HomeMy WebLinkAbout1547
.
RESOLUTION 1547
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 97-004 FOR A COFFEE SHOP WITHIN AN EXISTING
RETAIL CENTER AT 713 W. DUARTE RD., SUITE F,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, an application was filed by Hui Hsuch Huang for a
Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop within an existing'retail shopping center, Planning
Department Case No. C.U.P. 97-004, on property commonly known as 713 W. Duarte Rd"
more particularly described as follows:
Part of lot 123 of Tract 2731 in the City.of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of
California.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 13, 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 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning Division in the attached report
is true and correct.
Section 2. This Commission finds:
I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Perinit 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 a proper use 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, parking, loading, landscaping and other features are
adequate to adjust saia use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets 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.
6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the
. environment.
1547
1
o
.
.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use
Permit for a coffee shop upon. the following conditions:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Services Officer.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
J. All water service shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Waler Division.
4. That the coffee shop shalL not exceed a maximum number of 15 for seating.
5. A modification be granted for 53 existing on-site parking spaces in lieu of 66 spaces
required, This approval shall not constitute an approval for a general reduction in
parking for the total site. That this parking modification shall be only for the use
approved by CUP 97-004 (a coffee shop establishment).
6. That C.U.P. 97-004,shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed an
AcceptaIice Fonn available at the Planning Office, indicating awareness and acceptance
of the conditions of approval.
7. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use Pennit shall
constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation,
Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the
Commission's action of May 13, 1997 and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners, Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter
NOES: Murphy
ABSENT: Kalemkiarian
2
1547
.
.
.
Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a
copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of
the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1997 by the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners, Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter
NOES: Murphy
ABSENT: Kalemkiarian
;;)~
airman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
A TIEST:
Secretary, Planning
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'~ // f11dfl--
Michael H. Miller, City Attorney
3
1547
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
May 13, 1997
TO:
Chairman and Members of the
Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: William E. Stokes, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No, CUP 97-004
RUMMARY
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Hui Hsuch Huang for a proposed
coffee shop with seating for 15 persons at 713 West Duarte Road. The Development Services
Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal, subject to the information
contained in this report,
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Hui Hsuch Huang
LOCATION:
713 W. Duarte Road, Suite F
REQUEST:
A Conditional Use Permit for a proposed coffee shop
LOT AREA:
Approximately 37,420 square feet
FRONTAGE:
Approximately 195.29 feet along Duarte Road
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a retail shopping center and is zoned C-2.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
.
Commercial
.
41
.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Mixed residential; zoned R-3
South: Burlington Coat Factory; zoned C-2
East Commercial, gas station; zoned C-2
West: Commercial, post office; zoned C-2
BACKGROUND INFORMA nON
There are currently 53 on-site parking spaces and one loading zone at the retail center. Access
to the property is from Duarte Road (eastbound and westbound) and all seven retail spaces are
currently leased (cleaners, hair, investment, realty, mail boxes and restaurant).
In October of 1989, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 89-016 (Resolution 1424) was granted
for the seating of 32 persons in the 1,200 sq.ft. seafood restaurant (Suite H) and included a
parking modification of 53 existing spaces in lieu of 60 required.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant will be requesting the retail sales of coffee and other related items, which
includes the sale of pre-packaged foods. With limited available' seating, the coffee shop will
operate primarily as a retail establishment requiring 5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross
floor area
The applicant is seeking a required conditional use permit for seating for 15 patrons. The
proposed business would occupy a vacant retail space (Suite F) of approximately 1,100 sq.ft.,
which is within the 10,465 sq,ft.<retail center,. as shown on the submitted site plan. Business
hours would be from 7:00 a,m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
Parking
Eating establishments require 20 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area. Based
upon the proposed method of operation, the retail parking space requirements for the proposed
coffee shop results in a net parking space requirement of 6 spaces.
As a result of the addition of the seafood restaurant in 1989, the existing amount of on-site
parking does not comply with the current code requirement of 60 spaces. With the addition of
the proposed coffee shop, a total of 66 on-site parking.spaces would be required by code.
The attached traffic counts submitted by the applicant (Exhibit A), accurately indicate tbe
number of stalls utilized during tbe' projected peak operating periods (the counts occurred at
8:00 a.m., 4:00 p,m. and 7:30 p,m,).
CUP 97-004
May 13, 1997
Page 2
.
.
.
Staff is always concerned with the potential increase in traffic that may result from a proposed
business as well as any future retail uses which may locate on a given site if vacancies become
available. Uses suth as eating establishments and restaurants require conditional use permits
and traffic concerns can be addressed as part of the consideration of such applications. Other
uses such as convenience stores do not require conditional use permits and would be permitted
even though they are generally associated with increased vehicular traffic.
Traffic along Duarte Rd. and at the adjacent intersection at Baldwin Ave. has a good amount
of vehicular circulation. However, at no point does such traffic "bottleneck" into the area
which would affect the ingress and egress of the subject retail center. Although the submitted
parking survey does notJactor in the potential impact to the on-site parking if the sitc's vacant
space (Suite F) was occupied, staff does not foresee (with the addition of the coffee shop) such
a use compounding any existing parking deficiency or traffic circulation.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Scrviccs Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project, Said initial study
did not disclose any substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the
area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise
and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on
wildlife resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDA nONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
97-004 and the related Resolution No, 1547 (attached).
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Conditional Use Permit 97-004, the
Development Services Department recommends the, following conditions of approval:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Services Officer.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfactionofthe Fire Department.
.
3. All water service shall be provided 10 the satisfaction of the Water Division,
4. A modification be granted for 53 existing on-site parking spaces in lieu of66 spaces,
This approval shall not constitute an approval for a general reduction in parking for
.the total site, That this parking modification shall be only for the use approved by
CUP 97-004 (a coffee shop establishment).
CUP 97-004
May 13, 1997
Page 3
.
.
.
5. That CUP 97-004 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have executed a
form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance of the
conditions of approval.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Aro1roval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration, find that the project
will not have a sigriificant effect on the environment and approve the resolution which
ihcorporates the Commission's decision, specific fmdings and conditions of approval as set
forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should make specific finding based on the evidence presented, and move for
denial with a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
Should the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to the
scheduled public hearing, please contact William Stokes at 574-5444 at your earliest
convenience.
"APproved BY~
.c L~.t;?~). , ~
Donna 1. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, environmental documentation, floor plan and site
plan, parking survey, Department memos and conditions of approval from Building and Fire
CUP 97-004
May 13, 1997
Page 4
.
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR DUARTE CENI'ER
713 W. DUARTI;: ROAD., UNITS #A THRU #H
FEBRUARY 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 1997
TOTAL PARKING FOR CENTER: 53 SPACES
Time: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:30 PM
Monday 10 30 18
Tuesday 11 33 21
Wednesday 6 32 24
ThUIllday 10 38 22
Friday 7 40 20
Saturday 1l 19 9
.
TIns TRAFFIC COUNT WAS PREPARED BY SECURITY GUARD OF II. X.
MARKET.
.
EXlliBIT "A"
.
.
.
_;0, ......
~ ~
(740) .1Jd1 (7JO)
O ~'l'. (7/1)
, (71 ~)
o \ ~'H)
\~ Gfr ~
'8' 97 )
(H3
@
Q.
:':min1oJm.)
LOT I
, :; 9 ~,
c
~
I
I C-2-
I
1..
, "
"1 ~
.c-i~ 0- ~
-}
.r
;.
,
(,,. 7 I ('''JI
,4 ~ J 1
."':~,
I ,U CI.
I
I ,,:."/:.
-" ~:
. .
-; :~
:}
-,
1'07
(7U/Ii (7 H)
I r~.,~
::I:
---~""I
" ..
~::::,.
. ~ '"
CJ'
'{,:.;'
:.!i
J
,
- ;;.to
~
~
-
RD.
..,
,0, Sl ~
. (11 6)
(1m -. ~
\ Q ?
.... "
Burlington Coat Retail .., ~
Factory Stores ,
~
,"- "":J Q
',...
Q '" C)) ::r, ~~ ~
'7
'" " -<
:;: t:Q
DUARTE
...,
o~ 2 ~
GO 4~ C
41.0.29
...
c .Z-:
4 S, 4 ~ f 4 7
VICINITY MAP
713 W. DUARTE RD., SUITE F t NORTH
CUP 97-004 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
t
.
i
F--
~
~
~
.H
.
.
~
""""u___
!
aD;
'I
-01
~I
I
.
I
I
I
I
\C--~-
..
~.-
.... -.-
. '':'-=='~~ .. --:-:- ~~~..~~ --
.
--1-
- _:"--;..~.-
f!.r. - _~..: . ..
_,' - ~. - ____... _,' - 0., .._._ __.__, ~ ...0
, .' _. _ ~. _ .r. _.. _ _ <ltool:) - p. .-m". t:..a ,4 .
,. _ ... ._~ ....-::..-.-;
~ ~:-~.~.~..__: .
-~
t
N
~ 0-
u-..o .
""'....
-
I I I , 10 ~/.:>'I
I I I I 1,0:' ;>.1
I I ; II;~:/~ ~I
I I" -- "
I I I 1/ '....1
i. I I r;;. '-::,'>\
I I, i ."rST.... ~'f"f"\W6 a:LJn,E~/~ :'''':-1
I 'b I U.T"''''I'''''~ ,/~ .' I
oil I' 1"/ ,,"
I I \ /./ ..-
. ,.,""1
i I. I I I~ 1'/:: -:.'
I I f / ,,' . / I
I : I I ' f,:, " ':.-./!
II l I I 1 I :2.0~" "
I I ~ I .
~- .
11 _r_ _1_ 1~"i'I;'-;- -:"\I€.-!@
...@:0010Y/.'t ' I' ':
~ II I t'/ ,. "'. "
f- 7!. ID .. '" .J:;::.,~~~",... .... . ~"
e-.' ~--t
~ --n,." ,.p. .CJ
.
..
r--. .'
.........t
t,
0;
I
'-',
€I!
.,
.......'
I .......
.. .. --.
.
(\
.:
I.'
..;
@I
~
./
'"
:1
...
..
Qn~.
..I
...
51
Q
.. U
as
. '
'<4,_.1
""'fiIr""
-, '
I
,. I' "/ .. '/
... I' .. ,.
. I .. If r
'-
.. r
-.I--~-=p~ Tf!,,:
PIL>....~,. ;
" : ; : ~.-
: '-
i.... --- ~ .- ~ -
-
I I"""'. Z1: .
I 1.. .
--.- -
..
~
.,.
I
I
.
. "
. (\,
. ~
- I
%'
I
j
~.
11
.
I
,-~
i,
P1::0 f"O: =
COFFEE SHOP
~l"~
"'J->"'~IlIZ:l:).
~'''~F
~A.t;lA.. . c&...
PRoJECT. />.i:EA: IIflDSF
~.~.
'"ilt46..
'c.\ awc.~..ate
~C"L~
UN",
:
o
.
0 . @'I
€I 1 8
4 I '
@,'6
. I
,
.. @
,
JooD.
"""'"
.......
. .-
.
'-
__.. _J/__
._~---
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 1997
I.
i
.r
DovolopmBnt SorvlCll!l
C:ommvnlly DlvoloplIlIlIlJBulldbog
Date:
417/97
(..I{ Building, -.S 7n€c€=reR....
( ) Econ, Dev.,
(') Engineering,
( ) Fire,
( ) Mainl.,
( ) Police,
To:
From: Planning Services, J. -S7o /< t:;;-S
DlI!pl!nS/llIowdDlol,aQ '~tu''''''!I
Sll:IIAlOS t.Bi:ldotCAO{j
L661 0 ~ au J
03AI3:>3l:i
MEMORANDUM:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
( ) Water,
( )
Subject: Application No.:
Conditional Use Permit 97-004
Location:
713 W. Duarte Rd.
Project Description: Coffee-shop. take-out. seating capacity of 15. 6 parking spaces
in lieu of lion-site available parking.
Please review the attached proposal and comment on the following checked items and any otheritem(s) wiih which >'our
services may have concerns Or special knowledge:
. ( ) Dedications
( ) Legal description
( ) Traffic circulation
( ) Parkway width(s)
( ) Street lights
( ) Tentative parcelrrract Map contents
( ) Final Map contents
( ) Street trees 8:. plants
( ) Is the subject address served by a sewer line that is
tributary to a deficient City trunk line?
( ) Location and design of driveway and apron
( ) Encroachment into a special setback on:
( ) Grading and drainage
( ) Water services
Please respond by:
5/1/97
Response:
( ) Irrigation system
( ) Fire hydrants
( ) Backflow devices
( ) Fire safety
( ) Occupancy limits
( ) Public safety and security
( ) Accessibility
(0" Compliance with Building Codes
( ) Signs
( ) Consistency with Redevelopment and
Revitalization .Plans
( ) Other:
(..,;{ Conditions of approval
1. Provide Van Disabled Access Parking Space (minimum 9 feet wide for the van and
uliuilllUUl 8 f~l wide uIT...luaJ ~J1d'""C uu tlu.; pa.:.'>,",U5\.1 &lde ofthc. yan).
2. Submit for Plan Check, two full sets of drawings an~ details.
.
By:
7'~
Date:
~~II/f7
Date:
4/7/97
Pl-'dtl'
Fire,
To:
( )
. .tS;
Fi:;:rl'~;t::'~i/"C, :Fl
.rh.~.lt=J ! l!".'JJ
',;)j~ 1 " ~9(l~
fl.. 1'\ ..:. ~ i ....l
.'-\rcacHa H,\:) ?re'lei,tion
MEMORANll.UM
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
( ) Water,
( )
t1.n ~ (,
DrY!---
onditionalUse Permit 97-004
Location: 713 W. Duarte Rd.
Project Description: Coffee-shop, take-out, seating capacity of IS, 6 parking spaces
in lieu of 11 on-site available parking.
Ple~se review the attached proposal and comment on the following checked items and any other item(s)'with which your
services may have concerns or special knowledge:
Dedications
Legal description
Traffic circulation
Parkway width(s)
Streetlights
Tentative Parcelrrract Map contents
Final Map contents
Street trees & plants
Is the subject address served :by a sewer line that is
tributary to a deficient City trunk line?
( ) Location and design of driveway and apron
( ) Encroachment ihto a special setback on:
e()
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) Grading and drainage
( ) Water services
( !/llTigation system
(oJ Firehydrants
( !t-Backflow'devices
('0 fire safety
(Jr Occupancy limits
( ) Public safety and security
( ) Accessibility
( ) Compliance with Building Codes
( ) Signs
( ) Consistency with Redevelopment and
Revitalization Plans
( ) Other:
(,j' Conditions of approval
Please respond by: 5/1/97
Response; N 0 ~p ~ C l ~ l_rk. ~ U O.uw. ^ -rJ jttI. 1/\7 (,. ~ (l.-W'I
TO U~. ( / u.B . l.
I
eBy:J1iA ~
Date:. -f It rM7
I Jo
.
.
File No.: CUP 97-004
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACf
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
C.U.P.97-004
A Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop establishment.
B. Location of Projecl:
713 W. Duarte Rd., Suite F., Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Hui Hsuch Huang and Ming Cheng Huang
241 E. Monterey Park, CA 91755
(213) 722-6203
,
D. Finding:
This project will have no significanteffect upon the environment within the meaning of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons se!.forth in the attached Initial Study.
E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
.
Date:
Date Posted:
AprilS, 1997
AprilS, 1997
W.E. Stokes, Assistant Planner
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
CUP 97-004
2. Project Address:
713 W. Duarte Rd.,.Suite F, Arcadia, CA
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number:
Hui Hsuch Huang, 241 E. Aldergate St., Monterey Park, CA 91755
.
4. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Planning Services (818) 574-5423
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7.
Zone Classification:
.
C-2
File No. CUP 97-004
.
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 ifnecessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop establishment
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Building Services, Fire Department
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.
.
o Land Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation
o Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources
o Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources
o Water 0 Hazards
o Air Quality 0 Noise
o Mandatory Findings of Signficance
o Public Services
o Utilities & Service Systems
o Aesthetics
o Cultural Resources
o Recreation
.
E.I.R. Checklist
7/95
-2-
IDETERMINA TJON
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd 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 atlachedsheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect (I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on atlached sheets,
eifthe effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects thahemain to be addressed.
o
1 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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
o
/
t1/~ ...s 4,/~
Signature
q'-g- 97
Date
IV'. E.. .s rOK..tE:.s
Printed Name
.5 -/3 - q 7 Pi..< b . flea'; ':9
For
.
EJ.R. Checklist
7/95
-3-
-'EV ALUATJON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
.
.
1.
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVll. "ealier
Analyses." may be cross-referenced.)
5.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII 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). Refernce to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
E.I.R. Checklist
7/95
-4-
.
.
.
Would the proposal result.in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the Commercial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 9251 of the Zoning
Ordinance.)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
(The proposed use will be required. to comply with
the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency
with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the
South Coast Air Quality Management District.)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed use is a coffee shop which is
consistant with the surrounding land uses.)
d) Affect agriculturat resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
(There are no agricultural resources or operations
in the area.)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical nrrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
(The proposed use isn coffee shop which is
consistant with the surrounding land uses.)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
(The proposed use is a coffee shop which is
consistant with the surrounding land uses.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
-5-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[]
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and geneml plan.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupturc?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity of an identified faull.)
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(The site for the proposed use is not more
susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any
other site in the area. The project will be an
existing building that complies with current
seismic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.)
d) Landslides or mudflows?
(The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and
not within an inundation area.)
e) Erosion, changes in topogmphy or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
f) Subsidence of the land?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence.)
g) Expansive soils?
-6-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal.result in
potential impacts involving:
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to expansion of soils.)
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
(No such features have been identified at the site of
the proposed use. )
4, WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, .or
the rate.and amount of surface runoff?
(Based on a project-specific. screening analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposaL)
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding?
(The site for the proposed use is not within an
inundation area.)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)? [ ]
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.) /
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements'?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect any currents or 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 substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water?
,7-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
0) Impacts to ground water quality?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect.ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect'ground waters.)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or
cause any change in climate?
(Based on a project-specificcscreening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g.. fann equipment)?
-8-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[XI
[X]
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[XI
[XI
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan. The location that has
norbeen identified as hazardous.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access.to nearby
uses?
(The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
and the proposed use will not inhibit access to
adjacent or nearby uses.)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(There is adequate on-site !larking for both the
leasees and patrons to serve the proposed use.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based ona project-specific screcning analysis,
there are no existing or potential hazards or
barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.)
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e,g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential conflicts with
policies supporting alternative transportation.)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffidtnpacts?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such 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, fish,
insects, animals and birds)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc,)?
-9-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ 1
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ J
[ I
[ I
[ I
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ 1
[ 1
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[XI
[Xl
[XI
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
. Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such cimpacts.)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? [ I [ ] [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Bascd on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ I [ I [XI
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? [ I [ I. [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any suchimpaclS.)
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 [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
-10-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No,: CUP 97-004
Potentially
.. Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but notlitnited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ J [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) The crcalion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. d) Exposure of people to existing sources ofpotential
health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project~specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based. on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any sllch impacts.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a"project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
-11-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
. Significant
. Potentially Un less Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have.any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific scrccning analysis, thc
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,.the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
12. UTILITIES AND 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) .Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a projeci-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Local or regionat water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
CEQA Checklist
-12- 7/95
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
. Significant
. Potentially Untess Less Than
Would the proposal result in Signiticant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact tncorporated Impact Impact
e) Stonn water drainage? [ ] [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nolhave any such impacts.)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ I [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local or regionahvater supplies? [ ] [ 1 [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or.scenic highway? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ I [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nOlhave any such impacts.)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ I [ 1 [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific scr~ening.analysis, the
proposal will noihave any such impacts.)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ I [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening'analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) A ffect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
CEQA Checklist
-13- 7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
d) have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the.
proposal will not have any such iI11pacts.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
(Based on a project.specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such,impacts.)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such. impacts.)
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 Cali fomi a history or prehistory?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will'not have any such impacts.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not haveany,such impacts.)
-14-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
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.)
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have. any such impacts.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have.any such impacts.)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program ElR, or other CEQA processes to
analyze aily noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
-15-
. Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-004
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
FileNo. c-'LAP ~\ - ()[)4
CIlY OF ARCADIA
240WESTHUNTINGTONDRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENT AL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
"'1,/-,(0. ...,
General Information
.
1.
Applicant's Name: ~\,\..~ \-\'J~J.."v \-\\.U\.~~
Address: 7/3 1)),0""+ 'j)IAl'lrtR i?""J. ~,;t", F ~1l"<. ('n.
. \,\o~~ ,.)'.l"(~"" L,1f.) ,,~. <-<....:..c.... c.,,: '\1\<\).
Property Address (Location):
2.
Assessor's Number:
3.
Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
_H..eRc,\ lUC""rr
4.
List.and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, induding those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
5.
Zone Classification:
COY\\mRl"dat~. 7-'1,,,,,J C-.1
6. General Plan Designation: ti:'tHltlUj'Ca-\.
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): lIt ~... 0. rnt-~ 0 s-P."f u,;,'d, "1,Qu.)
~ _ . (,~ soz-.~)
10.
.1.
12.
8. Site size: II 00 ,<;,6' In vp.t""~
9. Square footage per building:
Number of floors of construction:
<;'1''''(Jk t1rov-
Amount .of off-street parking provided:
Proposed scheduling of project:
t::;~ ptWk:'1J "1''' ,,,~ +r <;;c..-orr"'j ...~vtk.("
13. Anticipated incremental development:
I
14.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
!JIll .
..
15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
JIt ;5 l\ '-n.Il", Molt n.oul t"",; C:::lt+"(j--O"',Y>lIrl ("'ttu ~rp ~'" 0.. i'Cltl"lWr,'"f C::!2o"...A. r-J)
!\\".QA.. 1h. S<Ju. {.W'~'\. (o>''i,'St.s..q: 1100 ~lo.re feat
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
tJ/A
17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
IJ/A
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is.required:
. ..:re..~~ ?~, t ma(j ~"'r.Q '" r""".1;1:~"'^~ """'" 'jl-Dr.....'f' .J'I~ -fn tt., ;'<>..1(,,11' r:<'.t.......~~.vt
(F5S?'O..../iDtmcp jt>v n-t,,:1 lis 1O....l""Q..I/larm$ -(In--n t'Cff.p< .JJ'f)' DAO-S..i4> park,'(t
ca>\s,'s-ts...,t 5~ il-,\Y\<'\oo\;t S?<~ti!.<\.."fer w sf{~I~ Oi..;Rr.
Are the following ite~ applW:abIe to the project or its effe'E:ts? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NO
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o ~
20.. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o ~
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
o I23i
o ~
o tli
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
.24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
YES NO
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o ~
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
o ~
o JZ1
o :m
Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
o ]XI
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
o JlJ
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o ta
Environmental Setting
.1.
32.
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 development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will. be accepted.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date
.
3- (;)-,7
\-II..: '{\S,.\<,"-., \.-\I,U,~
Signature
E.I.R.
3/95
-3-