Loading...
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