HomeMy WebLinkAbout1598
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 1598 '
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
CUP 99-016 TO OPERATE A REMEDIAL TUTORING CENTER FOR
STUDENTS IN GRADE SCHOOL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL, LOCATED
AT II W. DUARTE ROAD.
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1999, a Conditional Use Permit application was
filed by Chung-I Wu to operate a remedial tutoring center for students from grade school
through high school, Development Services Department Case No. C.U.P. 99-016, at
property commonly known as 11 W. Duarte Road, more particularly described in Exhibit
'.A".
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on October 26, 1999, 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 I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity.
2. That the USe applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a
Conditional Use Pemlit is authorized.
3. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
4. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
5. That the use applied for wiIl not have a substantial adverse impact on the
environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the
proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a
. Conditional Use Permit to operate a remedial tutoring center for students in grade school
through high school, upon the following conditions:
1. Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Building Section.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire
Department.
3. The hours of operation shall be from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, and 1 :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, with a maximum of 16 students per
.
.
session.
4. The parking lot shall be re-paved and appropriately landscaped to the review
and approval of the Development Services Department.
5. The owner of the business shall require parents to drop off and pick up
students at the rear of the building. There shall be no parking or stopping along the curb
or driveway along Duarte Road.
6. That C.U.P. 99-016 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the
conditions of approval.
7. The City Traffic Engtneer shall review the exiting at the easterly driveway and
recommend if appropriate, safety measures to assist vehicles in exiting the driveway.
8. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use
permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
SECTION 4. 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 forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on October 26, 1999, by the following vote:
e
.
.
AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
~~
ecretary, Plannin ommission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
p
. g Commission
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
October 26, 1999
TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Kenneth Phung, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 99-016 to operate a remedial tutoring
center for students in grade school through high school, from 3:00 porn.
to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 1 :00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturday.
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Chung-I Wu to operate a
remedial tutoring center for students in grade school through high school at 11 W.
Duarte Road. The intent of the tutoring center is to aid young students to become
proficient with Mathematics and the English language.
.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of CUP 99-016
and adoption of Resolution1598 granting the conditional use permit subject to the
conditions in this staff report. In addition the Planning Commission is being requested
to consider the architectural design review for the expansion and renovation of the
building's storefront and modification request for a 9'-6" easterly driveway width in
lieu of 12'-6" required.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Chung-I Wu (property owner)
LOCATION: 11 W. Duarte Road
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a remedial tutoring center
SITE AREA: Approx. 11 ,000sq.ft. (.25 acres)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 81 feet on Duarte Road
.
.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is zoned C-2, and is currently developed with a vacant single-story
commercial office building with 13 parking spaces.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Commercial: zoned C-2
South: Public Library: un-zoned
East Commercial: zoned C-2
West Commercial and Arcadia High School: zoned C-2 & R-1
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated as Commercial
BACKGROUND
.
The Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 99-014) to
operate an 1,800 sq.ft. remedial tutoring center with 14 on-site parking spaces on
August 24, 1999 at this site. The proposal was approved by a 5-0 vote. However,
upon approval of the CUP 99-014 the applicant! property owner submitted plans to
expand and renovate the subject building to provide a new floor plan consisting of
2,352 sq.ft. Staff advise the applicant that such an expansion requires a new CUP.
The applicant is proceeding with the expansion, and is requesting this CUP.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The new proposal is operate a 2,352 sq.ft. remedial tutoring center .for students in
grade school through high school at 11 W. Duarte Road, as shown on the submitted
site plan. The tutoring center will operate with one part time and two full time
employees from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 1 :00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturday with a maximum of sixteen (16) students per session. The intent
of the tutoring center is to aid young students to become proficient with Mathematics
and the English language. Such a center is a permitted use in the C-2 zone with an
approved conditional use permit.
The site will provide 13 on-site parking spaces, as shown on the submitted site plan,
which does not meet the current parking ratio requirement for schools I.e., one space
per 35 sq.ft. of instructional area. Based on this requirement, 47 spaces are required
for the proposed tutoring center. Although the proposed use would have an on-site
parking deficiency of 34 spaces, staff believes that such a deficiency would be
mitigated by the applicant's intent to have a maximum of sixteen students per
session; and it is anticipated that very few students will drive to the center. Also, the
.
CUP 99-016
October 26, 1999
Page 2
.
.
.
proposed use will be the only tenant within the subject building. There will be 3
instructional sessions per day.
The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the applicant's proposal and the requested
9'-6" easterly driveway width in lieu of 12'-0" required for the subject site, and has
determined that the 9'-6" driveway width is adequate. An on site inspection was also
completed by staff, and it was determined that the front of the existing building
encroaches within the roadway easement, creating a severe visibility limitation
between vehicles leaving the exit aisle and pedestrian activity on the sidewalk. The
traffic engineer's report recommends that the front of the building be modified to clear
the easement. The applicant has modified the plans to comply with the traffic
engineer's requests.
Architectural Design Review
Concurrent with the consideration of this CUP application, the Planning Commission
may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applicant's design concept
plans for the expansion and renovation of the building's storefront and modification
requestfor a 9'-6" easterly driveway width in lieu of 12'-6" required by code.
The proposed expansion and renovation is compatible with the existing architectural
design of the building. The Planning Services staff believes that the applicant's
proposal meets the intent of the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural
Design Review Regulations. The design elements for the expansion and renovation
of the subject building's storefront will provide the necessary visual break up of flat
wall areas. Also, the architectural design of the building and the exterior materials
would be visually harmonious with the surrounding commercial development (colored
elevations will available for review at the meeting).
The applicant shall be required to comply with all code requirements as determined
necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Maintenance Service Director and
Development Services Director. .
CEQA
Pursuant to the prOVISions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of
historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the 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 99-016
October 26, 1999
Page 3
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 99-016 subject to the following conditions:
1. The remedial tutoring center shall be maintained and operated in a manner that
is consistent with the application and plans submitted and approved for CUP 99-
016.
2. The parking lot shall be re-paved and appropriately landscaped, subject to the
review and approval of the Development Services Department.
3. Parents picking-up/or dropping students off shall drive into the parking lot and
park in designated areas only. There shall be no parking or stopping along the
curb or driveway along Duarte Road.
4. The maximum number of students per session shall not exceed sixteen (16).
5. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy,
and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the
Fire Department.
6. Approval of CUP 99-016 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available frorn the
Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
7. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Arcadia's.Traffic
Engineer.
8. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to the opening of the
remedial tutoring center. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and
conditions of CUP 99-016 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or
revocation of any approvals for the remedial tutoring center.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration
and adopt Resolution No. 1598: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 99-01.6 to operate a
remedial tutoring center and approving Architectural Design Review ADR 99-022 to
expand and renovate the existing building.
Denial
If the Planning Corn mission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application,
the Commission should state the reasons for denial and direct staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings.
CUP 99-016
October 26,1999
Page 4
.
.
.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the October 26, 1999 public hearing, please
contact Assistant Planner, Kenneth Phung at (626) 574-5447.
~~d~.
~na L. Butler el-~- ,:;.-- ,.-:'
Community Developrnent Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map
Plans
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Traffic Engineer's Comments
Resolution 1598
CUP 99-016
October 26,1999
Page 5
. 'CAMPUS DR .", <:<:::
to- "i'"
....
, oJ ,
_ 110 \:;0 "i
I 101.
I va) (2) I ~\. tn~ c;, I!
(I~) (14) ",~,,1~ (
I '<4
" r:
I I"'. I'- W LUC
-10 <>,..;. ..
~ OFFICE ot >
Ie< .. <(
- ~" -I
I I ~ <( '$ <I:
I ~ ..-
I u
I , ~--~~--- l- e::
- w
~ ,~ ~ ' Z :iE-
O:L 110 ...l~r ' <( :iE
,.... (1J ---,- ,
9 \I') eo I ~o . '0
J .. .. <( u
'-I COMMERCIAL ",-.t I
~~ I- 51
I ~ Z
ARCADIA I ''<0 <(
.....
I~ \0 en <:\..
HIGH SCHOOL ..,0;-
I'; "- /5
'1
. I'" ~ GAS STATION
I . 100' ~It.\;f!)~
I
I (5)
I '(tl) , \Ol,'l.~
80.9
OUARTE. RO
<Il ep..l
>. "'_ 0>.
...
....
" 1C2I,I'~
GAS STATiON'
u~
110' <Ii~
2'"
'11.\\"1
~1 ~Ol
\. '(2t))
...."
~,
10 "V'-
91.1\'
J.2-.4-), UNZONED 4
'"
,..
q
-
II
.l/
'"
Q
PUBLIC LIBRARY
100'
l!l
fTo I
~ I
<Ii I.
"
-
.-
.
LAND USE AND ZONING MAP
11 W. Duarte Road t NORTH
CUP 99-016 Remedial Tutoring Center 1 inch = 100 feet
- '.'-'---
~.....",,",.---:-
r"'-.'~
1, ~
~t !;
--
PR01&G"T oe.'SC~PTlarJ:
;.t"le~1 ' esm.ou'6 ~6' -'.601'1""""-
~li. I ~M~'attr u......"...., .~5"~.
"",US-;illoJ,~,,u.._..........._.,....
...ooea. '_""'lJu
Clh6IUfT~' ~M.f.'. 'UoIfr.t.I~,ooI_"l-~.
.....,-r~_1....
t-01 ~a... N...."._'I..P-....l1.. _J~.
~.c:'
_. ,.." ....c. .........."-".....
Dj.ItU>lt.l6; ,.,....", .v. .H~.
~~. _1'.. "CIMi_ _...
""i:i...... ""..... -.h&.!"..
*'W. -";""'1 ...'........lIl.
f"04lUJ!llla,,' 1& __ -"O..,.....t_.;....1 _-.10'
~IIOQ. ..._~l.....} '~.,,~,'IU.,~'.:;.,j_.
flllll~...,.I''''',.._..fIlO...,;.,.~.'IlIl.....
$f~
'm..'.'
, '
1 .',
, ,--
f I
I
I ,
! ,
/ ,
,;
---'
/
._....o""'.-~
.::..~~ ': .....
- -:...~---=~-==-~_.:- -~==~ ~;':'::::~
""'111 eLllVATlON
. (~"'f_~
NORTH EUVA'FION
:w.e,1<I)
-.J~v:~' .
- '~~;.,:. :<u~~?,;;~.:y'tW ['-. :,F~\f~ ,(..... L'''''''~f'~~' ,>,::;-y~.'""j
~ ."". >.' ':i~;0 /, '-.,/ ',~'I.;';" )/" V'" . 'J\. .....>/" ..t-, 1
-::;...-" . / / ~ --/-,....,....O'"'p'p...-- _ . ~.....
. ~ <' &, / ";;6.?;: / /(.;:.~,:",.~ <: 1//' ~:::
\ '."0/ /',. / '" / -.." '" /" '-,./ :..:
~ ~ 't/ '\. ,~, '-. '~
\ \ ,\0 ~'I"~ MfIl"'-",.....ep .~.. ~....,...~ '';':;1::-;.'= ='
",<U,IIt.~Ol<I~....."....,. '1
[1\ ~-_. .--....... f
'. ~ -- \J ,,~.__..Al'~;~ .~..' '1''!'~t- '.=.-.:.....-.-r fj\'.
'T\ , ~, " r'----:.
. . \ - -= "
- ~ .j..,\ ~_. , l "'1 ...''"t:: i"-:.'':'~' .
::; ~ 1..!.._-~
"\ ' .~~~ t".'
\ ~ =..~ ....- " I.
\: ,~~;' u.., --" --" .~.'<) r ~~ ;,
-~- ~
~ I
' ,
-.J..tL.. ...,. _....Y. ..... . ~
w
~urnrEi
I .
m
" ...--.,
J~J
tre.~
J
~pou>fWCU~f""'.
~- -
.....,..
lAST &l.8VATION
"".....
_T.-tl.
l
~.- ....
! DUS'I",M6
11
---
i~
r
~-
WEST IlUiVATION
SlTBPLAN ~R~ Dl.E';"r..".1"G"'~
Efjz
_n
i"
i'ri
.
~?
h.
':;j'E'3
"2 -0, "
-.!l <
\l," t
.. ~
'd~ .'
....;1 ~
5'~,.
~H
~ ",.
...",.
t- u."1
Q _t_
ll.ji-
lit
-
-
.
.
.
','
File No: CUP 99-016
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. 99-016: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a
remedial tutoring center for students in grade school through high school,
'from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and frorn 1 :00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
B. Location of Project:
11 W. Duarte Road, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Applicant: Chung-I Wu
1735 Hillard Dr.
San Marino, CA 91108
(626) 286-2880
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: September 30, 1999
Date Posted: September 30,1999
By:
Kenneth Phung, As' nt Planner
.
.
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 99-016
2. Project Address:
'II W. Duarte Rd.
Arcadia, CA 91007
3, Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
/
Applicant: Chung-! Wu
1735 Hillard Dr.
San Marino, CA 91108
(626) 286-2880
Contact:
Same
4. Lead A.gency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
Community Development Division - Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadi~CA 91066-6021
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
Kenneth Phung, Assistant Planner
(626) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C-2 General Commercial
-1-
FileNo.: CUP99-016
CEQA Checklist
10/99
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 99-016
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 to operate a remedial tutoring center for stuo,ents in grade school
through high school, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 1:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
9. Otber public agencies wbose approval is required:
(e.g., petmils, financing, development or participation agreements)
The City Building Services, Engineering Division & Fire Prevention Bureau must review and
approve the tenant improvement plans for the center, and any other on-site or off-site
improvements at the existing shopping center.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affec:ted by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact'" lIS indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ J Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation / Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ) Utilities and Service Systems
[ ) Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
-2-
CEQA Checklist
10/99
r
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 99-0]6
DETERMINA TlON
(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 significlUlteffect on the
environment, there will not be a,significant effect in this case because the nlitigation
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 IMP ACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I fmd 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 nlitigation
measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached eheets, 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 fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or nlitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
s;:::- ~; ___
Kenneth K. ,Phung
Print Name
September 30,1999
Date
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Checklist
]0/99
File No.: CUP 99-016
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENT ALlMP ACTS:
.
1. A. brief explanation is required for an 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
snow 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. A.11 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 construc1:ion 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 Impa()t" entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must:describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17
"Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced).
. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact
Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at
tbe 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 statementis substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources, uses or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) The significant criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, ifany, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
.
-4-
CEQA Checklist
10/99
File No.: CUP 99-016
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
. Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporaled Impact Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or
zoning? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Conflict with applicsble environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in
the vicinity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
,d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or
impacts from incompatible land uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ]. [X]
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an eslablished community
(including a low-income or minority
community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
.
The proposed remedial tutoring center is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the
area, and will complement surrounding uses. The construction of any tenant improvements, and the
operalion of the proposed service will be subject to all other environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with Jurisdiclionover this area. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
The proposed service Is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the area and will not
Impact the population or housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
b) Seismic ground shaking?
.
CEQA Checklist
10/99
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
[ I
[ I
d) Landslides or mudflows?
e) Erosion changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading,
or fill?
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
f) Subsidence of the land?
g) Expansive soils?
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
File No.: CUP 99-016
Potentially
Signific'IDt
UnleS!
Mitigati')D
Incorporated
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
No
Impact
[XJ
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[XI
[Xl
While tWs entire region is suhject to the effects of seismic aetivity, the subject location has not heen
determined to be especially susceptible to any of the ahove 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?
[ I
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperamre, dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity)?
[ ]
d) Changes in the anlount ofsurface water in
any water body?
[ ]
e) Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
[ I
t) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, of through interception of
any aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
[ I
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground
water?
[ ]
[ ]
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
CEQA Checklist
10/99
[XI
[Xl
[XI
[Xl
[XI
[XI
[XI
[Xl
.
.
.
Would the, proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
ground water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
[ 1
The proposed site alterations would not resnlt in any of the above, impacts.
S. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
[ 1
[ 1
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pOllutants?
c) Alter air
temperature
climate?
movement, moisture, or
or cause any change in
[ 1
[ 1
d) Create objectionable odors?
File N,).: CUP 99-016
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
The proposed remedial tutoring center and its operation will be subject to local air quality regulations as
administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which should prevent any impacts
relative to items (a) and/or (b) above. Tbere are no exterior improvements proposed that would result in
alterations to air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause a change in climate. No objectionable
odors bave been associated with tbe proposed use.
6. TRANSPORTATION I CmCULA TION - Wonld the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
[ 1
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
[ 1
c) Inadequate emergency accesses or access
to ,nearby uses?
[ 1
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site?
[ 1
e) Hazards or barrierS for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
[ 1
t) Conflicts with adopted policies-supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
[ ]
[ 1
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[Xl
[Xl
[ 1
[ 1
[Xl
[ 1
[ 1
CEQA Checklist
10/99
[ 1
[ 1
[Xl
[Xl
[ 1
[Xl
[X]
.
.
.
File No'.: CUP 99-016
Would the proposal result in
potentiaL impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
PotentiaIly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The proposed remedial center is situated on a lot with its use as the only business. The site has ample
parking available for the proposed use and no significant impacts have been identified. The proposed
project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related Impacts arise.
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)? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 (X]
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g., oak forest, coastal babitat, etc.)? [ ] [ 1 [ ]. [X]
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] (X]
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] (Xl
The proposed service will be in a single story commercial building in a commercial ar.:a. None of the abovc
circumstances exist.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(X]
b) Usc non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Xl
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?
[ ]
[ ]
(Xl
[ ]
The proposed project will be required to comply with adopted energy conservation f1!quirements. None of
the above impacts have been associatcd with the proposed type of use.
9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion <lr release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
(Xl
CEQA Checklist
10/99
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
FileNo.: CUP 99-016
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
e) IncrellSed fire hazard in areas with
flamn1able brush, grass or trees?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
The City Bnlldlng Services and the City. Fire Department will review the plans for remedial tutoring center
to prevent any of the above impacts. No existing sources ofpotenlial health hazards have been Identified at
the subject property.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) IncrellSes iI1. existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
.
The site of the proposed use is In an existing commercial building In a commercial N'ea and neither of the
above Impacts Is associated with this location or the proposed use. Should any problems arise however,
compliance with noise regulations will prevent any unreasonable noise leyels.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result fu a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
The proposed use Is consistent with the planned uses for. the area aad will not result in any of the above
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]
b) Conununications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Local or regional water treattnent or
. distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
CEQA Checklist
10/99
FileNo.: CUP99-016
Potentially
Signific'mt
Potentially Unles!i Less Than
. Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigati'Jn Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact . IncOIpol'2".ted Impact Impact
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
e) Storm water drainage? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
l) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [X]
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
Its Is not anticipated that any of the above utilities or service systems will be !iigniflcanlly Impacted.
Nevertheless, the proposed Improvements will be .revlewed for, and the develop"r will be required to
provide, if necessary, any new systems or supplies necessary to mitigate auy such impacts.
13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics
effect? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
c) Create light or glare? [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
.
The proposed use will be In an existing commercial building, and any exterior Improvements will be
required to comply with local architectural standards and Utumlnation UmIts and will not result In any of
the above impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
c) Affect histOrical resources? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change, which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
The proposed use will be ill an existing commercial building. None of the above resources bave been
identified at the subject area, and none of tbe impacts bave been associated witb the proposed use.
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood.or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[Xl
.
CEQA Checklist
10/99
FileNo.: CUP 99-016
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigatie.n Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorpora:ed Impact Impact
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
The proposed use will he in an existing commercial huilding, and the proposed project wIll not result in any
ofthe above 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 b~low self"sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [Xl
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-tenn, environmental goals? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 c\"Tent
projects, andihe effects of probable future
project) [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [Xl
d) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl
The proposed use will be in an existing commercial building, and the proposed proJec:t will not result in any
of the above impacts.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional. documents were referenced
pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA processes to analyze any noted
effect(s) resulting from the Proposal.
.
CEQA Checklist
10/99
File No. COp ~~- oil;
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
9-20-91
General Information
.
1.
Applicant's Name: Chlllf"\4-1 WI.l a'1'l4 r-Iu1. - /JD C. Wu..
Address: 113S' H~II("yJ Dr:, SClf'l- jv{C1Yt'HJf, CA ~~lloJ>
Property Address (Location): (I W. VUtI vte Rd.. Irrc.a.c./l;cl. CA- '1/00 '7
.
Assessor's Number: S77,f- It!- -{ 7 tVllc./ r77~-/f/--l!t
2.
3.
N~e, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this prolect:
CI1I.\I1~ -I W~. /73S' HI/liar-of Dr.... San HaYI"x.lI,. CA 9//0;>
b::J-b - :U-b-~~
4.
List and describe. any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
pr.o)ect, including those required by city, regional, state and federal age:,cies: -...
",o,ue 1.51'tJ ;e'er...; I- "",/7".,P"""..J+ 7 1.511J y."v/c.... hrr., O.p.-.. W'....t<::u
OM<>Ir>h. ~n,et'-""~ OJv~/.n
5. Zone Classification: ...:......... C 2-
6. General Plan Designation: r./
Project Description
8.
9.
10.
..
12.
13.
7.
Proposed use of site (project description): EA~\c..o. tic 11" I Y"e5ol< \1LeS p YoV,\d.I~ rel;(ArLJ..1
Il'lstv",,,ti8-l'l.S I~ Ht4Aell(.(J.fi~ """,t "b1(jI,'.;Jv 1;; stwJ.e..ts in J'tak S'-It-ooi HHC~
Jv.p.. ~c.~ol tl.f~ -;dL/)o/ Itc~YS ".& sru.4fs (), Yo( ,i~~peJ "if by 'p~re.1h..
Site size: I \,000 Sf. fT.
Square footage per building: ~3t; 2 Sf. ft.
Number of floors of conStruction: I
Amount of off-street parking provided: I 4-
Proposed scheduling of project: AkYvL
Anticipated incremental development: NOl\..R.-
14.
.
15.
16.
17.
18.
.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, ra;1ge of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
Not" Apr/~c."'Ue... .
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
^/~jltborh.ooJ. br,'e""te"J ) IUJ Y<2!n.;( 5>",,1.:.5 J IL--D /o~l(~'J rG;I;ft~~.
Opeya.+'1 f~ ~ : 00 'p1'I1 (;Q J>; 00 P IYV
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
AT ~iL.""J,Je-.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
~ ~oJjc..~. .
I
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate cl arly why the application is required:
..... t..( ... a.. ~...
1v2.
c..-..'-h.J..
(j
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? 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 JEi
20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or publk
lands or roads.
o ~
o rz1
o ~
o ~
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes.or odors in vicinity.
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
'.
,
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
YES NO
Change in greund water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o p(
o ~
o jZ1,
o ~
o ~
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
Is site on filled land .or en any slopes .of 10 percent .or mere.
Use or dispesal of potentially hazardeus materials, such as texic substances,
flammable or explesives.
Substantial change in demand fer municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage! etc.).
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumptien (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
o :tt
o ~
Relationship te a larger project or series of projects.
Envirenmental Setting
.
32.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists befere the preject, including
information on tepography, soil stability, plants and animals, any . cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use .of the structures. Attach
phetegraphs of the site. Snapshots or Pelaroidphetbs will be accepted.
Describe (en a separate sheet) the surrounding preperties, including informatien en plants,
animals, any cultural, histerical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type .of land uses (residential,
commercial, etc.), intensity .of land use (one-family, apartment heuses, shops, department
steres, etc.), and scale .of develepment (height, frentage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs .of the vicinity. Snapshets or Polareid photes will be accepted.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibi.ts present the data
and infermation required fer this initial evaluation te the best .of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, a infe matien presented are true and cerrect te the best of my knowledge and belief.
.,.]A> a~ -/{:~" k~./'
Date Signature V' ./
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-3-
.....
MEMORANDUM
DEVELOPMENT SERVICJES DEPARTMENT
DATE:
October 14,1999
FROM:
Kenneth Phung, Assistant P1iJn .
Ed Cline, Traffic Engineer (!&/;v'I-e-
TO:
SUBJECT:
Site plan Review - Proposed Tutorial Center at 11 W. Duarte Road
As requested, I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed tutorial center at 11 W. Duarte
Road. Your specific question involved the ability to maneuver a standard passenger
vehicle through the parking. area and out the 9-11 foot wide exit lane with thl~ proposed
addition to the structure.
The proposed project consists of the addition of about 600 s.f. of "Student Lounge" area to
the school.
.. I have tested the proposed geometry with a standard passenger car turn template and while
the turn will be tight it appears to be adequate. A site visit confirmed that the maneuver
can be expected to be tight. The most difficult portion of the turn is the approach to and
passage through the relatively narrow (9 1h foot) exit aisle. The drive aisle width is set by
the existing buildings and, as a practical rnatter, cannot be widened. Therefore, it should
be judged as adequate.
My site visit found that the front of the existing building either encroaches into the roadway
easement (sidewalk) or causes the roadway easement to vary in width. This situation
creates a severe visibility lirnitation between vehicles leaving the exit aisle and pedestrian
activity on the sidewalk. Either way, I recommend that the front of the building be
modified to clear the easement. If right-of-way has not been obtained, it should be
dedicated to conform to the adjacent parcels with this rnodification.
I also found the first parking stall to the left of the entry driveway too close to the driveway
for clear maneuvering. I recomrnend that it be eliminated in favor of a planter island.
EC:rnlo
Attachrnent
cc:
.
C. Stephen Bucknarn Jr., City Engineer
Torn A. Shahbazi, Associate Civil Engineer
Rarniro S. Gonzalez, Assistant Engineer