has been in full operation since November of 2002. The front retail area still remains vacant. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to utilize the front 2,165 square feet of the building as a restaurant with daily operations from 7:00 a.m. to midnight, and live music within the restaurant area from 11 :30 a.m. until 1 :00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Saturday and Sundays. Under this application, the applicant intends to operate the restaurant rather than finding a potential tenant. Due to the location, the applicant believes there is still a need for a restaurant since it is centrally located in the downtown business area along Huntington Drive with an existing easement through the lot that provides pedestrian access from the neighboring Parking District and businesses. The hours of operation at this location would not be restricted since it is not within 150 feet of residential zoned property. The live music will occur within the restaurant adjacent to the front entry and will be subject to a City's Entertainment Permit process, which is administered by the Business License Division. Because this is a food service use, the Plumbing Code requires two accessible restrooms. and subject to review and approval of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan administered by the Public Works Department. The existing dental office will remain at the rear of the building. CUP No. 03-013 January 13. 2004 Page 3 re - -- PARKING The site has 3 on-site parking spaces (2 standard spaces and 1 van accessible handicap space), and utilizes Parking District No.2 to meet the needs of the dental office. The applicant is requesting that such parking be permitted for the addition of the restaurant since they believe that there is available parking throughout the day in Parking District No.2. In accordance with current parking requirements, a total of 36 on-site parking spaces would be required for the dental and restaurant use (Le. 14 spaces for the dental and 22 spaces for the restaurant). It is staffs opinion that the combined uses (dental and restaurant) will not have an adverse impact upon the available parking in the area. Based on random observations by staff of Parking District No.2, which has 222 parking spaces, the lot is only 70% full with plenty of available spaces to the west and north side of the lot. Also, staff believes that most of the daytime restaurant clientele will be downtown pedestrian traffic, and after business hours adqitional parking will be available. The existing dental office will continue to operate on an appointment only basis, which will mitigate the demand on parking. The restaurant use is'also a type of business that is encouraged in the downtown area to promote pedestrian activity, and the parking district compensates for on- site parking deficiency. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director. Any exterior improvements, such as new signs, awnings, and trash enclosure shall be subject to architectural design review and approval by the Development Services Division. CEQA Pursuant to the prOVIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the CUP No. 03-013 January 13, 2004 Page 4 (e e . record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. 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. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP No. 03-013 with a parking modification, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The restaurant use shall be limited to 2,165 square feet with the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday with live music inside the restaurant area from 11 :30 a.m. until 1 :00 p.m., and from 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Delt.IJays and Sundays. ~ 2. The on-site seating shall be limited to 31. CUP No. 03-013 January 13, 2004 Page 5 - e e 3. The proposed signs shall be subject to a separate permit. 4, The proposed project and the site shall be remodeled and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved for Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013. 5. That Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 with a parking modification shall not take ~ffect until the owner and applicant have executed an Acceptance Form, available at the Development Services Departrnent, indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for In Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ADoroval The Planning Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve CUP 03-013, subject to the conditions set forth above (or as modified by the Commission), and adopt Resolution No. 1702: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, adopting the Negative Declaration and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 with a parking modification for a 2,165 square foot restaurant within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building at 29 E. Huntington Drive. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit and parking modification. the Commission should state the specific reasons for denial and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. CUP No. 03-013 January 13, 2004 Page 6 - e -- If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this matter prior to the January 13th public hearing, please contact Lisa Flores at (626) 574-5445. Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Vicinity Map Initial Study - Negative Declaration Ptlblic Works - Water conditions Fire Department conditions CUP No. 03-013 January 13, 2004 Page 7 - e . RESOLUTION NO. 1702 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 03-013 WITH A PARKING MODIFICATION FOR A 2,165 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITHIN THE EXISTING 4,475 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 29 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS. on October 22, 2003, a Conditional Use Permit application with a parking modification was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Hanfu Lee to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 31 patrons within the existing 4.475 square foot commercial building at the property commonly known as 29 E. Huntington Drive (Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013); and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 13, 2004" at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 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 because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the proposed project. 2. Thatthe use applied for at the location indicated is a proper 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. All yards, spaces, loading, landscaping, parking, and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts a major street that is 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 because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. '>> e . evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 03-013 with a parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant with a dining capacity of 31 patrons within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building at 29 E. Huntington Drive, upon the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday with live music inside the restaurant area from 11 :30 a.m. until 1 :00 p.m. and from 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Saturdays and Sundays. 2. The maximum number of on-site seating shall be limited to 31. 3. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 03- 013. 4. Approval of CUP 03-013 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicants 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 Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding conceming 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. SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of January 13. 2004, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: - e . SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 2004, by the fOllowing votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: , ~P.~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney I .- WHEELER AVENUE (30) ~ ~ ~.2iJ~._ ALLEY '///~ CB ) ~ CBO I'l// (18) (13) :/.~ (11) (17) ~ (9) (23) (15)" (19) (21) (25) (33 (37) (41) (45) ( 9) (51) (551 - HUNTINGTON DRIVE (14) (16) (26) (30) (36-38) (44) (46-48) (52) (54) (4) (18-22) (32-34) (10) ~B[ (12) ALLEY ~ 29 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ,~. CUP No. 03-013 ts,.. :t'.W~ ,- ~ CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574-5400 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Services of the Community Development Division has completed an Initial Study of the following project: . Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-013: A Conditional Use Permit with parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant with 31 seats within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building located at 29 E. Huntington Drive. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday, with live music from 11 :30 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Saturdays and Sundays. The Initial Study was completed in accordance with the City's Guidelines for implementing the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, Planning Services of the Community Development Division has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the .ironment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the pendent judgment of the City. The project site is _I is not X on a list compiled pursuant to Govemment e section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at the City's Planning Services office, located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Califomia 91066, and are available for public review. Comments will be received until and durlna the public hearina. which beains at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesdav. Januarv 13. 2004. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments. in writing, to the City by this time and date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. At its meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., the Arcadia City Planning Commission will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration. If the Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; it may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the Planning Commission may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Development ~ivision 1 Planning Services Lisa Flores, Senior Planner . Date Received for Filing By Los Angeles County: (County Cieri< Stamp Here) - e . City of Arcadia ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 2, Lead agency namel address: The City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 3. Contact person and phone number: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner City of Arcadia (626) 574-5445 4. Project location: 29 E. Huntington Drive City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles California, 91030 5. Project lIlponsor's name and address: Hanfu and Prisca Lee 29 E. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: CBD - Central Business District 8. Description of project: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit with a parking modification to operate a 2,165 square foot restaurant (cafe) with 31 seats within the existing 4,475 square foot commercial building located at 29 E. Huntington Drive. The proposed hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to midnight everyday, with live music inside the restaurant area from 11 :30 a.m. until 1 :00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Saturday and Sundays. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: . Land Uses .Significant Features On-site An existing 4.475 square foot None commercial building 10cBted on a 7.000 square foot lot. North Commercial None South Commercial None - e . Environmental Checkll_ Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15, 2003 East Commercial None West Commercial None 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits,financing approval, or particular agreement): City Building Services/City Fire Department/Engineering Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORSPOTENTIALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning o Population and Housing o Geological Problems OWaler o Air Quality o Transportation/Circulation o Biological Resources o Energy/Mineral Resources o Hazards o Noise o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Public Services o Utilities & Service Systems o Aesthetics o Cultural Resources o Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" 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 like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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 EIR 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, Page 2 - eo . :- Environmental Checkh, rorm Conditional Use Permit No. 03.Q13 December 15, 2003 and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross~referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or" potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o 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 effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Imposed on the proposed project. Signature: u.~ Date: /.2. I>" ()$ Printed Name: Lisa L. Flores. Senior Planner For: Citv of Arcadia Page 3 tt e . Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15, 2003 Issues and Supporting Information Sources PolanUally Pote~tially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Sources Issues Unless Impact N!UlgaUon Incorporalad 1. LAND USE AND.PLANNING. Would the.proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1.2 X b) Conflict with appiicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by egencles with jurtsdiction ovar the project? Be Incompatible with the existing land use in the vicinity? 1 X c) d) Affect agrtcullural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or fannlands. or Impacts from Incompatible land uses)? X e) DIsrupt or divide Ihe physical arrangement of an established community (Including a low.income or mlnortty community)? X 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or locai population 1 X projections? b) Induce substantial growth In an area either directly or indlrectiy (e.g. th,rough projects in an. undeveloped area or 1 major Infrastructure? X c) Displace existing housing. especially affordable housing? X Tha proposed project will have no signWcant Impact to populallon and wiii not cause substanllallmpacts 10 Ihe local populallon projections. Induce. substantial growth. or displace existing housing since the structure has been on the subject lot since 1932. and the existing use is commercial. Furthennore. there wiii be no permanent housing' proposed with this project. Ni such. there wlii be no slgnlflcant impact to population and housing es a resull of this project. 3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the'proposal resulrln or expose people to po!entlal,lmpacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 1, '4 X According to tlle Clty.s General Plan. there are two local faulls In the City: the Raymond Hili Faul~ and the Sierra Madre Faull The olosest active fault to the subject site Is the Raymond Hill Fault, which underlies to the north of the subject site. However. since the properly owner Is proposing lanlallve improvements within the existing structure. the structure will be required to confonn to the most .current local. state. federal building standards. and MJA requirements. b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 X c) Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction? 1.4 X d) Seiche, tsunami. or volcanic hazard? X e) Landsiides Or mudflows? 1 X l) Erosion, changes In t7'Pograp~r or unstable soil conditions X Page 4 . - e . Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-ll13 December 15, 2003 Issues'and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant 'Slgnlflcant Signlflcant Impact Sources Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated from excavation, grading or fill? f) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X I) Unique geologic or physical features? X The proposed proiect Is not located in an area of the City known for geologic. erosion or landslide activlty. Also. the Los Angeles County Safety Element Indicates that City of Arcadia Is at a low risk of liquefaction. As,such. nosignlflcant geological Impacts as a result of the proposed project are expected. 4. WATER. Would the proposal resuit,ln: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage pattems, or the rate 1 X Bnd amount of surface' runoff? b) Exposure. of people or property to water related hazards such 1 X as flooding? c) Discharge Into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1 X d) Changes In the amount of surface water In any water body? X e) Changes In currents,. or the course or direction of water X movements? f) Change In the Quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or wlthdra~ls. or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through subslantialloss of 1 groundwater recharge capability? X gl Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 1 X h) Impacts to groundwater Quality? X I) Substantial reduction In the amount of groundwater otherwise avallable'for public water supplies? X j) Stann Water system discharges from ar811s for matertals storage. vehicle or equipment fueling. vehicle or equipment maintenance (Including washing), waste handling, hazardous matertals handling or storage delivery or loading dClCl<s. or X other outdoor work areas? Page 5 - e . .-. Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03.Q13 December 15, 2003 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Sources Issues Unless Impact rJlltlgation Incorporated k) A significantly environmentally hannfullncrease in the flow X rate or volume of storm water runoff? I) A signlficantiy envlronmentalty hannful increase In erosion of the project site or surroundIng areas? X m) Storm water discharges that would signifiCantly Impair the X aeneticial uses of receiving waters or areas that provlde water quality benefits (a.g. riparian corridors. wetiands. etc.)? n) Hann to the biological Integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? X The proposed project will not change the currents, or the course of direction of. water mo~ements In either marine or fresh w~ters, as the project Is not located in martne or fresh water setting. Also. the entire City Is located within Zone D. which has no mandatOl)/ fiood Insurance purchase requirements. As a result. there are no floodplain regulations. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air qualltySlandard or contribute to an existing or 5 X projacted air qualify lIIolation? b) Expose sensltlve receptors to poliutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture. or temperature, or cause any X change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X Due to the nature of the prOJect there. may be an increase_ In construction related emissions. However, the related construction emIssions wouldba temporary and shorttenn In nature. and would not be considered significant. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result In: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,3 X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g..sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g. fann equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency accesses or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking cepaclty on-site or off..ite? X el Hazards or barrters for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adapted policies sUPportlnp allemativa X Page 6 - e . .' , Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03.Q13 Decernber15,20D3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Slgnlflcant .Slgnlflcant Slgnlflcant Impact Sources IsSues Unless Impact MIUgaUon Incorporated transportation (e.g. bus turnouts. bicycle racks)? X g) Reil. waterllome or air traffic Impacts? The proposed project may create additional traffic to the subject site. However. the proposed project will have no significant impacts since there is ample parking in Parking District No.2. which abuts the subject property to the north. The Clty's Planning Commission will ba required to review the proposed project and may Impose conditions to ensure that the hours of operation wliI meet the minimum parking requirements. 7. BIOLOGICAL Would the proposal resullln: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species'or thetr habitats (including but nct limited to plants. fish. insects. animals or birds)? 1 X b) Locally designated spades (e.g. heritage trees)? X C) Locally designated natural.communlties (e.g. oakfores~ 1 X coastal habitat. etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh. riparian and vemal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Since the site Is not required to provide landscaping on.slte. the project will not change the diversity of specles..or number of any species of blants (Including trees. shrubs, grass, crops. and aquatic plants). Further. there will ba no ellmlnetion or reduction In the numbers of any unique. rare, or endangered species of plants since the ~ubject site does not cOntain any known populations of rare or endangered species, only non-natlve plant species. The project wliI not Introduce any new species into the area. or result In a banier to the nonnal replenishment of exisUng species since the proposed project wIll only remove annual, non-naUve or omamental plantings. Therefore, the pl'QJect will not reduce the acreage of any agricultural croP. since the subject property Is not an agrtcultural use. ~ for the De Minimis Impact Anding. there Is noevldenco before the City that the proposed project will have potential adverse effect on wildlife resources. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources In a wasteful and ineffident X manner? c) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource thai would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? X Due to the nature of the proposed .project. the project will notsubstanllally Increase the demand of the existing energy sources or requira new sources of energy or Impact ~aturat resources ~ince ~e structure has been on the subject site. since 1932, and the proposed uses will be similar to 'the previous uses due to the design of the project. ~tnergyt and 'Water conservation requirements contained in the.Unlfonn Building Code. As a resul~ the project would not result in the use of water and energv In a wastefui manner. resulting In no sinnlflcant imnact to Page 7 .- e . Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15, 2003 , Issues and Supporting Information Sources Pplanllally Potentially Less Than No Significant" SignifiCant Significant Impact Sources . Issues Unless Impact , Mltlgation . Incorporated energy and mineral resources. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances Oncluding. but not limited to: oli. pesticldes. 1.3 chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible Interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? C) The creation of any health hazard or polential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush. grass,of X trees? The proposed project will not create a signlficanllmpactto the environment since there will be no discharge or hazardous substances on the site. As a resull. there will. be no slgnlficanllmpact to hazards. 10. NOISE. Would thee proposal result,ln: a) Increase in the eXisting noise levels? 1.3 X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X The CIty's Planning COmmission will review' the project'end mey Impose conditions to ensure that noise impacts are minimized to adjacent neighbors. Condition.s. may Include. but not limited to: 1) restricting the hours of operation; 2) restricting the hours of operation for Iiva music: and 3) monItoring the noise I,evels at the property lines of the adjacent properties to ensure that the noise levels are below acceptable standards. As mitigated. there will be no significant Impact to noise as a resuit of the proposed project. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or re,sult In a need forilew or altered government services In any of ths",followlng areas: a) Fire protection? 1.3 X b) Police protecUon? X C) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities. Including 'roads? X e) Other governmental services? X The subjectslle currentiy has an existing 4.475 square foot commercial building. The proposed use will be located within the existing bulldiliQ and"would not resultln a new or altered the Qovemmenl services. Therefore, there are ,no s~njflcant impacts to DubUc services as a Page 8 e e e Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15, 2003 . " . - Issues and Supporting "..formation 'SourCes Potel!1lally Potantially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Sources Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inoorporated result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE. SYSTEMS. Would the'proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies, or eubslantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 1,3 X Southern California Edlson (SeE) and Southern Callfornla Gas Company (SeGe) will continue to provide natural gas and electricity to the existing commercial building. The SeE and SCGC have adequate capacity to sa"'" the proposed project. Therefore. the proposed project will not have any significant adverse Impact to power and natura' gas. X b) Communications systems? The proposed project will result In a minimal increase in demand for new C?Offimunication systems. The communications companies serving the project area will continue to serve the facility. Therefore. the proposed project Is notanticlpated to result in a significant adverse Impact related to communication systems. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X The City of Arcadia and County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC) provide wastewater service to the project area. The proposed project within the existing commercial building is not anticipated to resuil in a significant increase In the amount of wastewater generated In the CSDLAC and DPW service area. Therefore. the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact related to power and natural gas. X e) Slenn water drainage? t) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water s.upplies? X The proposed project would not result In a net increase in the.amount of solid waste generated in the City of Arcadia. and Callfomia Water Service Company (CWSC) site. The CWSC purchases water from the West Basin Water Association. which Is a disbibulor for the Metropolitan Water District of Southem California (MWD). Therefore. the proposed project Is notanUclpated to resul'ln a significant adverse impact related to solid waste disposal. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affecla scenic vista or scenic highway? 1.3 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X The proposed project will not affect any, scenic vista or scenic highway since the existina helj:lht of the structure WlIl remain. Therefore. there Page 9 ~ e It Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15, 2003 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially i. Potentially Less Than No Significant Slgnlllcant Slgnllicant Impact Sources Issues Unless Impact MItigation Incorporated Is no slgnificanllmpact to assthetics as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL,RESOURCES. Would the'proposal: X a} Disturb paleontological resources? 1 X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change. which would X affect uniqus ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potentisl X impact area? According to rues at the City of Arcadia. no paleontological resources are known to occur on the project site and the site Is not located in a sensitive area for these resQurces. As a result, there is no significant Impact to c;:ultural resources. 15. RECREATION. Wouldtheproposel: a) Increase ths demand for neighborhood. or regional parks or 1.3 X other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? The proposed project will not result In an incr~ase In the demand for recreational facHlties since the proposed uses will,be located within an existing facility. Therefore. the proposed project will not Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 0( other recreationel facilities. 16. MANDATORY FINDI,NGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qUality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause e fish or wildlife population to drop below self"'5ustalnlng 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 Callfomla history or 1 prehiStory? X The proposed project will not potentially degrade the quality of the envlronmen~ substantially reduce the habitat of a flsh 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 Call1omla history or prehistory. As a result. there are no signlflcant Impacls to this mandatory flndlng of significant as a result of this project b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tenn, to 1 X the disadvantage of IOl)g-term, environmental goals? The proposed uses WOUld not have the potential 10 achieve short-term, to'the disadvantage of long-term arid environmental goals. 1 I I I X Page 10 - e e Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 December 15,2003 Issues and Supporting Informl:ition Sources Potentialiy Polentlelly ,Less'Than No SignIficant .S/gnlffcant Significant .Impact Sources Issul!5 Unless Impact !oI/lIgatlon Incorporated C) Does tha project have Impacts that are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("CumuiaUvely considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when vieWed In connection wlth the effects of the past projects. the effects. of other current projects. and the effects of probeble future projects) The proposed project does not have impacts that are Indillidually limited. but cumulaUvely considerable since there will be two different uses within the building. d) Does the project have enllironmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either dlrectiy or indirectly? 1 X The proposed project would not have a significant effect that will cause subSlantialadve"'" effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly since ,no significant adverse effects were identified. Page 11 ( e Environmental Checklist Form Conditional Use Permit No. 03-013 m>:"lember 15, 2003 'I , 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where. pUlSuanHo the tiring. program EIR. or other,CEOA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed In an ea~ler EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a dlscussion'should identify the following Items: a) Earlier analysts used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are avallable,f()r review. None. b) Impacts adequately eddressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an eartler document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. - Not applicable. sea a) above. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Signlflcant with MItigation incorporated,"descr1be the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the ea~ler document and the extentto which they address slte-speclflc conditions of the project . Not applicable. saa a) above. 18, SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of Arcadia. Califomia. Arcedla General Plan. Amended October 1996. 2 City of Arcadia, City of-Arcadia Zonina MaD. 3 City of Arcadia Zoning COde. 4 Seismic Hazard Zones from Federal Emergency Management Agency. dated September 7. 1984. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA AIR Qualltv Handbook. Diamond Bar. California: Aprtl1993 e Page 12 e . e December 22, 2003 MEMO TO: LISA FLORES PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOM HIGHAM PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT 29 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE CUP 03-13 AND PARKING MODIFICATION FROM: SUBJECT: The following are our comments on the above referenced project. 1. Fire protection requirements, including fire hydrants, shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department. 2. A 4 inch fire service with a DCDA backflow.preventer already exists on the fire sprinkler system. 3. The existing water service and water meter are both % inch. The developer needs to have calculations made to ensure that the existing meter and service are large enough to supply adequate water for the existing dental office and. the proposed restaurant ( see #4). Installation of all water services shall be by the Developer. Installation shall be according the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section. Demolition of existing water services, if any, shall be by the Developer, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications. 4. A Water Meter Clearance Application, filed with the Arcadia Water Section, will be required prior to permit issuance to ensure Bdequate meter/service size. 5. No water service lateral, meter, flush-out, backflow prevention device or fire hydrant may be located in any driveway nor may be closer than 3 feet from the top of "x' of any driveway or other utility. 6. All backflow devices shall be screened from pUblic view. The screening is subject to Planning Department approval. . 7. The IrrigBtion system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code and Arcadia City Ordinances. Anti-sIphon valves, as approve_d by the Arcadia Water Section, are acceptable for irrigation system backflow protection. 8. All pipe, valves, hydrants, meters, fittings, and appurtenBnces, including disinfection and flushing, shall meet the specifications of the Arcadia Public Works Department, Engineering and Water Sections. 9. Water services and water meters shall be installed atthe agreed upon location which will be marked on the curb, or as otherwise indicated. Any deviation from this requirement must be approved in advance of installation. 10. All water system Installations are subject to inspection and approval by the Arcadia Public Works Inspector or his designated representative, TH:th City of Arcadia Fire Department David Lugo Fil'e Chief . --- r- PROJECT REQU..<EMENTS Arcadia Fire Department-Fire Prevention Bureau 710 South Santa Anita Ave, Arcadia, CA 91006 Ph (626) 674-6104 Plan Check # CUP 03-13 Date - 12/18/03 Project Name Proposed Cafe Project Address 29 E Huntington Dr Applicant Name The following items listed below require correction before Fire Department Approval can be obtained. All changes shall be made on the original drawing (vellum). Pen or pencil corrections are not acceptable. A. Modifications to the existing sprinkler system shall be performed by a licensed C-16 contractor per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. B. Provide a knox box with keys for access to restricted areas. C. All commercial cooking systems shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguIshIng system. The extinguishing system shall be connected to the existing fire alarm system.