HomeMy WebLinkAbout1565
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 1565
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-006 TO OPERATE A TUTORING CENTER 22 W
LIVE OAK AVE.
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1998, applications were filed by Futurelink
Computers, Inc. to operate a tutoring center, to be located on a CoM zoned property that
is commonly known 22 W Live Oak Avenue, and more particularly described as Lot for
Block a Tract 10898 in the City of Arcadia as permit recorded in Book 189 pages 42 and
43 of maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on April 15, 1998, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or illlProvements in such zone or
vicinity because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the
area affected by the proposed proj ect.
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 said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the
Arcadia Municipal Code.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
.
.
.
5. That tile granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with
the General Plan.
6. That the new exterior design elements for the subject building are in
compliance wi~h the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review
Regulations.
7. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the
environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no 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 tutoring center upon the following conditions:
1. Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
2. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Manager.
3. That the tutoring center provide transportation to the site.
4. That a modification be granted for 23 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 94 for
the tutoring center. This parking modification does not constitute an approval of a
general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site, but rather only for the
specific use approved by this CUP.
5. C.U.P. 98-006 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.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use
permit 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 April 15, 1998, and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Sleeter and Murphy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kalemkiarian
2
1565
.
.
.
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.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of April 1998, by the
following vote:
AY1ES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bell
~~;d~~ ~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APfnVED AS T~F01J)~
Michael~r, (Attorney
3
1565
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
April 15, 1998
. "!)."
.'-'
.'
,
,.. .. - .
d ..~. .. .
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner . - ' ,
" .. ..
SUBJECT:
'.Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 98-006"
. A tutoring center at 22. W. Live Oak Avenue
..
SUMMARY
'"
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Futurelink Computer, Inc. to
operate a tutoring centeiat 22 W. Live Oak Avenue. The Development Services Department
is recommending approval of Conditiop.al Use Permit No. 98-006 subject to the conditions
that are outlined in this staff report . .
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Futurelink Computer, Inc.
LOCATION: 22 W. Live Oak Avenue
REQUEST: A conditional use permit to operate a tutorial center for up to 60 students
. ., with a related parking modification.
LOT AREA: Approximately 16,160 squm:e feet.(.37 acres)
FRONTAGE: 80 feet along Live Oak.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is currently developed with a 7,500 sq.ft. office building, and is
zoned C-M.
.
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
'West: ' ,
Mixed commercial; zoned C-M and C-2.
Multiple Family; outside City of Arcadia.
Mixed'oCQmmercial and light industrial; zoned CoM.
Mixed commercial; zoned C-M ' >
PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a tutoring center for up to 60
students (ages of 6 and abovef"The proposed school would occupy a vacant 7,500 sq. ft.
office building, as shown on the submitted site plan (copy attached). Business houls would
be from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Automobile Parking
The applicant has indicated that the majority of the students would be l~s than 18 years old,
and that they will more than likely be ~pped off in the parking lot by their guardians. The
facility has an entrance into the building in the front and rear. Also, the center will be
providing tnmsportation to the site with six (6) vans.
. . .
Access to the on-site parking is from Live Oak Avenue by means of a driveway along the
sites westerly property line. Such access would enable the on-site pick-up and droJKlff of the
students to be within the parking area to the rear of the subject building, which should
mitigate the possibility of congestion on the public right-of-ways.
Tutoring centers/schools require I parking space for each 35 sq.ft. of gross floor area that is
within a non-permanent seating ar~. Within the proposed tutoring center there is
approximately 3,275 sq.ft. of seating area (classroom space), which amounts to a parking
requirement of 94 on-site spaces for the proposed use. The existing'on-site parking ratio of 3
spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area for the pre-existing space results in a net parking
space requirement of 71 spaces for the proposed tutoring center
The site has a total of 23 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a parking
survey based on estimates, and a parking survey based on an existing location outside of the
City to indicate the maximum number of on-site spaces that they may use could vary from
11 to 18 spaces (see attached surveys). The surveys do not include the on-site parking of the
school vans; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant utilize the open area that is
directly behind the building (as shown on attached exhibit U A") to provide parking for such
vans.
CUP 98-006
April 15, 1998
Page 2
.
.
.
Staff's observations of other tutoring centers support the applicant's parlcing survey i.e.,
almost all of the students' that attend tutoring centers are dropped-off and picked-up by
carpools, private transportation, or walk. In addition, the proposed class schedule (copy
attached) shows that a maximum of 12 adult'students would be in attendance. Staff believes
that such' Ii. limited adult class schedule will also reduce the demand for parlcing.
ANALYSIS
Uses such as tutoring centerqequ1re conditional use pemiits, and traffic concerns can be
addressed as part of the consideration of such applications. Generally, staff does not
encourage uses, which are deficient in parking; however, based upon the applicanfs
proposal; it is staff opinion that the proposed use would be appropriate for the site.
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 adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the
area affected by the piOject including limd, '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.
,
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
No.98-006, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete
satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department.
3. That the tutoring center provide transportiltion..to the site, as stipulated in the
proposal.
4. A modification be granted for 23 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 94 for the
tutoring center. This parking Modification does not constitute an approval of a
general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire site, but rather only for
the specific use approved by this CUP.
5. ,That the parking area shall be're-surfaced and re-striped per City standards.
CUP 98-{)06
April 15. 1998
Page 3
.
.
.
~:.t
6. Provide on-site van parking subject to the review an.approval of Planning Services.
7. That CUP 98-006 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.
8. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds fo;i.ts immediate suspension or revocation.
,
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
:-,.
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should move to approve and file the ;Negative Declaration and direct staff to
prepare a resolution which incorporated the Commission's decision, specific findings and
conditions of approval as set forth in the staff J'!lPOrt, or as modified by the Con1mission.
,
,
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the
Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare 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 John Halminski at your earliest convenience.
By:
onna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, site plan, floor plan, business proposal,
environmental information, and parking surveys
CUP 98-C06
April 15, 1998
Page 4
.
.
. .3
o
..,
.0
<S
t<l
. 'NIIXED RETAIL
'.
'.
IG'~J
(3~) (
Z.I.Z,/
"14'(2) '.
. 0 I . . 308.74.- 2,r-'lZ)
E LAS 7"U' '
) NJlS OR .
p'7J
(J)
10'2.'2'
L\~E OAK AVE._.
80.1~
(1.{j) .
,~
00.\4
(3(,)
(jO'
C> ':r.
wi Q. ~ ~
~. 0 ~
.., 4,. ':r. .... ~
--: III .... '"
<> on "! ;..I '" 4-
0 0 C'O b ~
... .... 0
5 ,.; 00 0
., ~ .... bi
0 ~
-~m. EO ~ 0
. . 0 '0
'''~'' .~ to- 4-
.'. ' a 0
.1."5
&0
30 '30' 60
0.5\
-
...
'oJ",
00
;s
....
"
-
"
...
"
w
>
ct
~
-.. Z
Yt-ct
o 'PHARMAC .-:
t"I- .... ~
- ~ ~ I-'
" C'" Z
~9.q3 . ct'
en
150.11
(DJ
T8.'l1
':1
.',
-
o
q,
.'
LAND USE AND ZONING MAP
22 W LIVE OAK AVE t NORTH
CUP 98-006 Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
.}
.
/f'.-
....a- '.Ii
I :~i
u \l'
-.-- I~
I -". ~
~---' ?5
I I j;
I f/(.
! 1 ,_. ~I
-' .. ~.
~ - I ' -
t1 '10'-<,' ( "u-~ ~
I
\
II
401_0"
f
:z~~II':l:
~yt;..w-l
cf-
/ / .' / .
/ .,/ .
, , ,-
, .~ . .
. 2t'J.l&e,( LIVE- ~
.~~ .
...
, .
"
.
,/ "
, , ,/
;' ,..' ..1"" .'
Z.
0-
Ilbl-oll
'001-01 1 tzr)- c,d
-1"
'2.7b-O':!-
_,~_.L.T ..4::1-.... J~_l- ~~----------_._----=
-'~,.<l-U;;-: I '" ~I_:;'" _.....__.___'.....__oon.__.___..' on__..'.
,
o
tr:1
~
......
OJ
......
~
~
:>
~
~
liTE- jOL-fN
/
..'
...
,/ ,
, /
.-
c?WNe~~ yvlt-JG L.U 1-.1& C4GIJ
..-,.!.....' ....
:.. ...... .' '.
. . "
,". .........
: '.'
et:
LJ.-
.~~~
'..
'-' ,
'~l
.
.
.-' f
/ ~
,.
! I)j I
.f-~"
I
~.-
- ..,..,....: ...,......'1. ...;
! 1
1- '
lll,' ~;
:{ _II
'3. ~
QI ~!
.' / f"il ;
." ~' !
. . /' ,. i
, .
.-.\,...
, ;
. ,
-o....-re:-
~L-er
.
.
.
/ ,.......,.>>r
I
!
:- ./'
..
/
t:>U IL:OIN60
~~~;91~~P' grStJ
.-
.-
('
J.
-4
..I
~I
"
~I
1
I
l:
. \':.
'~);'
,
if'
; .
('
.,'
"
~:
"
1
"
[:;'I_~V A'-~f2e.:rI-U
-e.:;Al..6'- ~ · -.t?
, , "'LJ~~\ YlAtJ60 l.LI~6<
e: L-e v.ATIc? I.l &Hen.! ~:)-~.~
<at1~1 E"" 'b~"1-~
. ','; .'. -. .', ~ . _.:.... -' :. .
. .' ~ ' . .' . .
.::;- .... ..', .~:....,.-., .... . .
.
.
~ , f
,
,
llb'."'~. ...
~1_0'1I
~
. bO'.oft
~~I-\(t1"ll'cfo)
l.. dE""
JlI11'+IsJ i' 'P,foJ'l-l6-
,~.~ .J i I j_'" "_'.t.
(eqp.pl 'Co'){'e>' ~~"-r-
I
~
. ,
...
'"
a....:3~1A(...<1q.p)
),- .
i .~
,..
-,~
I
'-la
...
t (fl.'"
--^-
C<'I"-f'.IPO", (ql. ",I e\..E-,&/V
(~
il
,
O~I"<'<?'" (4ZD<l>)
2b X I;;
.
.../, '7
,~-(?,P .f.
~
':-
,
..J ..Ie>!.-",'.) 1'-1l"
~(tD+<t>
1-.
,
-f
~
W~I"'"
~,......
~. ~
I
';'f
18-0'
11'-",'
2ei-"Q
{
-j
1.
\
.
FLOOR. pLAN ~ '2.2 lJ. LIVE; CIA\!.. AV'f:;
CIT.... CF /lI'4'\D1;I
..
.
1
I
Is '-17'
~_L:S.""-o" _~_.. ..I'2.'-eJ
t, .
{~.C)..
;-
101..C'1
I
-Q
,
~
J'
14"1"'"", I'M
t~<l'J ':2')cb'
-'1<'"
~[,~~j
11>1<14
.."
,-
uT-'I~~
~..~ J
(z/Q+J -,..
/l1,.;( ,t>'
.
~~
OVo ~)
-',
~,..1
(~+)' '^'>:.'~
{.-- ~
alrr<r L,.
~ (!:Up.j-) ;
20';( Ib' j
~
1
c LAsSF:..fI/
. 1:;'0:>/5'
( 3 9. .. )
. I
i
~
,
~
c.l.,6def'A"IA (4ttboP)
It/'J< fQ'
[
-'--. -
eL/'I.i
,
~wv.e~.t
"
.
ID
L: (JII.ARY- (~-tl
(elx IZ
'7'-u' ,f Ib" (/' .:- Ib'- 13.'
~:,AII~/I<E' s,.",qXQ-"b'uolLeee "'J1-'E'1"l-I16& ~
-:
..--
owtJ~, Yi..ING U1"lG- uH~
1~':;-?''12> ~
. ~ I'-~'-"" \.J
__..-1.___,
.. : ~~'.' . .
. . ....-..:.:..:' .."..
..--.... ..
.....:- .":," .:.;,-..
"
.
.
.
..':-:':\
~-'::;,:';'!
- -.
r :'" "
.... ,':'
Futurelink Computer, Inc.
5616 Rosemead Blvd.
Temple City, CA 91780
(626) 2862831 .
.
.
'.'.
Business Proposal
,~
. -:.... -
.
.'
':.~i1;'~ ~
...t..~P:~ t""~""'
J.~., ~.;, ~~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
---~
.} L-.
'..,-;;...;::....
- - I~.
A~~r~1,
. , ~ -
'.-
.'
,-
.:':.r
~-.[-
.
.
'.
.~
'.
"
.
.;"7'-
,. ,
\.:.:>'
~
. m~~~'oS~frte!~rA1j(jress1.~~~~~rW~1"{~~~.
22 W. Live Oak Ave. Arcadia
(Floor plan, site plan and radius map are attached .)
'.
'.
~~>%Wfi~t~eYWe"fdorrf~'?l.t~j;i"t~~~~~
~ 1:.:_z._ oil" .._~ ,--~.....~,_.19~ . -, !I1..r:~. .- -- . , l\:.
Futurelink combines three departments to serve the customers.
.
. Computer consulting
Futurelink is the dealer of several accounting software, we sell
accounting software to the business, and serve as a consultant
of their accounting System. Also, setting up the office network
computer system is another main business of the company.
.
Computer Training Program
Futurelink operates short term computer training programs
which is supervised by California Educational Code of 94831,
We offer software training for adults. In the summer we also
offer classes for the kids.
. After school tutoring program
For the students aged from 6 to 14, we offer after school
homework and other academic tutoring classes. Chinese and
computer lessons are parts of after school program,
.,
.
.
.
.
"
~
I~.?~~)
r.o
~. '.:'.:
_QWi!tQ.lW~p]1ffi_
All the rooms in this building will be used as :
1. Offices, 2. Computer classrooms, 3. Tutoring classrooms,
4. Meeting rooms.
According to the operation'nf this business since 1993 till nowin Temple
City, the daily sum, of our customers are about like this:
I). 4 to 12 students in the morning. 10:00 - 12:00. two days or four days a week. ( Adults )
'.. ... .. ~ :", '.. ~ .~. .',- "..:.- .,."5- .
2). 4 to 12 students in the evening, 7:00 - 9:00, two days or four days a week. (Adults )
3). 40 to 60 students in the afternoon, 3:00 - 6:00, Monday through Friday. (Kids)
4).4 toU students in the morning, 9:00- 12:00, Saturday. (Adults)
12 to 20 students in the moming, 9:00 - 12:00, Saturday. (Kids)
5). Opening time:
9:30 AM to 9:30 PM Monday through Saturday.
The business is closed on.8Unday.
Most customers come to Futurelink for learning computer skills or homework,
academic tutoring. For the after sc)1001 program, we have 6 school vans
picking up students from different schools then drop them off at the proposed
site. Software consulting are usually held on customer's site.
,~-,..",,~~::::\.'lI:~--' -.-,-.-- r"~__'_ -.. ~- ----.-~.... - -.-.o;r:.~-"""'''~_~'''''''''r-.__~J.~ ....--~'IT'~....._-_
':''''':'''(.;';''~Em'''.'-'Io"'y'~m'''e'' "n't' sh"Jft? . ":;':'. /"'- :",~~"",;!;"":.;,-lf"l<,,"',:.j.,:,J' "");:"-",,,,,;"';'W"~f"~G' '." ."".
~~l~?Y~J~~ ~..w~_P....,..,. ~",_"_<O'~"v, ... :,~..~:':~]\e}/f.:P~~~l:c~~?r.''':~2"~~l{ffU;\1.~~~~~;~1..e~~i7;ke.;~:
We have 6 full time employees. The other 5 part time employees are all
teachers who work in afternoon daily from 3:00 to 6:00, Monday through
Friday.
'. . ,~
.
'-:--".
,.
.. .'
Parking Survey
.-
t,:,....
Location: 5616 Rosemead Blvd., Temple City
Date: March 2-6, 1998
The survey made on March 2-6, 1998 bySu Ling Chen
presents the regula.r'-b.ilsiness, parking sitl!ation of applicant.
9:30AM 12:00PM 2:00PM 3:00PM 6:30PM
I I I I I
12:00PM 2:00PM . -3:00PM 6:30PM
9:30PM
March 2 10 4 1 1 10
- . . - -
- -
Monday - (Cars) (Cars) . (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
March 3 4 3 2 2 7
Tuesday . (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) . (Cars) . (Cars)
,
March 4 11 4 2 1 11
Wednesday (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
March 5 4 4 1 2 7
Thursday (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
March 6 9 3 1 1 2
Friday (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
March 7 5 3 2 1 2
Saturday (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Sunday CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED
.
.
Applicant: Futurelmk Computer, Inc.
Survey by: Su Ling Chen
,
-:-7-'_
I,'" .
..-.
" ....-.
.
Parking Estimation
22 W. Live Oak Ave. City of Arcadia
*** There are 2.3 parking spac,~s in ~hi.s proper~. The applicant-
Futurelink Computer, Inc. is'the only business who use this building
and parking lot. -'" -. .:-'
*** For the after school program, there are 6 school vans going to
different schools picking up students then drop them offhere, but there
are only 4 vans need to be parked in the p,arking lot. --'-
.
9:30AM 12:00PM 2:00PM 3:00PM 6:30PM
I I I I I
12:00PM 2:00PM 3:00PM 6:30PM 9:30PM
Monday 6 -18 4-6 2-4 5 -11 2-12
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Tuesday 6-18 4-6 2-4 5-11 2-12
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Wednesday 6 -18 4-6 2-4 5 -11 2 -12
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Thursday 6 -18 4-6 2-4 5 -11 2-12
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Friday 6 -18 4-6 2-4 5 -11 2-12
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Saturday 3 -12 3 -12 2-12 2 -12 2-4
(Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars) (Cars)
Sunday CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED
.
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-00(,
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGA'P.NE DECLARATION
A Title and Description of Project:
CUP 98-006
A proposed conditional use permit to operate a computer training center.
B. Location of Project:
22 W. Live Oak Avenue .'
Arcadia, CA 91007
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Futurelink Computer, Ine
5616 Rosemead Blvd
Temple City, CA 91780
D, Finding:
This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning
of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of1970 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: March 18, 1998
Date Posted: March 19,1998
BY:&~'
)6hn Halminski, Assistant Planner
File No.: CUP 98.o0G
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNlAENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
,
'. .
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-006
2. Project Address:
22 W. Live Oak Ave
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Futurelink Compter, Inc.
5616 Rosemead Blvd
. Temple City, CA.91780
(626) 286-2831
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
John Halminski, Assistant Planner
(626) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C-M CommerciallManufacturing
.
-1-
CEQA Checldisl
7/95
File No.: CUP 98-ooG
.
8. Description of Project:
(Desaibe the whole sellon involved, including but not limited to later phases of the PIllject and any seoondaJ)'.
support, or off-she features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
A Conditional Use Permit to operate a computer training center.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: .
(e.g., permits, financing, development or participation agreements)
'. ,
City Building Services I City Fire"Department
ENVIRONMENTALF ACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFEClED:
Tbe environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentia:1ly Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages. .
[ ] Land Use & Planning , [ ) Hazards
[ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise
[ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services
( J Water ( ] Utilities and Service Systems
. [ ) Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
( ] Transportation I Circulation . ( ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ J Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
.
.2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 98-006
DETERMlNA TION
(To be cOIrqllcted by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ..
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
imd an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
but that at least one effect has been adequately !Ulalyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on that earlier analysis as descn'bed on attached sheets, and if any
remaining effect is a "Potentially SignificantImpact" or "Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it only needs to analyze the ~ects that have Dot 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 mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
M/~'
yguarure
March 23,1998
Date
John Halminski
Print Name
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Cbcck1is1
7/95
file No.: CUP 98-006
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
. 1. A brief explanation, is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A ''No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project
is not within a fault rupture zone). A ''No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a p~ect-specific screening analysis).. . .
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as
operational impacts. ....
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate i,f there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entrieS when the
determination is,made, an Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect'from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17
"Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenCed).
.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where,"pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact
Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at
the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously-.
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
.
-4-
CEQA Chec:klist
7/95
. Would lhe proposal result In
potential impacts invohing:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would.lhe proposal:
a) Conflict wilh genernl plan designation!; ~r zoning?
(The proposal is consistent wilh the Commercial
designation in lhe Genernl Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 9265.1. of the
Zoning Ordinance.)
b) Conflict \'lith applicable environmenl3l plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
(The proposed use will be required to comply wilh
the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency
with applicable environmenl3l plans. . E.g., the
South Coast Air Quality Management District:)'
.
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed tutoring center is consistent wilh the
swrollllding land uses.)
d) Affect agriaJItura1'resourc::es or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farm!""".. or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
(There are no agricultural resources or oper.mons in
the area)
e) Disrupt or dhide the physical arrangement of an
established community ('mcluding a low-income or
minority community)?
(The proposed tutoring center is consistent wilh the
swrounding,land uses.)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
(The proposed tutoring center is consistent wilh lhe
surrollllqing land uses.)
.
b) Induce substantial growlh in an area eilher direct1)"
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
Potentially
Significant
Impact
" -"
[ I
[ J
[ J
[ J
[ J
[ J
File No.: CUP 98-006
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
IncolpOraled
(J
[ J
[ J
[ J
[ J
[ J
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
[ J
[ J
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
II
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checl:lisl
3/96
Filc No.: CUP 98~O6
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
. Would the proposal resuJl in Significant Mitigation Significant No
pOlmtial,impacts,involving: Impact InCOIpOrated Impact Impact
undeveloped area or C\.1ension of major
infrastructure)? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
'.,
c) Displace existing housing, especially' affordable
housing? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts invoJving:
a) FlII1!t rupture? [ J C ] [ J [Xl
(The site for the, proposed use is Dot within the
vicinity of an identified fault)
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ J [ J [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is Itot more
. suscoptible to seismic ground shaking than any
othl2' site in the area. The proposed use will
occupy an Cldsting building that complies with
com:nt seismic standards,)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is Dot within the
vlcini~' of anidentifiedfauh or liquefaction zone.)
d) Landslides or mudflows? [ J [ ] [ ] [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is on tIat land, and
Dot within an inundation area)
e) ErOsion, cbanges in topogrophy or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, gJading, or fill? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general p1an.)
f) Subsidence oftheJand? I] I I [ ] [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence.)
.
CEQA Checklisl
3/96
FDe No.: CUP 98-006
Potentially
t Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal resull in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts invohing: Impact IncolpOrated Impact Impact
g) Expansive soDs? [ ] [ ] [ I IAl
(Th,e site for the proposed use is not in an area
subJed to e>panSion of soDs.)
, [ ] [ I
h) Unique geologic or physical features?'. . [ ] (Xl
(No sucb features have been identified aI the site of
the proposed use.)
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absmption Iales, drninage patterns, or
the rate and 'amount of swface nmofi? [ ] [ ] [ I (Xl
(Based on a project-specific saeeoing analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposal)
b) Exposure of people or property to water. related
hazMds such astlooding? [ ] [ ] [ ) (Xl
. (The site for lhe proposed use is not wl1hin an
inundation area) .
c) Disc:haIge into surface \\'3ters or other alteration of
. surface waler qualily (e.g., tempenlture, dissolved
oxygen, or tmbidity)? [ I [ ] [ ] (Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affed surface waters.)
d) Changes in the l\Il1Oun! of surface \\'3ler in any
waler body? [ I [ I I ] (Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
e) c:mnges in currents, or lhe comse-or direction of
Waler movements? I ] [ ] [ ] (Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not aired any cmrents or waler
movements.)
f) Change in the quanti!). of ground \\'alers, either
through direct additions or withdIawals, or through
inten:eption of lIII)' aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of ground waler
redtarge capability? [ ] [ ] [ I (Xl
(Based on a projec;-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will DOl affect ground walers.)
CEQA Cheti:lisl
3196
File No.: CUP 98-006
Potentially
Significanl
~ POlentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal resull in Significant Mitigalion Significant No
potential impacts invohiog: - Impact lnCOlpOllIted Impact Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI
(Based on a projecl-specific saeening analysis, ihe
proposal will not affect ground walers.)
h) Impacts to ground waler quaUty? , I ] [ ] I J [>,,1
(Based on aproject-specificsaeening'aMIysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
5, AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quaUty standard or conbibute'to an
Cldsting or. projected air quality vioIalion? I ] I ] I ] !Xl
(The proposed use will be required to comply with
. the regulations of the South Coast Air ,Quality
Management District.)
b) Expose seusitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] I ] ,[ J [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
proposal will not expose sensitive reaplOrs to
pollutants.)
c) Alter air mo\'ement, moisture, or tempcrnture or
cause an}' cIlange in cIimaIe? [ J I J I J [>,,1
(Based on a projecl-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Crea1e objectionable odors? [ J I ] I J [XI
(Based on a projecl-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION I CffiCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ J [ I [XI I]
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will have minimal increases in trips and
traffic to the site. Due to the age of the stwlents
. and tr.msponationprovided by the tutormg center,
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
pOlenliaI impacts invohing:
no such impact will occur. In addition, a parking
survey based on estimates indicales tha1
approximately 65% of the on-slte parking spaces
are available on a regu1ar basis.)
,
, .
b) Hazards to safety from design featureS (e.g~ sbmp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., fann equipment)?
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan. The location has not
been ideolified as hazardous.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nemby
uses?
(The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
and the proposed use wiD not inhibit access to
adjacent ornemby uses.)
d) Insufficientparidng capacity on-site or off-site?
(There is adequate on-site parking for both the
tenants and guests to serve the proposed use. A
paIking survey based on estimates indicateS tha1
approximately 65% of the on-site SPi!ces are
available on a regu1ar basis. In addition, off-site
parking is adequate amfwill not be impacted.)
e) Hazards or barriers forpedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis,
there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers
to pedestrians or bicyc1ists;)
1) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
allemative transpoI1alion (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis,
there are no existing or potential conflicts with
policies supporting allemative nansponation.)
g) Rail, ;..aterbome or air traffic impacts?
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts:)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in'impacts to:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98.006
Potentially
Significant
'Unless
Mitigation
IncolJ>orated
.,...
.[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
l.l
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[ ]
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 9S-Q06
Potentiall)'
Significanl
Potentially Unless Less Than
. Would the proposal resull in Significant Mitigation Significanl No
polential impacts invoh-ing: lrnpact lncOIpornled Impact lrnpact
a) Endangered, threalened or rare species or their
habitats [meluding but nol limited to plan15, fish,
insects, animals and birds)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific saeening anaI)-siS, the
proposal will nol have any such impaCl\!i:)
b) Locally designated species (e.g" heritage trees)? [ ] ., [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.. ,
c) Loc:ally designated natmal communities (e.g~ oak
forest, coasta1 habitat, etc.)? [ ] I ] [ I IXl
(Based on a project-specifie saeening analYsis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Wetland habitat (e,g., marsh, riparian and vema!
pool)? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific s=eoing anaI~, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) WIldlife dispeJS3! or migration coIridolS? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
. (Based on a projec:t-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)'
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would theproposa1:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? I ] I ] [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation, and genernlplan.)
b) Use non-renewable reso= in a wastcfu1 and
inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific sacening analysis, the
proposal will nol have any such impacts.)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource thaI would be of fu1ure value to
the region and the residents of the Stale? [ ] [ ] I] IXl
(Based on a project-specific scn=ing analysis, the
proposal will nol have an)' such impacts.)
.
CEQA Chec:klist
3/96
Filc No.: CUP 98-006
POlentially
Significant
. POlentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact InCOlplll'3ted Impact Impact
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidentll e.plosion w: '~ease of
ha2aJdous suI>s1ances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals ormdiation)? I] I] I ] [>q
(Based on a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. ,b) Possible intClfcrmce ~th an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ 1. " [ ] [ ] IX]
(Based on a project~ecific s=ening analysis, the
proposal will Dot have any such impacts.)
c) The aeatinn of any health hazanI or potential
health ha2aJd? I ] [ ] [ ] IX]
(Based on a project~ecific saeeoing analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
,
. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? . I] I ] I] IX]
(Based on a project~ecific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) lnaeased fire ha2aJd In areas with f1.mm.hle
brush, grass or trees? I) I I I ] IX]
(Based on a project~ecific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? I ] [ ] [ ] IX]
(Based on a project~ecific saeening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? I ] I ) [ ) IX]
(Based on aproject~ecific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
.
CEQA Ched:list
3/96
',;,... ,
File No.: CUP 98..()()6
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the propOsal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts Involving: Impact lncoIporntcd Impact Impact
e) Stonn water drainage? [ J [ ] [ ] pq
(Based 011 a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
,
f) Solid waste disposal? '. . [ J [ ] [ ] pq
(Based 011 a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal Will not have any such impacts.)
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(Based 011 a project-specific saeening analysis, the
proposal Will not have any such impacts.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based 011 a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.) ,
. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ J [Xl
(Based DIla project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal Will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ J [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Distmb paleontological resources? [ J [ I [ J [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Distmb archaeological resources? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nol have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ J [ ] [Xl
(Based ~n a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will Dot have any such impacts.)
. d) have the potential to cause ~ physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ J [ ] [Xl
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal resuIl in
pOlential impacts Involving:
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nol have any such impacts.) .
e) Resttict existing religious or sacred uses within the
polential impact area? ,
(Based on a project-specific sacening ~ysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighbmbood or regional
p3lks or other rec:Ralional facilities?
(Based on a project-specific sacening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Affect existing rec:reational opportunities?
(Based on a project-specific screening analySis, the
proposal will nothave any such impacts.)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)' Does the project have the potential Ul degrade the
quality of the environment, sub......ri.lly reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to ..Jimin.te a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rnre or endangered plant or animal or p!;min.te
important examples of the major periodS of
California bistOI)' or prebistOI)'?
(Based on a project-specific sacening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impaclS.)
b) Does the project have the potential Ulachieve
short-Ierm. Ul the disadvantage of long-term.
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specificsacening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacls.)
c) Does the project have impacls tba1 are indhidually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(uCumuIativeJy cousiderablen means tba1 the
ina-emeritaI effects of a project are considerable
when ,iewed in connection with the effects of past
POlentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
I ]
File No.: CUP 98'{)06
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
InC01po13led
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
IXI
[Xl
[Xl
IXI
IXI
CEQA Chec:klisl
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal resull in
potential impacts involving:
projects, the effects of olher =t projects, and
the effects ofprobabJe future projecl)
(Based on a projeCl-spec:ific sa-eening,analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
'.
,
d) Does the project have environmenlaJ effects which
will cause substantial advClSe effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Based on a project-spec:ific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additicmal documents were referenced pursuant to
Ibe tiering, program EIR, or olber CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from Ibe proposal.
PotcntiaJIy
Significant
Impact
I]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 98-<106
POlentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incolporated
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
pq
[Xl
CEQA Cbec:kJist
3/96
..
-...
,
File No. ~ti 1> '1' 8- ocJ.&J
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIAt CA 92007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
MARCH 5, 1998
General Information
1, Applicant's Name: FUTURELINIt <90MPUTER, INC.
Address: 5616 'ROSEMEAD'BLVD., TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
2. Property,Address{LofRtion): 22 W.'LIVE OAK AVE., ARCADIA, CA 91007
Assessor's Number:
8573-019-016
3, Name, address and telephone number of pers~n to be contacted concerning this project:
SU LING CHEN OR YUNG LUNG CHEN (626) 2862831
56i6'ROSEMEAD-BLVD.; -TEMP:LE CITY, CA 91780
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
, '
.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A BUSINESS LIGENSE
5. Zone Oassification: CM
6. General Plan Designation: COMMERCIAL
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): 1. COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONSULTING OFFICE
2.COMPUTER INSTITUTE 3. TUTORING CENTER
.8. Site size: 7500 SOUARE FEET
9. Square footage per building: 7500 square feet
10. Number of floors of construction: ONE
... Amount of off-street parking provided:
2~ PARKING SPACES
12, Proposed scheduling of project: M~.Y. 1 gJP,
13. Anticipated incremental development: NONE
......
---
14.
If residential, include the number of units,schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
.'_c,'~
'"
.
.. . ~ "
.-
N/A
. . . . .... - .. . .~:. .. . . .- . .
15, If commercial, indicate. the tYpe; i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
THE SITE IS IN A CM ZONE AREA AND THE AREA IS A COMBERCIAL TYPE OF
, . ;;
NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE' NO'. SALES "AREA OR' LOADING F~CILITIES NEEDED.
THE OPERATING HOURS ARE 9:30 am-9:30pm, MONDAY'.;'THROUGH FRIDAY.
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
. . N1A
17. If institutional, indicate the major 'function, estimated employment per shift,. estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project
FOR CONSULTING BUSINESS, WE GO OUTSIDE TO DO ON-SITE SERVICE. FOR THE
COMPUTER" CLASS, MAXIMUM ARE i 6 STUDENTS. MAXIMUM DROP OFF OF 100 STUDENT.;
~ IN THE AFTERNOON. THERE ARE 6 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES HANDLE THIS EDUCATIONAL
~ If the project involves a variance, cOl\ditional use permit or zoning application, state this )
. and indicate clearly why the application is required: < (...oYlftl'\.l.(e> ~
INSTITUTE WHICH WILL OFFER MUCH LEARNING BENEFIT FOR BOTH ADULT AND
CHILDREN. ~ CITY 'OF ARCADIA-R~QUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALL SCHOOL TYPE OF FACILITIES.
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes
(attach additional sheets as necessary).
YES NQ
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 Ii]
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
o ~
o [&)
o lQ
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
. Change in dust, ash, smoket fumes or odors in vicinity.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
,
,.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
so.
"
...........
-....
,!
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
o
Is site on filled land or on any slopes oflO percent or more.
'1.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or e>..-plosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
o
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (elecbicity, oil, natural gas,
. '
*t .
o
Relationship to a larger project or series 'of projects.
o
Environmental Sellin!!:
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q1
'.
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.
32 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 (residentialt
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 factst
statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signa{:: -/y (~
\1'1.:; ...d~'1
Date
-
::l )
tq'1 'g-
t
.~
E.1.R,
3/95