The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-8-09AGENDA ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MOTION: To read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-07 150 Alice Street Kent Sy & Johnny Lam The applicant is requesting a Tentative Parcel Map for a 2-unit residential condominium. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be tiled by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 18, 2009. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-03 & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road Alan Yu - Lessee The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review to replace an existing service station with a fueling station: A 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval RESOLUTION NO. 1803 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Permit no. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review no. ADR 09-03 to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps at 2 E. Duarte Road. There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 16, 2009. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at Arcadia City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 9-8-09 PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Public Hearina Procedure 1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The Planning staff report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning staff report may be asked and answered at this time. 4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five (5) working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at Arcadia City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 9-8-09 CONSENT ITEMS 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at Arcadia City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 9-8-09 d Aoyus~ IY33 E- NI September 8, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Development Services Department FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner "jam SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-07 (71088) for a two- unit residential condominium subdivision at 150 Alice Street SUMMARY Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-07 (71088) was submitted by Mr. Kent Sy and Mr. Johnny Lam for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision at 150 Alice Street. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Code. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of TPM 09-07 (71088) subject to the conditions set forth in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Kent Sy and Mr. Johnny Lam LOCATION: 150 Alice Street REQUEST: A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision LOT AREA: 7,452 square feet (0.17 acres) FRONTAGES: 50 feet along Alice Street & 50 feet along rear alley EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is currently developed with a 1,044 square- foot, three-bedroom residence with a detached garage built in 1952. It is zoned R-3, Multiple-Family Residential with a density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING DESIGNATIONS: North: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3 South: Commercial retail; zoned C-2 East: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3 West: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MFR-24 - Multiple-Family Residential at a maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-07 were mailed on Thursday, August 27, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). Because staff considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision. This proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The subject property has 7,452 square feet of land area. The density factor in the R-3 zones is 2,000 square feet per unit. This would allow for a maximum of three (3) units on the subject property. All development standards will be met by the project. All City development requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director, Community Development Administrator, and any service districts and utility providers that will serve the project. The applicant has been notified of the City's general and specific development conditions and requirements. CEQA This project qualifies as a Class 15 categorical exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines as a minor land division in an urbanized area. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-07 (71088) subject to the following conditions: TPM 09-07 150 Alice Street September 8, 2009 - Page 2 The developer is required to pay the following fees prior to recordation of the Parcel Map: A Map fee of $100.00 and a Final Approval fee of $25.00 for a total of $125.00. 2. Prior to recordation, the developer shall post a $200.00 deposit for a Mylar copy of the recorded map. 3. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director. 4. Condominium Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) containing provisions for property maintenance, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney, and shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. 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 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. 6. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094) shall not take effect until the property owner, applicant, and civil engineer have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Community Development Division to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-07 (71088), subject to the following findings and direction: A.1. That the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the Arcadia. General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage from the project into the public sewer system will not violate any TPM 09-07 150 Alice Street September 8, 2009 - Page 3 requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region. A.2. That this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315. A.3. Direct and authorize the Development Services Director, or designee to approve and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project. A.4. That this project is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission is to take action to deny this tentative parcel map, the Commission should make specific findings with reasons based on the evidence presented, and move to deny the project. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following findings, which must be expanded upon with specific reasons for denial: D.1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act. D.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. DA. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. D.8. That the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein said lot is located. D.9. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the legislative TPM 09-07 150 Alice Street September 8, 2009 - Page 4 body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use, will be provided and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subdivision shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this subdivision, prior to the September 8th public hearing, please contact Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner, in Planning Services at (626) 574- 5422 or tschwehr@ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: C~:: Ji a a OaKmunity Development Administrator Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-07 (71088) Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map with Zoning Information 300-foot Radius Map Photographs of the subject site and surrounding developments Preliminary Exemption Assessment TPM 09-07 150 Alice Street September 8, 2009 - Page 5 2) (146) (150) (154) (158) (703) , (100) N Q (707) Z (706) goo o goo Feet =Moll (711) O (710) W (715) y (714) R-3 R-2 (717) (723) (141) (151) (155) (161) (721) (21 ALICE ST (122) (126) (130) (138) (142) (146) (154) (158) R-3 ' R-3 [E2) (805) W (811) Q (819) O 2- f W C-2 y (165) (14 (141) (143) (145) (123 29) (133) (137) RTE RD (125,11 1129) (133) (137) FZTF RD (160) (186) T. RD Q -OVOR.. ° 150 Alice Street S Development Services Department TPM 09-07 Engineering Division r Prepared by. RS. Gonzalez, August 2009 oQ ~4n#iy oc i'°`RL 34 - I - w4 I s. 1 Noeas- 1 so ~ r 0 I $0 03 i io I - I + 160 1 y ' "5 9 ~R 1 90 C-PM 217-73 gT$ ( ~ GENOA C-PM 332-91-92 /-C-PM 332-98-99 OF AR •IA rr zs za zs 25 z4 st TRACTsa 41 r~al8 /6 s 146 - f= 41 2s 21 Co w 31 o 22 Q 17 /5 2a f9 28 1 30 g 18 S 3 74 13' 26 20 z3 1 00 z ~i1 yrj 0 rn f5 1~4 C _ 1 0 N 16 /4 13 J2 AC fd ~I..++ 5 D/ 130.5 ''1D W 9D so 115 a p - - - - IF 7- k /~G '"Ye 50 50 ' 25 7-- 2,/ 18 a 34 35 1 t 3 Og [ ' L 133.13 - - 4 1 US- 0 0 0 0 0 ~S 17 2 4 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 14 15, F w MR 14 16 1s s - ,e 580 16 20 50 118 50 50 25 25 5° • 145 _r so I ICE I I ST>a *ALICE 1 _ N a9'3a~t0'B tab 6D sob - 100.10 135.12 • '`6~ 9Q O I &ww:10 . • PART OF A CADI CO, NTA 4s 47 ' z C-P M , 1 O X39 12 a 36 38 72 0 17 "p- 14 I $ S 36 35 34 33 32 31 6 N 1 43 44 28 1 SHEET 3 Q A f ~2 SHEET5 1.113 " 2 oBa ( 13- C4 0 ( 4C 7 $lK a pi dv=i 22 ro c 2ro.6o . 60 m CS t5 z ~ 10 1r~c sD so vhc : aD.De as Ds s5 .0.10 o We 113 72 w I SHEETa 3Y - - T T r. T T T T T T T T R 270..48 C s0 se aelaga w _ sa I a in O 7~1 1tt.5fi2 21 ! 15,047- MR O 1n O o -4 r O I 193666F 1F- F „ 3.0. 2M40t8F - p Z ri p0 • 241056E 16900*w 235(OtBF O O 1a -I OO', 91 OR ~o Q e Pe+: : n 2 Q 16 ~J X5!•90 /14 15 FoR 1i MR 20MO (2) 11 V! 12" PCIR Post v t 58 / r01 B4 poh 85O 7 PM Pon 0O7 T 1PORR O 35314 1 0 j a + ~ 07J. « 100W 1 5 7 w6+ y" y DUAR -E E1 T 4 R 4 I 5 B 1 y y Rp $ .iq so. y y 45 - 46 M R y 1 ,,,g v >y Ir 5D.62 1 y #f• f~' w 51026 L Z .L bd•~ 1(. t l1 A to. 12 11 Lj 3 ~ ~ 0 • rla NOra• t 2 1 • e ~i ~ I ~ ! fr ~/p/01• O 2 ~ 1 V ~ l Jb F 1 ` M ~ EOr T as lf.Ot at ♦ .7 4 13 t»~+' 3etrti IR } ~ 33dd rt~Ma'. rtarf 16 Q 7 Z It" ' ro ao ~rs.so R o Aw a aau a ~ ~i g O 0 ex ns - 1~` ,o r Ale MAP LEGEND 4 O r r rra 1a 4 ap E a' Indicates Map key Number G Indicates Assessor's Parcel Number RADMS 1►AI` Date Wn.aem.ec Be.vicn for Gaee.nnwe .M Bwi.e.a Public Notification Boundary For 150 Alice St. Arcadia CA 91006 APN 5779-016-022 March 30, 2009 JN 9085 Property to the north Property to the south PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project 2. Project Location - Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or person undertaking project: 4. Staff Determination: TPM 09-07 - A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit condominium subdivision within the R-3 zone. 150 Alice Street Arcadia, CA 91006 A. Public Entity: B. Other (Private): (1) Contact Name (2) Contact Address Howard Tran 150 Alice Street Arcadia, CA 91006 The City, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b• ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. C. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. ® The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: j 15315 f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: 9. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h• ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: August 18, 2009 Staff: Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner FORM "A" G j,SPOR1~r~N~`I1. VVr ~~tyay S TAFF REPORT Development Services Department September 8, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner -(t- SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03 to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off- site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps at 2 E. Duarte Road. SUMMARY Mr. Alan Yu, lessee of the subject property, submitted Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03 to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square- foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off- site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps at 2 E. Duarte Road. It is staff's opinion that the proposal is appropriate for the location and will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03, subject to the conditions in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Alan Yu (Lessee) LOCATION: 2 E. Duarte Road REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit (CUP 09-03) and Architectural Design Review (ADR 09-03) to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps SITE AREA: 15,786 square feet (0.36 acre) FRONTAGES: 119 feet along Duarte Road 119 feet along Santa Anita Avenue 125 feet along an alley EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a service station with three service bays and 8 fueling pumps constructed in 1949 and is zoned C-2 - General Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Exxon Service Station -zoned C-2 South: Multiple-Family Dwellings - zoned R-3 East: Commercial Use - zoned C-2 West: Arcadia Library - unzoned GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of Application Nos. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 were mailed on August 12, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see the attached radius map). This notice, along with the Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration, were published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper on August 24, 2009. BACKGROUND The subject site is developed with an Arco Service Station that has been in operation since 1949. The service station consists of three services bays and eight (8) fueling pumps. The current operating hours of the service bays are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and closed on Sunday. The fueling pumps are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with no attendants from midnight (12:00 a.m.) to 5:00 a.m. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 2 PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to demolish all the existing structures on the subject property and construct an automobile fueling station with a 2,400 square-foot, 24- hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps. The convenience store will be selling beer and wine for off-site consumption. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for this proposal under the following Arcadia Municipal Code Sections: • AMC Sec. 9275.1.39.3 - An automobile fueling station in the C-2 (General Commercial) zone. • AMC Sec. 9275.1.53.6 - any retail business selling beer and wine for off- site consumption within 150' of any residentially zoned area. • AMC Sec. 9275.1.53.7 - any retail business operating more than 16 hours a day, or which are open to the public any time between midnight (12:00 a.m.) and 6:00 a.m. The proposed automobile fueling station is a similar use to the existing automobile service station. The difference is that an automobile fueling station is a gas station with a convenience store, and no service bays. The dispensing of gasoline will remain at eight (8) fueling pumps. The proposal for the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and hours of operation has been reviewed by the Arcadia Police Department. The final plans were revised to reflect changes that address safety concerns. These changes mainly involve lighting and building access. The Police Department's memorandum is attached, as are the memoranda from the other City services. Parkinq The proposed automobile fueling station will have ten (10) on-site parking spaces. By Code, automobile fueling stations are required to provide three (3) parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of retail sales area in addition to the fueling positions, and one space for every employee on duty. With approximately 2,000 square feet of retail sales area, the convenience store is required to provide six (6) on-site parking spaces. The remaining four (4) parking spaces may be utilized for employee parking. Therefore, to satisfy the parking requirements, staff recommends a condition to limit the fueling station to have no more than four (4) employees on duty at any one time. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 3 Architectural Design Review Concurrent with the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the architectural design of the proposed structures. The applicant describes the architectural style as "contemporary suburban retail." It features stucco finish with different shades of beige, and columns and pilasters finished with ledgestone veneer. Building elevations are enhanced by visual modulations achieved by pilasters and variation in materials and colors. It is staff's opinion that the proposed structures meet the criteria as set forth in the Architectural Design Review Guidelines. The proposed site layout includes removal of the two (2) driveway approaches nearest the intersection, as suggested by Engineering Services. Also, locating the convenience store to the easterly portion of the property allows for better on-site traffic circulation, and an increase in landscaping areas. It is staff's opinion that the proposal satisfies all the prerequisite conditions for granting a Conditional Use Permit and approving the Architectural Design Review. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the subject applications. Additional Information The applicant was able to solicit 20 letters of support from the surrounding neighbors. A copy of this form letter is attached with a list of the neighbors who signed them. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, parking, and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, Police Chief, and Public Works Services Director. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department 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. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 4 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 approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03, subject to the following conditions: The use approved by CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 is limited to the automobile fueling station. The fueling station shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03. 2. All regulations on automobile fueling stations pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9275.4 shall be complied with unless determined otherwise under CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03. 3. Signs attached to the gasoline pumps, pump island canopy supports, light standards, and/or bollards, which advertise specific products or services shall not be permitted. 4. All light fixtures shall be hooded and arranged to reflect away from the adjoining properties and streets. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 5 5. There shall be no more than four (4) employees on duty at any one time. 6. All on-site parking stalls shall be double-striped in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9269.8.1. 7. The existing free-standing sign shall be removed and replaced with a monument sign limited to a maximum height of 8'-0", located at least a minimum of 25'-0" from the intersection, as shown on the submitted plans or as determined by the City Engineer. The design of the subject monument sign, along with the other proposed signs, shall be subject to a separate sign architectural design review process. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Administrator or designee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval as set forth by Water Services of the Public Works Services Department in their memorandum dated May 5, 2009. 10. The project shall comply with all the items set forth for the Stormwater Plan to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements by the Public Works Services Department in their Stormwater Plan Check Correction Sheet dated May 13, 2009. 11. The project shall comply with all requirements set forth by the Fire Department in their memorandum dated April 17, 2009. 12. The applicant shall address the recommendations of the Police Department in their memorandum dated April 22, 2009 to the satisfaction of the Police Chief. 13. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval set forth by Engineering Services in their memorandum dated September 4, 2009. 14. All City requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. 15. Approval of CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), 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. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 6 16. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to opening of the automobile fueling station. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in a delay of the Certificate of Occupancy or the closing of the fueling station. 17. 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 Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should move to approve Application Nos. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03, state the supporting findings, including the acceptance of the Negative Declaration, and adopt Resolution No. 1803, which incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move to deny Application Nos. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03, state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the September 8th public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447, or tli(a--)ci.arcadia.ca.us. CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 7 Approved by: Ji a fna C unity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo & Vicinity Map with Zoning Information 300-foot Radius Map Proposed Plans Photos of Subject Property Department Comments Letter of Support List of Neighbors in Support Environmental Documents Resolution No. 1803 CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 2 E. Duarte Road September 8, 2009 Page 8 .r 5 MT 100 0 100 200 Feet f r C-2 t C-2 yF FOR s I I i l I'. I ~ ~ n K iY eta i , A ` F 4 ~ +k of f~~ L V lrl LG ~7 ~ (30) (34 N 100 0 100 Feet (900) EMMMMMMMMOI Z Q Q C-2' (25) (33) Q Ci-2 W (3) C-2 (15) (3) (1) 01) (28) (32) (26) (34) RTE RD 1 (16) ((4 (26-112) (30) D UA (10) (14 (18) (291--1 (20) ' C-2 Q Q Q UNZONED Q ZZ R-3 (23) (15) (19) (25) (27) (1) CHRISTINA ST (1033) (1035) (14) (20) (1030) (1031) (1036) (1037) 2 E Duarte Road U ~M Development Services Department' CUP 09-03 Engineering Division CIO Prepared by: R. S. Gonzalez, September 2009 ~~+,Unity of t;0 sssxs va lvm w*wv `vu JrAmw a J.sra s NO/1VAS SVO 773HS I N3"73-1 SAA n~rs `~vw I I O / a i ~`t, I a i v jig §P o If i Y_a ~9 gp} Q W G Eli 51 ~ ii ¢ GGG i I~x£ Q YY o " MY ~C 0 LL 2 w w z w 0 i tl 1 ins .vai nva n an vu~- r= cR a (i~ I _ dlIt~d~,1Nd - - w O z a o: w Z w c~ m x~ i T a <„T rs ' woi4 YJ /YMYJHY "W1 m4uv a lily! E d [Ears v~ r+~imnra V naus'anv luiv9nwov«vm muse NOIlY1S SVO 773NS ! N3A373-2 S./Lt 8 LE - AEM I 'y5 -.S 'S ti 4 I • : 4 .P.9 I I 1\ ~ i I 1 _ ~ O I 1 1 I / I I E~ I I I C W 15 i W I® I K¢ 1 / U I O I I ~i ld i E 1 1 I-.se I I I I e I Y.,. 1 ~ i b #el~ I ~ I "L 1 .5 x O I E lY! rn I s I E I I ~ 1 ~ E I ! ' I I 1 U$ ~ I I 5 I 1 144, 4444- i 1I1II/ I I i I I I y~ ,J T W II I I I I I I i I _ I - ,E~,S I ti jyY .l I 'I 8 I 1 1 1 z 'IV u'I~ VI' F ktNG< Y) t~Vl+li ~~lu Soots Va VgrVaaV'GW a1NYna ASVa s n3 rs'a v u v3Nxowwa m uo[ a I NOIIVIS SVO 773HS 1 NV"73'1 SAA ~JJ~11 QQ r w~ 0 p W = ,de N$$~ W W y ~o -°ow s ~Y 0 J w LLI W oH y q O ~ N ~fi: w 0Z p N yi m~~ E~ VW 0 a i O W ~ W i Lg °d ;~1 z g Z 0 w ~U go 11 `F 4\Y(G YJ rvt:lb~l~u ® noose ra'rlaw.HlrlwlaAurnolcrar n3us anv iuir3nwowwo~m~am~ ~ unised a NOIAVIS SVO 773HS / NVA373-2 SAA co zt @ 4',fiL 6 ~ b ~ b G ~ UP {u .~4t 4ruYCI ~pp Z ph A VIA WC^ it s g338~ rZ~a u z -is via sit 1-8 10,2 !z C'~ w i - s: aL- i ',tea S ~ 3'•. ~ . z ~rc o :tfi m a - Notts 04 Vol wig .r. SAM ono ~ pIp0 F Z~ O .h Z !dri B y Z a LL ig•~'' Q p; oil! CI W O - tl.~ W ♦t. . W N F ~KIJ ~y( p~`~ ~ _ MIS WW J Z u F W O O S r{~ ~ 2 ~SLL~S O oz m~ V' O oil f Gp ~Op w ~ zW W aw W ~m Nta W D fgmWO Wes. ~ L'll 6a °d a a euue ru rv~>i»d~nu 999a9 ra Ivu w.sar `•m ziarna i9ra a n~xs' ~r Nara nrvowwm swL ~ O NOUVAS SVO 773MS I LYL SAA I~ I a! I 7 V AM W S w6Rg w - VVjj mg '1fM yr3p'NNY..P'94 3g j LL~ K W g o fu - AR ~ 81 Lou 21 Z~ 03AOWBN Be fA y~;;~ t~gF z~4y > Ol Avm3NN0'1SIX3 1€ 15p a a 5 ~ u /"M3OISM3N p Z ~ @ S P5 wm ~ Wd~ 9 s[ qq g E(i3r 4 W S i# y ~ ~ auk' ~1 ~ ~s P4f ;.Es A I Z O ~ i9~+xaav'rviw.a-A4 V ~ Ga s:^~ §c vJ 8 ~ Ee free( .ze Q O i ai6 d3` O ~ z~ ~ tr M 4 Qo Yi E ~$zd WORD MARK v b e PP Z a 6' ~ zo ~p P o Q L P~ 5 Havw ONOM m .t'pL b b oo. o b ®oe EIR ;T -vRpO TRS E9 MEMORANDUM Police Department DATE: 22 April 2009 TO: Thomas Li, Planning Services FROM: Randy Kirby, Captain SUBJECT: Review of Site Plan for 2 E. Duarte Road / CUP 09-03 I was asked to review the proposed site plans for the property at 2 E. Duarte Road in relation to Crime Prevention and Pubic Security. My review concentrated on crime prevention through environmental design, with the focus on access control and surveillance. Parking issues were also considered. If some of my suggestions are already included in the plans and I missed them, then I apologize. Recommendations regarding "Access Control": • There appears to be only one entrance/exit to the location on the west elevation. From a crime prevention perspective this could cause some concern. With only one entrance/exit, as few as one or two persons could take over the interior of the location to conduct a robbery and easily control the movement of persons inside. I would recommend an alarmed emergency exit along the south elevation. On the west elevation, the columns on each side of the front entrance are nine feet apart and provide sufficient room for an automobile to pass between them. There is also 15 feet of pane glass windows north of the main entrance, and mounted just about eight inches above the concrete walkway. As with the front entrance, there are no obstacles to prevent an automobile from being driven through the front entrance or the front windows, either intentionally (to gain entry and steal from the location), or unintentionally (someone parking and mistaking the accelerator for the brake). In either case, pedestrians on the concrete walkway and persons inside the location are unnecessarily at risk. I would recommend the placement of concrete bollards or other such obstacles in front of the entrance and windows, along the concrete walkway in front of parking stalls 5, 6, 7, and 8. Recommendations regarding "Surveillance": • There are no remarkable issues related to visibility along the west or north elevations as it pertain to officers on routine patrol. • The lighting appears to be sufficient along the west and north elevations. The placement of the building along the east property line creates the illusion of a pedestrian path between the proposed building and the existing building east of the location. I would recommend additional lighting along the east elevation to deter loitering, graffiti, and vandalism in this area. The south elevation is also less visible from the street and cannot be monitored by personnel inside the location. I would recommend additional lighting along the south elevation as well. However, this may create issues with the residents of the apartments on the south side of the alley south of the proposed location. Recommendations for Parking: • None. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the plan review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, dy Kirby, Capt PATROL DIVIS COMMANDER PROJECT REQUIREMENTS Arcadia Fire Department-Fire Prevention Bureau 630 S Baldwin Ave, Arcadia, CA 91006 Ph (626) 574-5104 aaity of g0 Plan Check # CUP 09-03 Date - 4117/09 City of Project Name Convenience Stroe/Gas Station Arcadia Project Address 2 E Duarte Rd Applicant Name MK Design Fire Department The following items listed below are required to be addressed before Fire Department Approval can be obtained. All changes shall be made on the original drawing (vellum). Pen or pencil corrections are not acceptable. Tony L. Trabbie A. Convenience store shall be fully sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Fire Chief Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. B. Sprinkler system shall be fully monitored. C. Provide a knox box with keys for access to restricted areas. All plan check questions should be directed to Fire Marshal Mark Krikorian at (626) 574-5104. Thank you. City of Arcadia Stormwater Plan Check Correction Sheet Contact Name: Ken Kang Contact Title: Company Name: MK Design Mailing Address: 2021 W. Commonwealth Ave Ste. U City, State, Zip: Fullerton, CA, 92833 Phone Number: (714) 879-0356 Fax Number: Tracking#: Site Name: Yu's Seven Eleven Site Address: 2 E. Duarte Rd. Type Of Facility: Commercial SIC Code: Submittal Date: 5/13/2009 Plan Return Date 5/13/2009 Distributed Area: Priority Project ! I Items Requiring Corrections: I • The Master Covenant must be signed and dated with wet ink application. Have an attached O & M Plan, be notarized, and recorded with L.A. County. All treatment systems must be included on the Master Covenant and O & M Plan. It is recommended that the Master Covenant and Agreement be recorded after proposed treatment and the O & M plan has been approved. Please note: Structural BMPs section on the Master Covenant and Agreement must list the quantity, size, make, and model (if applicable) of each treatment BMP. • Other corrections/clarifications required. 1. The design of the plans are in an approvable state. According to an e-mail from the designer, the project proposes to add or replace fossil fuel filters. Fossil fuel filters are considered stormwater BMPs and have to be properly maintained. Therefore, before these plans can be approved, an Operations and Maintenance plan (O&M plan) along with a Master Covenant & Agreement (MC&A) need to be completed. Furthermore, the MC&A with the attached O&M plan need to be notarized and recorded with LA County. 2. Please submit a plan that shows the location of the fossil fuel filters. In addition, please submit the original, notarized and recorded MC&A and O&M plan. For any questions please contact: Juan Miguel Sunga (562)802-7880 x 31 jsunga@jlha.net Stormwater Plan review expires 180 days from May 13, 2009 Sets of plans needed: 3 Application/Plan Check fee of: 0 Revision: 1 City of Arcadia Department of Public Works 11800 Goldring Road Arcadia, California 91066- 6021 (562) 802-7880 Palle 1 of 1 MAY 5, 2009 MEMO TO: TOM LI PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM4t'\11 )TOM HIGHAM PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: 2 EAST DUARTE ROAD CUP 09-03 1. Fire protection requirements, including fire hydrants, shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department. 2. If a fire sprinkler system is required, backflow protection on the fire sprinkler system shall be by an approved Double Check Detector Assembly installed above ground and screened as required by the Planning Department. The bypass meter shall read in cubic feet (cf). The fire sprinkler service shall be connected to the water main on Duarte Road and shall run along the east side of the property. 3. The existing water service lateral and water meter are both 1 inch. A Water Meter Clearance Application, filed with the Arcadia Water Section, shall be required prior to permit issuance to ensure adequate water meter/service size for domestic use and irrigation. 4. If a new water service is required, installation shall be by the Developer. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section. Demolition of existing water services, if necessary, shall be by the Developer, according to the City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section specifications. 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. Backflow protection on the irrigation system shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Water Section. Any existing irrigation system shall be brought up to current plumbing code requirements. 7. All pipe, valves, hydrants, meters, fittings and appurtenances, including disinfection and flushing, shall meet the specifications of the City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department, Engineering and Water Sections. 8. A reduced pressure backflow preventer shall also be installed on the building water service immediately after the domestic water meter. TH:th ]neorUar.ceA A..u.. S, 19U1 MEMORANDUM Development Services Department TO: Thomas Li FROM: Kevin Merrill, Senior Engineering Assistant SUBJECT: Engineering Conditions of Approval 2 East Duarte Road - CUP 09-03 DATE: Sept. 4, 2009 Per your request the Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed application for a new 7-Eleven/Shell Gas Station located at 2 East Duarte Road. Please refer to the City of Arcadia Standard Conditions of Approval for general conditions that must be complied with (as applicable to this project). The conditions below are in addition to the Standard Conditions and are specific to this CUP 09-03: 1. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall dedicate a corner cut-off located at the southeast corner of Santa Anita Ave and Duarte Road intersection as shown on the proposed Site Plan. 2. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall dedicate 3-feet of additional street right-of-way to the City of Arcadia on the south side of Duarte Road as shown on the proposed Site Plan. 3. Remove the two existing driveway approaches closest to the intersection of Santa Anita Ave and Duarte Road as shown on the proposed Site Plan and construct curb & gutter and sidewalk per City of Arcadia Standards. 4. All existing and proposed driveways shall meet the City of Arcadia Standards for commercial development. 5. Prior to final occupancy the applicant shall underground all existing overhead utility lines that service the existing building. 6. No direct access to the alley off of parking stalls will be allowed with this project. 7. Per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements, provide a SUSMP report indicating the BMPs to be utilized for the proposed site. In addition provide a SUSMP Maintenance Covenant shall be recorded with the County of Los Angeles, Registrar's office. Comments CUP 09-03 9/4/2009 Page 2 8. Repair and slurry seal asphalt pavement in the existing alley from property line to property line. 9. This project is located to the southeast and adjacent to the Santa Anita Ave and Duarte Road intersection. The City of Arcadia is planning a construction project making improvements to the intersection that will start in approximately six months. If after the City completes its project, any street cuts in Santa Anita Ave or Duarte Road are required for utility service to this project site then the City's "Moratorium for Newly Renovated Streets" ordinance shall be followed. From: rZoN4,-o F Tt9 (L&6,' fK 6- - DLiIgorc' IUD nreQ'gpl~' C'1 y,o~6-3s`Ir (6 z.6 ) L(N'7-I y- 1 Date: To, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Development Division/Planning Services 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia CA 91007 Attn: Mr. THOMAS LI, (Associate Planner) Sub: CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 This is to state and inform that, I support the above mentioned Conditional Use Permit and have no objection in City Of Arcadia, Planning Services in issuing the same to Mr. Alan Yu Thanking You Neighbors who signed the letters of support Name Address Ronald P. Taylor 14 E. Duarte Road Mike Boyadjian 15 E. Duarte Road Becky of Peacock Donuts 34 E. Duarte Road Allan Wilson 30 E. Duarte Road Shally Song 20 Christina Street Martha Johnson 15 Christina Street #C Alison P.K. Matwey 9 Christina Street #A Joseph Troncale 11 Christina Street George Yu 900 S. Santa Anita Avenue (Signature Only) 1018 Santa Anita Avenue #C (Signature Only) 1018 Santa Anita Avenue #2 Richard Watchler 1124 Santa Anita Avenue Kevin Watchler 11230 Danbury Street Lin Chieh Chang 103 Crystal Ct. Wayne Evans 122 W. La Sierra Dr. Paul Logan (no address provided) Pnita D. Trovatore 12 E. Duarte Road Patricia Bade 77 W. Las Tunas Drive R.M. Aleaka 62 W. Le Roy Avenue Clifford DeCosta 1611 Venice Avenue, Monrovia, CA FUFile No.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 C/ TY OF ARCAD/A _ 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name or description of project: j Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03 to replace an I existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps 2. Project Location - Identify street address 2 E. Duarte Road and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle i name): I 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: I A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Alan Yu (2) Address: 1000 S. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 The City Council/Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received during the comment period and 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 findings are as follows: The City Council/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 Department / Community Development Division / Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 626 574-5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: Jim Kasama, Community Development Adminstrator City of Arcadia Development Services Department / Community Development Division / Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 626 574-5423 Date Received for Filing: 71fo m A s f_I ~ f~sso~t~r: Ptgilw~ Staff Negative Declaration\City\2009 FORM "E" File No. CUP 09-03 CITY OF ARCADIA r 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ~ ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03 2. Project Address (Location) 2 E. Duarte Road 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Alan Yu, 1000 S. Santa Anita Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 626-446-5028 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Thomas Li, Associate Planner (626) 574-5447 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-2 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -1- 4/03 File No. CUP 09-03 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct and operate an automobile fueling station, engaging in the sale of motor fuels and a 2,400 sq. ft. convenience store. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Exxon Service Station - zoned C-2 South: Multiple-Family Dwellings - zoned R-3 East: Commercial Use - zoned C-2 West: Arcadia Library - unzoned 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The City Building Services, Engineering Division, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services, and Water Services will review the construction plans for the improvements for compliance with all applicable construction and safety codes and will oversee construction and installation of any necessary infrastructure or improvements on-site and/or within and along the public right-of-way. The tenant improvements for the convenience store will also be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Health Department for compliance with local health codes. 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 [ ] 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: CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -2- 4/03 File No. CUP 09-03 [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] 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. August 7 2009 Signature Date Thomas Li Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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 such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -3- 4/03 File No. CUP 09-03 (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 related 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 Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 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 Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1 -4- 4/03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject site is bordered by a automobile service station to the north, multiple-family residential to the south, commercial retail to the east, and the Arcadia Library to the west. There are no adjacent properties where a potential scenic vista would be obstructed. Furthermore, the project will be consistent with the existing developments. Therefore, there will be no impacts to any scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? The project is to construct an automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The proposed building is subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes complement the visual character and 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? The Arcadia Municipal Code has a provision to prohibit glare upon any neighboring properties; the lighting arrangements for the subject building must comply with this provision. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ Act contract? ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -5- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above impacts. 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? There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. 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? The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recycling. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long-term improvement in air quality, however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The project will accommodate a proposed gymnasium building on the subject site, replacing the existing gymnasium, locker and office facilities, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non-attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM,o), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? The project will not result in a significant net increase in density from existing and approved developments and uses. Furthermore, the uses on the subject properties are not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. CEQA Checklist -6- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? The subject properties do not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The subject properties are located within a fully-developed area that is not within close proximity to these biological resources, and is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully-developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject properties are located within a fully- developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The project will accommodate an automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station in a fully- developed area. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. The project will not conflict with that ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. CEQA Checklist -7- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? There are no known historical resources on or adjacent to the site. If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction on the subject property, all work in the area would cease, and a qualified historian, archaeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The subject properties are within a fully-developed area and are not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? The subject properties are within a fully-developed area and are not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halt. Should any remain be encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted and has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the project would not result in impacts in disturbing human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other CEQA Checklist -8- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The subject property is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor is it located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject property is located in a fully-developed area, the project will not have a significant impact or expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to any construction, soil studies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of the construction upon the soil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑ become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project will not result in on- or off-site landslide as it does not include any excavation, grading or filling. 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? The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code. The project will not have the above impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject properties are in a fully-developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable to this project. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CEQA Checklist -9- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The proposed fueling station includes the routine transport, use or disposal of gasoline, but this proposal is to replace an existing gas station, and will not increase the above impact. 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? The proposed fueling station involves hazardous materials and will potentially create a hazard to the public or release hazardous materials into the environment, but this proposal is to replace an existing gas station, and will not increase the above impact. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project involves hazardous materials and would potentially emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste, but this proposal is to replace an existing gas station, and will not increase the above impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The subject properties are not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject property is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would not be any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working at the subject properties. 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? The subject property is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the project will not 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? The project is to accommodate the a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station, and will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -10- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact with wildlands? The subject property is not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard and will not have the above impact. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of 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)? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. It will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no substantial increase in the intensity of the uses on the subject properties as a result of the project. b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project does not involve alteration of existing drainage patterns and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 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? The project is to accommodate a proposed gymnasium building on the subject site, replacing the existing gymnasium, locker and office facilities. The project does not involve alteration of existing drainage patterns and will not result in flooding on- or off-site. d) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not intensify the use of the subject properties and will not 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. e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Runoff from streets, parking areas, and other developed lands often carries various levels of water pollutants. However, the project is to accommodate the already a proposed gymnasium building on the subject site, replacing the existing gymnasium, locker and office facilities and will not intensify the use of the subject properties. Any future development proposals for the subject properties will be subject to all NPDES requirements to ensure protection of groundwater quality. CEQA Checklist -11- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact f) Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requirements? The project would not significantly increase the intensity of uses on the subject property and will not have the above impact. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on ❑ ❑ ❑ a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? A series of flood control channels within the city convey storm water to regional facilities to the south. Due to this system, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100-year floodplain. The City of Arcadia was located within flood Zone D as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map Community Number 065014. Under this zone, no floodplain management regulations have been required. A small portion on the northeast corner of the subject properties is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area. Dam failure may be caused by a seismic event or an unprecedented intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of that portion of the subject properties but is highly unlikely to occur. The project will not allow housing on the subject properties and therefore will not have the above impact. h) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ ❑ or redirect flood flows? As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. 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? As mentioned, a small portion at the northeast portion of the subject properties is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area. Dam failure could be caused by a seismic event or intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of that portion of the subject properties, but is highly unlikely to occur. Therefore, the proposal will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. j) Expose people or structures to Inundation by seiche, tsunami or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? The City of Arcadia is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject properties are on a relatively flat alluvial plain that is highly porous and is unlikely to generate mudflow. k) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ❑ water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? CEQA Checklist -12- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. m) Allow polluted stormwater runoff from delivery areas or loading ❑ ❑ ❑ docks or other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered, or other outdoor work areas, to impair other waters? The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. n) Potential for discharge of stormwater to cause significant harm on ❑ ❑ ❑ the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies including municipal and domestic supply, water contact or non- contact recreation and groundwater recharge? The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. o) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the ❑ ❑ ❑ biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure that stormwater discharge causes no significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. p) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ that can cause environmental harm? The proposed automobile fueling station would be subject to NPDES requirements so as not to cause significant alteration of the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm. q) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off-site? ❑ ❑ 1:1 2 The subject properties are located in a fully-developed area; the project will not increase erosion. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ El S The subject site is located in a fully-developed area and would not physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project is consistent with the existing development on the subject property and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. CEQA Checklist -13- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject properties. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? There are no known mineral resources on the subject properties 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? The subject property is not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. 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? The project is to accommodate the proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station and will be subject to the same noise levels limitations. The development of the site could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station and will be subject to the same noise level limitations, and do not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station and will be subject to the same noise level limitations. Therefore, there is no 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? El 0 CEQA Checklist -14- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station and will be subject to the same noise level limitations. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent 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? The project site is not within an airport land use plan, nor located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 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? The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 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)? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station, which do not induce substantial population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There is no permanent housing on the subject property. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There are no residents on the subject property. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -15- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station, and will not affect the above public services. 14. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The proposed gymnasium will not adversely impact recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station, and would not include or require recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 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)? Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (1-210), regional arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The subject properties are bordered by a Modified One-Way Primary Arterial with 3 lanes in each direction. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a given street and the amount of traffic each street actually carries is expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from level A (Free Flowing) to F ("Jammed'). b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C z 0.02), causing LOS F (V/C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V/C Z 0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? CEQA Checklist -16- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project does not change any air traffic patterns or result insubstantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project does not significantly change the density of the uses and does not include new design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project does not significantly change the density of the uses, and there is more than adequate parking capacity. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project does not significantly change the density of the uses and will not conflict with alternative transportation opportunities. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. This board has established the Basin Plan which (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. 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? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not significantly change the density of the uses and will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. CEQA Checklist -17- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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? Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility, while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles Department of Public Works (DPW). The City municipal storm drain facilities will be maintained and improved in conformance with the City of Arcadia Drainage System Technical Memorandum. The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. 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 Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, "project" A "project" means any of the following: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. ❑ ❑ ❑ the subject proposal does not qualify as a 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500, 000 square feet of floor space. 3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then 'project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The project is consistent with the existing development on the subject properties, and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 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? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. CEQA Checklist -18- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not increase the need for landfill capacity. g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS 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 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 California history or prehistory? The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject property, and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is located in a fully-developed area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject property, and would not affect the short-term or long-term environmental goals. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is located in a fully-developed area. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject property, and will not have negative impacts on the environment, neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully-developed area. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -19- 4-03 File Nos.: CUP 09-03 & ADR 09-03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is consistent with the existing use of the subject property. The project is to accommodate a proposed automobile fueling station on the subject site, replacing the existing automobile service station and will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. It is located in a fully-developed area and no physical changes are proposed by the project. CEQA Checklist -20- 4-03 Cy R A Fir, i T RESOLUTION NO. 1803 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-03 AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 09-03 TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITH AN AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATION: A 2,400 SQUARE-FOOT, 24-HOUR CONVENIENCE STORE (DBA 7- ELEVEN) WITH THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR OFF-SITE CONSUMPTION AND EIGHT (8) SELF-SERVICE FUELING PUMPS AT 2 E. DUARTE ROAD WHEREAS, on March 11, 2009, an application was filed by Alan Yu to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03, at 2 E. Duarte Road; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2009, 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 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated September 8, 2009 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 9 R A F improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding uses, and it will be appropriate for the subject site since it was previously a service station, and the proposed project will provide adequate parking for the convenience store. 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, walls, fences, loading, landscaping and other features including the shared parking with the businesses in the subject project 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 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 because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study are appropriate within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and therefore, a Negative Declaration should be approved. 7. 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 2 1803 1 R A F T 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 09-03 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-03, to replace an existing service station with an automobile fueling station: a 2,400 square-foot, 24-hour convenience store (dba 7-Eleven) with the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption and eight (8) self-service fueling pumps at 2 E. Duarte Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use approved by CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 is limited to the automobile fueling station. The fueling station shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03. 2. All regulations on automobile fueling stations pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9275.4 shall be complied with unless determined otherwise under CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03. 3. Signs attached to the gasoline pumps, pump island canopy supports, light standards, and/or bollards, which advertise specific products or services shall not be permitted. 4. All light fixtures shall be hooded and arranged to reflect away from the adjoining properties and streets. 5. There shall be no more than four (4) employees on duty at any one time. 3 1803 b:~~ yob 6. All on-site parking stalls shall be double-striped in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9269.8.1. 7. The existing free-standing sign shall be removed and replaced with a monument sign limited to a maximum height of 8'-0", located at least a minimum of 25'-0" from the intersection, as shown on the submitted plans or as determined by the City Engineer. The design of the subject monument sign, along with the other proposed signs, shall be subject to a separate sign architectural design review process. 8. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Administrator or designee prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval as set forth by Water Services of the Public Works Services Department in their memorandum dated May 5, 2009. 10. The project shall comply with all the items set forth for the Stormwater Plan to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements by the Public Works Services Department in their Stormwater Plan Check Correction Sheet dated May 13, 2009. 11. The project shall comply with all requirements set forth by the Fire Department in their memorandum dated April 17, 2009. 12. The applicant shall address the recommendations of the Police Department in their memorandum dated April 22, 2009 to the satisfaction of the Police Chief. 4 1803 FT 13. The project shall comply with all conditions of ap3proval set forth by Engineering Services in their memorandum dated September 4, 2009. 14. All City requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. 15. Approval of CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), 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. 16. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to opening of the automobile fueling station. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-03 and ADR 09-03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in a delay of the Certificate of Occupancy or the closing of the fueling station. 17. 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 5 1803 BRP, 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 Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 8th day of September, 2009. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 6 1803 FOMINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Parrille presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu, and Parrille ABSENT: None MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu and seconded by Commissioner Beranek to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the resolutions. Without objection the motion was approved. OTHERS ATTENDING Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Associate Planner, Tom Li Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Business License Officer, Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama distributed a letter from Avant Garde Design International asking that item no. 1, CUP 09-09 be continued. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS - Five-minute time limit per person None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-09 510-512 E. Live Oak Avenue Michael Hsiao - Property Owner The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 960 square-foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square-foot restaurant located at 510-512 E. Live Oak Ave. Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr presented the staff report. Commissioner Baderian asked, based upon the information provided and past history of this project, whether there would be any other potential opportunities to mitigate the parking concerns. He asked if this was to be continued, are there other areas to make up the deficient parking within 100ft? Mr. Schwehr responded that there are some potential locations to the southwest. There is a church nearby but they have not agreed to lease their parking lot. In addition to that, there is an underused parking lot at an adjacent center which had been contacted, but they have not received a response at this time. Commissioner Baerg asked whether the applicant has offered a proposal to address the deficit in restrooms. Mr. Schwehr responded that the Building Official, Don Stockham, was specific on what would be required and that they would have to change the interior to meet building requirements. Commissioner Baerg asked, if this was continued, would they continue to operate during the period of continuation in non-conforming state. Mr. Schwehr responded that they would be required to shut down the expanded section of the restaurant during the period of continuation and they would remove the equipment for live entertainment and the karaoke machine. When asked, Mr. Schwehr stated that he had been at the location that day and the equipment was still there. Mr. Kasama noted that the equipment is still present, but they have not had any reports or observations that they are conducting live entertainment since the violation. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. Commissioner Baderian made the comment that 5 yrs ago they were given a Conditional Use Permit to operate under a certain set of rules which included a limit for 68 patrons, and not to have any kind of amplified sound. It appears that the applicant has violated that conditional use permit and is now asking for another conditional use permit to increase seating and to provide entertainment. He said that he does not see reason for a continuance to further the possibility of addressing the parking deficiency or addressing the code violations that have occurred since staff's visit. He stated that he does not want a continuance. Commissioner Baerg agreed with the statement from Commissioner Baderian. Commissioner Beranek said that it seems the big issue is parking; the main reason why staff is asking for denial of the conditional use permit is due to parking. If that issue could be addressed, he said that he would be willing to grant a continuance. They would have to close the expansion area off until there was a vote from the PC MINUTES 8-11-09 Page 2 Planning Commission. Also, the permit to sell beer and wine could become an issue as they have the permit in relation to restaurant use, not bar use. Commissioner Hsu stated that the code violation and enforcement is a separate issue. The Planning Commission should try to see if the applicant can comply with the parking requirements. Based on the letter submitted by the applicant, it seems that they are trying to meet the requirement. Commissioner Hsu said that he is inclined to give them the opportunity. In response to the comments by the other Commissioners, Chairman Parrille said that this is a dilemma as there are merits to the application, but also concerns from the Commissioners. He stated that to have a determination as to an approval, denial, or continuance, a motion is needed. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to continue the public hearing to September 22, 2009. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Beranek, Hsu and Parrille NOES: Commissioners Baderian and Baerg 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-15 210 N. First Avenue Laura Powell and Brandon Kwae (Lessee) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a dance studio with up to 40 students in an existing 3,200 square-foot industrial space. Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report and explained that due to a conflict with Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. ARA-172, it is recommended that this item be continued to the September 22, 2009 meeting. The public hearing was opened. In response to a question from Commissioner Baderian, Mr. Li responded that the next meeting of the redevelopment agency will be their first meeting in September. Commissioner Baderian commented that there would be time to have the discussion at the Council meeting prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to continue the public hearing to September 22, 2009. The motion was passed without objections. PC MINUTES 8-11-09 Page 3 CONSENT ITEMS Chairman Parrille explained that if there is no objection, the consent items may be acted on with one motion and vote. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1800 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-08 for a 722 square-foot tutoring center with up to 10 students on the ground floor of an existing commercial office development at 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite no. 102. 4. MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2009 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to adopt Resolution No. 1800, and to approve the Minutes of July 28, 2009. Commissioner Beranek stated that he is abstaining due to his absence from those items. Without further comment or objection, the motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION No Planning Commission meeting on 8/25. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Parrille summarized the action taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama discussed upcoming agenda items. Mr. Kasama stated that they will need a Planning Commissioner for the September 8 Modification Committee meeting and it was decided that Commissioner Baerg will chair the meeting. ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission PC MINUTES 8-11-09 Page 4