HomeMy WebLinkAbout1554
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1554
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
CUP 97-010 TO PERMIT A 1,250 SQ. FT. COFFEE SHOP AT
300 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND TIlAT CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 5509 BE REPEALED.
WHEREAS, on September 15, 1997, an application was filed by PBWS
Architects on behalf of Starbucks Coffee Company for 1,250 sq. ft. eating establishment
with seating for 24 people indoors and seating for 16 people outdoors; Development
Services Department Case No. CUP 97-010, to be located at 300 East Huntington Drive,
more particularly described as follows:
Parcell of Parcel Map 19433 as recorded in ParceL Map Book 209, pages
1 & 2 in the Officeoofthe County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 28, 1997, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the
public health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the 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 trlIffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General
Plan, that the proposed use is consistent with that designation, and that the granting of the
Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan.
6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial
study are appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that
the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative Declaration should be
approved.
7. That City Council Resolution No. 5509 was adopted prior to full occupancy
of this commercial center to prevent parking problems. However, this center has been
fully occupied for several years, and there have not been any parking problems. The
review by City Council required by Resolution No. 5509 has the affect of delaying
projects at this commercial center. Therefore, Resolution No. 5509 is unnecessary, and
should be repealed.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission recommends to
the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-010 to permit a 1,250
sq. ft. coffee shop at 300 East Huntington Drive and that City Council Resolution
No. 5509 be repealed subject to the'following conditions:
1. The proposed eating establishment shall be limited to a coffee/breakfast
fare type of business.
2. The proposed eating establishment and the site shall be maintained in a
manner that is consistent with the plans and materials submitted and approved for
CUP 97-010,
- 2 -
1554
.
.
.
3. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection,
occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services
and the Fire Department, and shall include the following:
a. Two restrooms incompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the State's Title 24 Regulations;
b. The posting of an approved seating plan and occupant load;
c. The installation of a Knox box with keys per UFC Section 902;
d. The installation or adjustment of an automlitic fire sprinkler system by a
licensed C-16 contractor; and
e. The inclusion of an approved extinguishing system on any Class 1 exhaust
hood.
4. Approval of CUP 97-010 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval.
5. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion of the
tenant improvements, and operation of the proposed eating establishment.
Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of CUP 97-010 shall
constitute grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals which
could result in cessation of operation.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings, recommendation and conditions of
approval contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of
October 28, 1997 by the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter and Murphy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
- 3 -
1554
e
.
.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1554 was adopted at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 12, 1997 by the
following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter and Kalemkiarian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Murphy
1 t-
,
Chairma , lanningCommission
City of Arcadia
ATIEST:
~H~~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J!J.~!!c.,lI}:!f---
City of Arcadia
-4-
1554
,
STAFF REPORT
DEVEWPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
October 28, 1997
TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-010
An eating establishment (Starbucks Coffee Co.) at 300 E. fJuntington Drive
SUMMARY
This application was submitted by the Starbucks Coffee Company for an eating establishment
in an existing retail building at 300 E. Huntington Drive. This proposal will require
amendment of City Council Resolution No. 5509 with regard to the maximum number of
dining establishments within the subject retail building.
.
Because this Conditional Use Permit requires amendment of a City Council Resolution, the
Planning Commission's role is advisory to the City Council. The Commission's
determination will be forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation for consideration at
a public hearing.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this application subject
to the conditions listed in this report.
GENERAl. INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Starbucks Coffee Company
LOCATION:
300 E. Huntington Drive - Arcadia Gateway Centre
REQUESTS:
I. A Conditional Use Permit for an eating establishment with seating for
24 people indoors, and seating for 16 people outdoors.
II. Amendment of Section 2.3 of City Council Resolution No. 5509 to
allow a maximum of four (4) eating establishments and/or restaurants
to be located within the retail building at 300 E. Huntington Drive.
.
. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site (Arcadia Gate':VllY Centre) is developed with the following:
. 48,500 sq. ft. two story medical office building (Friendly Hills)
. 67,000 sq. ft. folll'story office building (Nat'l Childhood Cancer Found,)
. 23,600 sq. ft. three story office building (AM)
. 26,900 sq. ft. one story multi-tenant retail building (subject building)
. 7,400 sq. ft. one story restaurant (vacant)
. 9,200 sq. ft. two story restaurant (Olive Garden)
. Three level parking structure with 235 spaces
. 586 surface parking spaces
The property is zoned CPD-l (Commercial Planned Development) and is
located within the Arcadia Redevelopment Area.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
.
North:
South & West:
East:
Hotels and restaurants -- zoned CPD-I
Railroad right-of-way -- unzoned
Three story office building - zoned CPD-I, & across Fifth
Ave. is a public storage facility in the City of Monrovia
BACKGROUND
In August, 1987, the City Council approved Modification No. M-87-69 for 745 parking
spaces in lieu of 830 for the Arcadia Gateway Centre which was to be comprised of a 47,300
sq. ft. medical building, 70,200 sq. ft. of business offices, two restaurants totaling 13,000 sq.
ft., and 26,900 sq. ft. of retail shops.
In September, 1987, the Planning Commission granted approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. CUP 87-0] 8 (Reso. 1345) for a 7,400 sq. ft. Berurigan's Restaurant, and in October, 1987,
construction of the center began with the two story medical building.
In July, 1988, the City Council approved Modification No. MM 88-005 for 821 parking
spaces in lieu of 908 for a revised project that included the 48,500 sq. ft. medical building,
two office buildings totaling 90,600 sq. ft., two restaurants totaling 13,400 sq. ft., and a
26,900 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building.
.
In December, 1988, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 88-028 (Reso. 1397) was granted to the
developer for three eating establishments with maximum seating for 12 people each and not to
exceed a cumulative total of 6,000 sq. ft. in the retail building.
CUP 91-010
October 28, 1991
Page 2
.
.
.
In September, 1989, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 89-015 (Reso. 1422) was approved for
the 9,200 sq. ft. Olive Garden Restaurant Because the two restaurants (Bennigan's & Olive
Garden) exceeded the original 13,400 sq. ft. of overall floor area proposed for restaurants, the
Planning Commission was concerned about the parking situation, and imposed the following
conditions of approval:
1) The number of eating establishments allowed in the retail building was reduced to two;
2) 7,200 sq. ft. of the retail building was restricted to general office use;
3) A five percent parking space vacancy rate was to be maintained in the areas north of the
office buildings, north of the retail building, and within 200 feet of the restaurants; and
4) 4,000 sq. ft. of the floor area within the four story office building was not to be occupied
until approval was secured based upon a study showing adequate parking.
The City Council was concerned with the enforcement of the above condition nos. 3 & 4,and
appealed the Planning Commission's action. The City Council deleted condition nos. 3 & 4
and approved the Olive Garden Restaurant with condition nos. 1 & 2 (Reso. 5509).
In January, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 97-001 (Reso. 1543) for a restaurant (Nirvana Indian Cuisine) in the retail
building. The City Council approved CUP 97-001 and an amendment of Resolution No. 5509
(Reso. 5974) to delete the. office use restriction on the retail building (condition no. 2, above)
and to increase the number of eating establishments in the retail building from two to three
(condition no. I, above) and changed the seating limit from 12 persons to not to exceed that
which is allowed by the Uniform Building Code.
In approving CUP 97-001, and amending Resolution.No. 5509, it was determined based on
observations of the Arcadia Gateway Centre during the eight years since its completion, and a
recent parking survey, that there is adequate parking to accommodate all of the eating
establishments and retail uses, even though the eating establishments had been exceeding the
maximum seating for 12 people.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant, Starbucks Coffee Company, is requesting to operate their facility in the most
westerly 1,250 sq. ft. retail space of the multi-tenant retail building that is currently occupied
by Fast Frame.
Starbucks is proposing indoor seating for 24 people (20 at 8 tables, and 4 at a window
counter) and outdoor seating for 16 people at 6 tables on the private walkway in front of their
retail space. The outdoor seating will comply with the City's Incidental Outdoor Dining
CUP 97-010
October 28, 1997
Page 3
.
.
.
Regulations. The proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through
Thursday; 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday; and 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday.
The 26,900 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail building is currently occupied by the following
businesses:
Business Name
Coldwell Banker Real Estate
Eastwood Insurance
Maly's Beauty Supply
Leslie Pool Supplies
Bear Essentials Crafts and Antiques
Nirvana Indian Cuisine
Goldsmith and Sons Jewelers
3-Day Blinds
Sesame Grill
Sign Depot
Salsa Del Rio
Fast Frame (subject space)
Approximate
Size in sQ. ft.
5,400
2,100
1,400
3,750
4,900
1,025
1,025
1,075
1,400
2,275
1,300
1,250
Starbuc.ks would be the fourth dining related facility in this retail building. The other
establishments are Nirvana Indian Cuisine, Sesame Grill, and Salsa Del Rio. The Nirvana
Indian Cuisine replaced Coffee Excellence. Starbucks would serve to replace the
coffeelbreakfast fare type of business that is now missing from this commercial center.
Of the 821 total parking spaces at the Arcadia Gateway Centre, approximately 115 surface
parking spaces are adjacent to this retail building. The City's traffic engineer has studied this
center and determined that the specific proposed use (i.e., a coffee shop) would not result in a
parking problem.
CEOA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Departmen~ has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study
did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change ~ any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project inCluding land, air, water, minerals,
flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When
considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any
potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
CUP 97-010
October 28, 1997
Page 4
. RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-010, and
amendment of Section 2.3 of Resolution No. 5509 to increase the maximum number of dining
related facilities to four, subject to the following conditions:
I. The eating establishment shall be limited to a coffeelbreakfast fare type of business.
2. The eating establishment and the site shall be maintained in a manner that is consistent
with the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 97-010.
3. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and safety
shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department,
and shall include the following:
a Two restrooms in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the State's
Title 24 Regulations;
b. The posting of an approved seating plan and occupant load;
c. The installation of a Knox box with keys per UFC Section 902;
d. The installation or adjustment of an automatic fire sprinkler system by a licensed C-16
contractor; and
.
e. The inclusion ofan approved extinguishing system on any Class I exhaust hood.
4. Approval of CUP 97-010 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have
executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services
Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval.
5. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion of the tenant
improvements, and operation of the eating establishment. Noncompliance with the plans,
provisions and conditions of CUP 97-010 shall constitute grounds for immediate
suspension and/or revocation of any approvals which could result in cessation of
operation.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
AJ;wroval
.
If the Planning Commission intends to recommend approval of this application, the
Commission should move to recommend approval to the City Council, and direct staff to
convey the recommendation to the City Council and prepare a resolution incorporating the
CUP 97-010
October 28, 1997
Page 5
.
Commission's decision, findings and recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the
staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
DeniQl
If the Planning Commission intends to recommend denial of this application, the Commission
should move to recommend denial to the City Council, and direct staff to convey the
recommendation to the City Council and prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission.s -
decision and findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the October 28th public hearing, please contact Associate
Planner, Jim Kasama at (626) 574-5445.
Approved by:
onna . Butler
. Community Development Administrator
.
Attachments: Plans
Vicinity Map
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
CUP 97-010
October 28, 1997
Page 6
,.
-
. f''': :,"::N::::ruO'.-'
.'"_
41 ...,.llUlJIII__taC
Ctfi~.n~.:i:.r.n,
Gs.~~-:-~'dmlll
lIC."'~
~r ........Clue"... -\#-n'.....iJ;'....."..
*.11 ..0 ,lII::nlC '_l~lI:
1:. .~~U' ..r..o.....CIl ~'I_"
_a\ .laIl~:&:'::iI.'~Gllhl
.1 ~:~~I.....,:.,.-:~II.
r:'. ....__,U.IUf\_......!~
~ ~ g~~~
II
-....
...""""'...
""'...
o S,twlNEllETTER DETAIL WiHAGE CONNECTOR
CD ~UM INT lOGO DISK
.[It r:f:~:.
11 1lI 6- ..
--
r hnUl.. If tUnfllJl 1::' VtllOlllmn
'!'!!... .In...... G'l\.fC""'I~.~-L.untt ""011
':,;,.:,m ,\-::"'-0 C~":\'. .~'1I..:':"~'\:~r:-.
J'I"il'::~I~.~"""l!;\'~'" _on ""'.~t. "'ell If
:"........t ,=11~11C....:'It":'::~;:',lcD!~~...
,.... ..,II\....""a::....,'It.._llfl.I.......
""'r___
UIItAIJIl.u'.....
fr~l:u~~
~
CD ~~NATED EXlERJOR lOGO DISK
.-
.+
~ /I /I /I
,
{ ~
, I
.m
(lIIICI_'_IO'l_
a.~~tll_
..J'
I..'IIC"__''''''
ct....tcMllIC_IOO'..
_10__
.-:GSIUKt...
NORTH ElEVATION
..-
'M'llf'~I~I"'~IfU:_
C'I" ~5tit=--
4IAS'C(1'm
n.-:s'!'GIR.........ft.
n'::.l:t'....,...~-.::.~
.E-i.'.:I=-~2!!
....MI.. .,.ttlltlliiftt
_r........w'"'....
OCDCUImlCll_'IU_ncDI
u"ita--'
11110,. "'OO-.;oQ........,; tc-.JS
." 01___'011""
-
g==rr.aJ.~1R
:m.::t'-~
....~
~I
=-~~
~_.
"allIIIl.J:':
fc't:f: :..&n~
~--
EEI---
rn-
-.. ---
.-
m--'.-
.-
....... :';;'_If_
-
I-I. 1-0--1
"'UK" _ .,.
(i)~'RII"~'.-a:
_~aIlII.OG'"
1II_(OOlIIC.lr
_._.....w_
_tlr_
@_r_ull::,\Ct
==::~&.
'I'.' . "
~
'T-.a<s
c:omE OONPN<<
..----...
---
--
::0.:.--:.::::--:...-.:
--...----
:- . -:-=;: :..~
-........
A..,CCJIIIlA.nGPOGIII.
CDftICI',1IGJiII1O.Bt
~......-
--=
c:aorocr:llCall'lr.-o
~"I2r._
... ...
z
0
f-f
(!l a:
Z 0
_ z
I- ~
Z ~!;?~
::J HI;; '"
:x: (; ~ 1) w
ill
W ~~5 Cl
0 ~~~ :::
0 '"
(') 9
i I
-=~ ""'"
Co::N::IP1 ._AIIItOM
....out:_,
~ ,.....
'" OLI._
l)COIo ot."'"
C:.t:HtD OUlO<>
telU.llIf"_r4'
flO""lCo'II'~
....-
STOREFRONT
ELEVATIONS &
SIGNAGE
/>.2.0
~C'CtI:ll'c-ot"
.
-..---
G>~~,-~~n:u-:-
-....
@m=:!:!:':1'='
@;: :,a.:=J.':"'~
0=.~~&1r'dr""
@ =,-.:'~fi~..m",
@1ll'OOt1.cr.:L~
=.Al~ -
<D,t5:'-== ~ '=
<!> :11~"::""~UI-=.~
(j) ~Jr=:.&~"
@)J~""J..~toot..
;.T.::cOcii't:r:2
. Jum fill __Y1..,.
......-
@~"MJ"'".J..:.c-;Ur.--
'i'__~w__
'=',.f....I"..- .'..."..i....r
I:":;'~ ~T..r(.Gl
@):-,=,~:':=~~J
(!)~....~..IIUI..
f::.-nt'" UDU . "" -
@ =I~DJII'=':-"l.ct'
UK.I~l1'_
-...-
@1IOC"'......_CI
~,r,~..G'."1
.
I .j'
I" 111\
.
-....." - ...... ....... ...... -.-. ...... ..- ...... - ...... 8
:t. ClIIlUCn." CllIITC:1 EB-- EE1"-- 83- EEJ-.- EEI- EEI--
~1I:.n=.:--=,3 -~':l- ..~" . _....,... j=:i. ICO'7U --
Ilm~..~,... ,- .-- - ~- -.
1-' -.- ",)1,.,=_. W >>.-
,- .....I~ -. ~_."'Il.. - -...-.
-, ,..-..- __tIC", - ~.
un _'_U' ..u -,.....,-.. - . '_1"_" -, -.- -. n__ 1=1:"'="j
f'd:l~:d~ ..w ._- u.,_ e-__
.... ...-... ....- un ....-. - '_1"-" -. .......__1 - --
- -- .. j::r"E-:;!"- .., 61.......,."
n. .-- _n ...-..- - __u..run COFfEE CCl.fP1Hr
"' -~ .-.
~1 l___lorl i=I' 1:"_ ->> .....,_ -. r_.uu",_ ----
-.. _a._' B"'- ---
"~ -- - --
m MI' .... ,. IIUID .- -. ..- ..
...-. -..... --.. - =':l:"'':=--'
-""'-' ,- . -- - ...-..... .... ,-.,..- ----
EEJ--- .- . --. -- ---
,-,.-. ----
_11l1,_" .... .,__rut... -. "'U'''_ .- ..ut.lln.n. --'--"
- ........ ,..- .- .....,. -..---
..' ; .- _.- .., -. ~_. .- -- - :'u._ --
fMU'UIl:IIUWOl - -- 4 l . CCII8.I._ oocrIIl
- -.. ..... --.-. -
w.. ......- .- -_.- ,- . - ....... . .~ , ~. CQIft,JCf;-~
- _...re --- - ..-- - - _lU_ 1II.DtOC:....._
-"..- ,- ._.._ttt MCOO". - -.
- ..-..."'" .- . -- - . '''''.~.- - --- :;:'::1.'''' ---
._t._PI -..
- _...."C. - -_.- .- _........ ~tOIII:..,...
-...-
.- -... -. ....-..,.. - _..01......... I=r-,cern. _....t ... ....
EF.' --..-- -. -
1- . I:::-~.__..I ,... ... ~:r.
- '00.1''':'''' 1...0,_.
~ ."'CCI'fP:
,.,. ._.-............ -. -.
'-'
- --.-.. -. -.-
-.. .-......
..-....-.. ... '00'_'
.-
z
f2 I!
<.'J
z
~ S
z ~"'iS
:J ~~
:r: on
(;~\) w
u.i III
~~$ '"
0 :l
0 3~3 9
C') ~ ~
I ~
-... ,.,..,
(lCICVt, t..0III0M
OJI o.lI:__
.. ......
". 0.41.__
-.-
c."O<<DO~
IICIU:.......,....
ClIO IIGI~-....
.~-
0 COMPOSITE
PlAN
.,110 . .
~ M.O
-- ""'"
COMPOSITE EOUlPMENT PlAN
.
.
.
RtskteaOt llUl
H.1d
o.l
>
<
IIamp10D laD
H.1d
Em_
S_
H....
......
10.
Derby
-......
Soapba"....
-......
HUNTINGTON
01
..
sc.....
Yard
I
.TDII)'Roma'a
-.....
Tokyo Wako
-.-
DR.
Outback
K....
. .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boult.
Park
~
o
\J
..,
'"
BONITA ST.
..;
>
<
Cl
'"
~
mp SdIooI
1=
VICINITY MAP
300 Eo Huntington Drive
CUP 97-010
t NORTH
Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet
.~
~
File No.: CUP 97-010
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
"
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-010: A Conditional Use Permit for an eating
establishment (Starbucks Coffee Co.) with 24 indoor seats at 8 tables and a window
counter, and 16 outdoor seats at 6 tables at an existing retail building.
B. Location of Project:
300 E, Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia, Los Angeles County
. C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Starbucks Coffee Company
17700 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 424-1900, ext. 2259
P BWS Architects
300 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 930
Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 432-5000
D. Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the
attached Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
None
.
Date Prepared: September 18, 1997
Date Posted: October 1, 1997
~
.
1
.~
File No. 'e. '-'? "(7-t> I;)
ClIT OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENT At INFORMA nON FORM
Date Filed:
1(/~((n
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: Starbucks Cof.fee Company
Address: 17700 Newhope Street, Suite 200, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
2. Property Address (Location): 300 E. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91106
Assessor's Number:
Parcel 1 of Tract Map 19433' in Book 5205
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Gregory Sun, PBWS Architects, 300 North Lake Ave., Suite 930, Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 432-5000
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other pubiic approvals required for this
project, induding those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
Conditional Use Permit
City Building Permit
County of L.A. Dept. of Health. Services Plan Approval
5.
Zone Classification:
CPD-l
6.
Conunercial
General Plan Designation:
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): The proposed use is an eating establishment in
an existing m~lti-tenant retail/commercial complex.
10.
.n.
12.
8.
396,889 SF
Site size:
9.
Square footage per building: Total area: 281,000 SF
be fl f . varies from 1-4
Num . r of oars 0 construction:
25 spaces required by proposed use
Amount of off-street parking provided: 821 spaces existing in entire developement
Proposed scheduling of project: December 13, 1997 scheduled opening
13. Anticipated incremental development: n/a
.
1
'1
14. If residential, indude the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
n/a
15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
The proposed use is located in a city oriented complex, with 554 square feet of sales
Hours: M-Th 6:00am - 9:30pm
area. Loading will occur through the front door. F-Sa 6:00am - J:0:3E1pm
SU 6:30am - 8:00pm
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
n/a
17.
18.
.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
n/a
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate dearly why the application is required:
conditional Use Permit required for change to food use. City Council resolution
required to allow a fouth eating esablishment.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
.
YES NO
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o
[]
Change in scertic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o
[]
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o
o
IJI
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Q
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
o
[]
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
.24.
30.
--:j
YES NO
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o Ii]
25.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
o ~
o ~
O-~
26.
Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
27.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
28.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
o Cil
29.
o (EI
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o I])
Environmental Settin!!:
.1.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach
. photographs of the site: Snapshots or Polaroid photos .will be accepted.
.Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants,
animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential,
commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department
stores, etc.), and scale of developmt>nt (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Certification
32.
,
1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
q/l~/q1 'J, ~ '0 ,J -
Date ~e O'
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-3-
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/PROJECT SITE
The project site is currently an existing retail tenant space in a larger office retail complex. The
topography is generally level. The existing soil is stable. The existing planting is landscaped
planter areas. There is no animal life other than incidental species typical to man-made
developments. There are no cultural or historic aspects to the existing development. The existing
scenic aspects are typical of commercial developments in the City of Arcadia. The existing
structures fnclude a two-story medical o~ice building, a four-story office building, a three-story
office building, a one-story retail building that will house the proposed tenant development, two
restaurant buildings, and a three-level parking structure.
--'~*~:~7 ,~
ENVIRONMENTAL SETIINGfSURROUNDING PROPERTIES
.
The properties surrounding the proposed tenant development ,are essentially located across the
street along Huntington Drive. They include a six-story hotel set well back from the street, parking
lots, a restaurant, and strip commerciaVretail. Planting is landscaping associated with the
developed properties. There are ~o historic or cultural aspects. The scenic aspects are typical of
commercial development in the City of Arcadia.
.
.',
'~~~
'. .!~- "
.
',.1
, .'"
I'.,'J ~.' j'i:.' C
-" ',.- ~ "\~' 1, ,<~.l t
. ,:~.( "'.~~'~':~..,..,':.
.t"
'"r,\
,'"
.
'1",~ ,.,' '<,.. " I
,
. <#.0" ~. . .0.
- -"-~.:..:-'"..~~..~
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL SElliNG/SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
.
.
.
----
FileNo.: CUP 97-010
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-010
2. Project Address:
300 E. Huntington Drive, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Starbucks Coffee Company
17700 Newhope Street, Suite 200
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 424-1900, ext.2259
PBWS Architects
300 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 930
Pasadena, CA 91101
(626) 432-5000
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
Community Development Division - Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number:
James M Kasama, Associate Planner - (626) 574-5445
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
CP D-1: Commercial Planned Development
-1-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
'\
FileNo.: CUP 97-010
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.)
A Conditional Use Permit for an eating establishment (Starbucks Coffee Co.) with 24
indoor seats at 8 tables and a 'window counter,'and 16 outdoor seats at 6 tables at an
existing retail building.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., penn its, financing, development or participation agreements)
The City Council must amend a resolution regarding the number of eating establishments
and restaurants in the subject retail building. The City Building Services, City Fire
Prevention Bureau, and the County Health Department must review and approve the
plans for the tenant's improvements and operation.
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.
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation I Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
-2.
CEQACheckJis! 7195
e
.
.
---.
File No.: CUP 97-010
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed' project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
. -
[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and 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 bave a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR., including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed. upon the proposed project.
By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner
For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department
r;2:- /77 ~,
Si re
Date: September 18, 1997
-3-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
"
File No.: CUP 97-010
tit EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
.
.
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A. "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one
involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A ''No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,-
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
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).
S. 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.
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.
-4-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
"
FileNo.: CUP 97-010
.
Would-the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Potentially
SignifiCWlt
Potentially Unless Less Than
SignifiCWlt Mitigation SignifiCllllt No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? _ [ ] [ ] I] 1,\1
b) Conflict with applicable envirOnmentid plans or policies adopted
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [) IX]
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? [ ] [ ] [I IX]
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or
fiumlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? [ ) I 1 [] [X]
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)? I ] I ) [] IX]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop)is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for
the area, and will complement the other uses. The establishment wil/be subject 10 all other environmental
plans or policies adopted by Ihe agencies wilh jurisdiction over this area, and there are no agricultural
resources or operations in the vicinity.
.
2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? [ ] I ] [] IX]
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)? [ ] [ ) [] IX]
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I ] I ] [] IX]
The proposed el1tmg eslablishment (coffee shop) will be in an exislmg retail building and will nol impacllhe
population or housmg.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault ropture? [ ] I ) [] IX]
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] [] ['\1
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ I [) [X]
d) Landslides Or mudflows? [ I [ ] I] [X]
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or flU? I ] [ ] [] [X]
f) Subsidence of the land? [ I [ ] [] IX]
g) Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
h) UniquegeoJogic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [) [X]
While this entire region is sabjectlo Ihe effects of seismic activity, the sabject location has nOI been delermined
10 be especially susceptible to any of the above geologic problems.
.
4. WATER - Would-the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality (e.g., temperarure, dissolved oxygen, or rurbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
I ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
I]
I]
IX]
[ ]
I ]
I]
[ I
[ )
[ ]
[X]
[X]
-5-
eEQA Checklist 7/95
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpol1lted Impact Impact
I ] I ] [I [X]
-,
~
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by
cuts or excavations or through suhstantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of'ground water?
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise
available for public water supplies? I ]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building.
alterations to the building or site that would result in any of the above impacts.
I]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-010
[ I [ ] [X]
[ ] [ ] - [X]-
I] [ ] IX]
I] [ ] IX]
There are no exterior
5. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an eXisting or
projected air quality violation? I ] I ] [] IX]
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? I ] I ] I] [X]
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temp. or cause any change in climate? I] [ ] [] IX]
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ I [] IX]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building and will be subject to
local air quality regulations as administered by the SOlJth Coast Air Quality Management District which should
prevent any impacts relative to items (a) and/or (b) above. There are no exterior improvements proposed that
would result in alterations to air movement, moisture or te11Jperature, or cause a change in climate. The
proposed use is a coffee shop. No objectionable odors have been associated with similar establishments.
.
6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? I ] I ] [] [X]
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? I] I ] [] [X]
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I ] [ ] [] [X]
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I ] [ ] I] IX]
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffIC impacts? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing commercial complex which has been
designed to avoid any of the above impacts. Furthermore, said subject location has been examined by the
City's Traffic Engineer with regard to the proposed establishment and it has been determined that there should
not be any traffic related impacts.
.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fJSlt, insects, animals and birds)? I 1
b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees)? [ ]
c) Locally designated nllltJral communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.)? [ ]
-6-
[ ]
[ ]
I]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
I ]
I ]
[X]
CEQA CheckliSt 7195
.
.
.
~
File No.: CUP 97-010
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [ ] I ] [] [X]
e) Wildlife dispersal or migrntion corridors? I ] I 1 [] [X]
The proposed earing establishmimi (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building. None of the above
circumstances exist.
8; ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES ~ Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] I ] [] [X]
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? I] I ] I] IX]
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? I] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coifte shop) will be in an existing retai/.building. The tenant improvements
will be required to comply with adopted energy conservation requirements. The,proposed use is a coifte shop.
None of the above impacts.have been associated with such establishments.
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? [ ] [ ] [] [.\1
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? I ] [ ] I] [X]
c) The creation,of any health hazard or potential health hazard? I ] [ ] [] [X]
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? I] [ I [I [X]
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? I] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coifte shop) will be in an existing commercial complex which has, been
designed with considera/ion already given 10 the above items (b) and (e). The proposed tenant improvements
will be reviewed by the City Building Services, the City Fire Department, and the Coumy Health Department 10
prevent the above items (a). (c) and (d).
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] I ] [] [X]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? I ] [ ] [] IX]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building and neither of the above
impacrs have been assocIated with this loca/ion or the proposed establishment.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? I ] I ] [] [.\1
b) Police protection? [ ] I 1 [] [.\1
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
d) Maintenance of publicfaciIities. including roads? I ] [ I [1 [X]
e) Other governmental services? [ ] I ] [] IX]
The proposed earing establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building. Both the use and existing
building are consistent with the planned uses for the subject area and will therefore not result in any of the
above impacts.
-7-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
.
.
.
-......
File No.: CUP 97-010
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? I ] [ ] [] [X]
b) Commwticationssystems? I ] [ ] [] [X]
c) Local or regional water treatment or distrt"!>ution facilities? I ] I ] [] [X]_
d) Sewer or septic tanks? I ] I ] [] [X]
e) Stonn water drainage? I ] I ] [] [X]
f) Solid waste disposal? I ] I ] [] [X]
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) wi/1 be in an existing retail building. It is nQt anticipated that
ClJ1Y of the abuve utilities or service systems wi/1 be Significantly impcu:ted Nevertheless, the proposed tenant
improvements will be reviewed for, and the tenant will be required to pruvide, if necessary. any new systems or
supplies necessary to mitigate any such impacts.
13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? I I [ ] [] IX]
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? I ] [ ] I] IX]
c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building and any exterior
i>>rpruvements will be required to comply with 10ClJ1 architectural standards and illuminatwn limits and will not
result in any of the above impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would tbeproposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? I ] [ ] [] [X]
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] I] [X]
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? I I [ ] I] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be at an existing commercial campier. None of the above
resources have been identified at the subject area, and none of the above impacts have been associaled with the
proposed use.
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regi\lnal parks or other
recreational facilities? I ] [ ] [I [X]
b) Affect eXisting recreational opportunities? [ ] [ I I] [X]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an existing retail building and will nol result in any
of the abuve impacts.
-8-
CEQA Checklist 7/95
l
FileNo.: CUP 97-010
.
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
16. 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 Califomia history or prehistory? [ ] [ ] I I [X]
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-lenn, to the
disadvantage oflong-tenn, environmentalgoaJs? [ ] [ I [] [X]
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 project.) [ ] I ] [] IX]
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on bumanbeings, either directly or
indirectly? [ ] [ ] [I IX]
The proposed eating establishment (coffee shop) will be in an aisting retail building and will not result in any
of the above impacts.
. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No earlier analyses. and no additional documents were rtiferenced pursuant to the tiering. program EIR. or
other CEQA processes to analyze the proposal.
.
-9-
CEQA Checklist 7/95