HomeMy WebLinkAbout1552
..
RESOLUTION 1552
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 97-009 TO OPERATE A TIJTORING CENTER AT 62-66
W. LAS TUNAS DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1997, applications were filed Little Harvard
Academy to operate a tutoring center, to be located on a C-M zoned property that is
commonly known 62-66 W. Las Tunas Drive, and more particularly described as Lot 69,
Santa Anita Colony.
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on July 22, 1997, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
. Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission fmds:
I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare, or injurious to the, property odmprovements in such zone. or
vicinity because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the
area affected by the proposed project.
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
ArcadiaMunicipal 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 the 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 with 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 58 on.,.site parking spaces in lieu of 146 for
the addition of a tutoring center in the retail development. 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 Ilse approved by this CUP.
5. C.U.P. 97-009 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 July 22, 1997, and the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, KaJemkiarian , Sleeter and
Murphy
NOES: None
2
1552
.
ABSENT: None
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council oithe City of Arcadia
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1997, by the
following vote:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, Murphy
,- ra
Commissioner Bruckner . ~ h~
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
A~:.~
tth~/~~/~v
Secretary, Planning Commission
. City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1!J~f ~
Michael H. Mi er, City Attorney
.
3
1552
July 22, 1997
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner
Conditional Use Permit. No. CUP 97-009
A tutoring center at 62-66 W. Las Tunas Drive
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Grace Tan to operate a tutoring
center at 62-66 Las Tunas Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-009 subject to the conditions that are outlined in
this staff report.
.
GENRRAL INFORMA nON
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
LOT AREA:
. FRONTAGE:
Grace Tan
62-66 W. Las Tunas Drive
A conditional use permit to operate a tutorial center for 80 students
with a related parking modification.
, Approximately 40,150 square feet (:922 acres)
342.83 feet along Las Tunas and 334.69 feet along Live Oak.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
The site is currently developed with a mixed use retail shopping
center, and is zoned CoM.
.
.
.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Developed with offices and a restaurant; zoned COO and C-2
South: Mixed Commercial and Light Industrial; zoned CoM.
East: Mixed commercial and restaurants; zoned CoM.
West: Developed with a Burger King fast food eating establishment; zoned
CoM.
PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a tutoring center for 80
students which would occupy approximately 2,600 square feet within the sites existing
commercial center, as shown on the submitted site plan (copy attached). Business hours
would be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. '
Automobile Parking
The applicant has mdicated that the majority of the students are under 18 years old, and that
they will more than likely be dropped off in the parking lot by their guardians. The facility
has an entrance into the buildfug in the front and. rear. Also, the center will be providing
transportation- to the site.
Access to the on-site parking is from Las Tu,nas Drive and Live Oak Avenue. The site
currently provides for through traffic circulation by the use of two existing driveways, as
shown on the submitted site plan. Instaff's opinion, this through access provides safe on-site
pick-up and drop-off of the students, and a convenient access through the site which
mitigates the possibility of congestion on the public right-of-ways.
Tutoring centers/schools require 1 parking space for each 35 sq.ft. of gross floor area that is
within a non-pennanent seating area (classrooms). WithiJi the proposed tutoring center there
is approximately 1,868 sq.ft. of classroom area, which amounts to a parking requirement of
54 on-site spaces for the school. The existing on-site parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000
sq.ft. of gross floor area for the original retail space results in a net parking space requirement
of41 spaces for the proposed tutoring center.
The site has a total of 58 on~site parking spaces, including two handicap spaces. When the
center was constrUcted, code required 63 parking spaces (based upon general retail uses), a
modification was granted to allow 58 spaces in lieu of the 63 required. This existing amount
of on-site parking does not comply with the current code requirement of 105 spaces, due to
CUP 97-009
July 22, 1997
Page 2
.
.
.
the addition of the non,retail uses in the center (i.e. a medical clinic per MC 91 -084, an eating
establishment per CUP 88-016 and a donut shop per CUP 86-013). With the addition of the
proposed tutoring center the total number of on-site spaces required for the retail center
would be 146.
Staff has made random on-site vehicle counts and noted that approximately 75% of the on-
site parking is available during normal business hours, which indicates that the existing
parking would be sufficient for the proposed tutoring center. In addition, the applicant has
submitted a parking survey which indicates a maximum number of 2 I spaces are used at any
given time. The parking survey was conducted during the proposed hours of operation for a
one week period.
Staff's observations of other tutoring centers within the City supports the applicant's
statement that they do not anticipate a parking burden to the site. Almost all of the students
are dropped-off and picked-up by carpools, private transportation, or walk. The parents
rarely wait in a parking space for the children because the classes are on a strict schedule. A
maximum of 80 students will attend classes during any given session.
ANALYSIS
Uses such as tutoring centers require conditional use pennits, and traffic concerns can be
addressed as part of the consideration of such applications. Generally, staff does not
encourage uses whicli are deficient in parking; however, based upon the applicant's proposal
and the random parking counts by staff and the applicant, it is staff's opinion that the
proposed use is an appropriate addition to the site.
CEOA
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 iIi. any of the physical conditions within the
area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise
and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on
wildlife resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
No.97-009, 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.
CUP 97-009
July 22, 1997
Page 3
.
.
.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department,
3. That the tutoring center provide transportation to the site, as stipulated in the
proposal.
4. ' A modification be granted for 58 on-site parking spaces in lie\! of 146 for the
addition of a tutoring center on the retail development. This parking Modification
does not constitute an approval of a general reduction of the parking requirement for
the entire site, but mther only for the specific use approved by this CUP.
5. That CUP 97-009 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 ofapproval.
6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit
shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation.
EINDINGS AND MOTIONS
A,wroval
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 incoIpomted the Commission's decision, specific findings and
conditions of approval as set forth .inthe staff report, or as modified by the Commission.
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
incoIpomtes 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 Halmin~ki at your earliest convenience.
~:
~~.
Donna 1. Butler -
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, site plan, floor plan, parking survey, and
envirorunental documentation
CUP 97-009
July 22,1997
Page 4
. 8'2 8'Z
90 ...J ~o
0
0
J: 0
OFFICE (.) III
0- r:
W
W.....) ~'~-
.'l4,$.)
90 90
10.04
(j,CI.'ICO
C.'U)
cU.l+
C-o
C-2 a::
II> w
~ a:: I-
ot> ..0 0 Z
,.; . r' u. W
l!.' .;<"l Cl (.)
. Z Cl
..
COCOS RESTAURANT :;: z
a:: E:
<( Q.
Q. 0
J:
0
OFFICE BUILDING
-'o.Go7 (/'u.)
134.44
LAS TUNAS
DR
~
I I GO
(A:;W ('/(121
01 I
21 I ...J
...J I ~
<( Z
I- ~ W
- r Q. a::
0 ~
~ 0 I-
z
"'Iei J: , W
~... ...J ::E
... <( I !:
g, :;;
Z ;:l
. I I 0
<( W
,.&.
U\lE OA~
C-M
/4,.80
A\lE
o
O.
'"
-
'"
....
<'"
90
((PO)
Iii
\:U
a:
(.)
'% ...
to- 0-:
~ (.) ~
(.) a:...
<( 0
:> ~
0-
;:l
!!!.
10.1O!i ~'i
coco9'l
'\ \
II I.
'l.G;rJ.5
90
~ A9JJ1 ...0 l~ l
(8(P~ \
~ (9
30' l \
l l
0 l \
..... ~ l \
4'
.._'.91 7'l)'0-
(8oi'~I' I 0'
/1..'1 .;.' \ X
a: rJl
w \.zffi \
o ~ \~~':.
':;...J \...J 0 '"
4. ~ \:E \~
'::l.
-.)
~
<>
....
C-M
'i?o
90
~. ,,';
e1.I05
.
VICINITY
62-66 W. Las Tunas Dr
CUP 97-009
MAP
A
I NORTH
Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet
~
'I' ':"..7--~~.-~i;;-":';;;':t"c"!M:~",,";j!'.;,).~-;~:..~:e '*;!J.~.-
~ .. :rr~:.};J.. l;:;;t.::~...~~~'/f5;'tl>i: -..J1...>r.;;;.: ~1t~-:,~~::!ii.. 'j;" . 't
.~. ..,"'-"... of...--..t;\.L.ot'...,..:J<:~1;:.l:"-~""-'''~M''J''''': ~~;:!t:'ti
; . .. ........~...../.l.~ .;~"\:"f.'!.J';~r:, .:.~:.~";,,,".4r.:.. '~"1k"-1...~.~-:o.'...
.. .. 0 ~- -. ._,~.,..,.=". ....'1:'=.."""". ,=,,''''
. ~ ;:-:- .~.. ~'. _.~':=--:~'..y~.._.:.~.r.~~~"";""'~*-"~~N..r.;...
-.. .. ..' . , .... J~'lo.~'" ~ <I,~:,.:. 1t.:\:..,..~...~A1~' ..
.. ~~;1:. :~{;~~i;}~}~'o:~~
,.,,;; J":' '~-*';~';....._; 'j
-". ~.... ~ . ":".'" ~. '.
~<'-'-)'.7~.';;~~:!:.:I;.:.".....Oi I
;:'!;?,jf.;.: .0.- :".~~.~~:'" :.~:,.t:,-.~.
- l..........~. . ~yt~~4 '_' J.,',.,. . - "'_' I
':""'''1..- -::-~-.. _,'''' :t 'to /~','~,7". '.
."........ ~!..~. ~ .-';J~' ..c. - :=hi. " .. . ,
:~~~:~Zt~t~~~..1 ~:.l..~~~ ~:: ,:.' :'4
-~"'>t ,...1j:.\:.~?!=" -~ ...':.;.r-,.....,
,i...-:'>' . ..~,.! ...':l!.~...:.~~..
~~~.I',~.... 0 ~::...... B::-€,',~"".-..(.~;- \:- ,.
._, .-' .~t_.-,' :...~:;:~,j~:,~....
'."X~-. ,'-- '.1'i~'" .'l;.....~~ ~,.'" .t.
. ./1t,.:~:C~;{6~~\j~.J:.~~\;:
?j Jl.,t.,," <..,. .", ~.-,
~ c:.~~. -A~..1:,.....''''''-~.''6~ ...:.:.- :,~".
. I'~{~. .-:'~/s:.".- ....,.~.~'. .
i" ~/ .'~ ,\.- :t., "1..-' '-.~
~ y ~ . __-::'::'~~"~"::;' .-....)l; "
. ,"," If' '1.;t~'..-~:. -:.:,'.Q...'
/;.;. : ,. ,.:':ni~l}t;~!
~ . I:.,.. -.' ~ ..,_l,,~ -.
0. .i...; .:-.. 'r.. ~.:....;::..Ji
. ..~tl-.(~i.-~~~!: - ',:~;;;,_::~
'. -
rd - :'-- ~#-7,:~~~.~~:
. .... f."'"
~ ":'
~-
'.
-- -,- - - -,- -,-~"'---_. .-----.
\~.:.~:-.~f(~?~t~~~~:-~: :..~:~ ,'. ;:"II.J~t>i'~~ .
t
l
r
'-
.:..
F.:
c
,
..
..
..
..
if)
-,
".
H"
t .'
,.
I';'.l
."
~ \
0, .
"
II
.
,-
.
.
"
".
< -
,';. .
..~..... " :.'
~~/ J~',:.i.'.
,r-;..,
~~":~'~~'~ .
I ,.'
~..~:(d:l:~
<::J ;~~i
,';,' .
". /....,,- \~
.'.'
:.5.' ,,:
""'-'
'C
(
'w
....1.
0".:..
....
e.
~:.,!..
. .,
,
':
,-
..
:J
.
.:"\-:':';' '.:
.... '- ., . ~
_~.~. ~>.- .0"
a.
,
I
\
!
(.,
:1
r~."
:i {~':"'~
:,.:' ~
,'.
..
o
~
,
N.
Q..
-.
u
..-- _.._-~-
.
.....
.
."- .'"
.....'t .~.;-;-,:.
,-..
~.~~ !:'(...CJ
~~!,!!..''':o .,..._~.
~""1'~
~'-~~'1.
"
_.
,~i~~~~~~.;'.~t;0'
" c: ,.', ';:"._1
~.__. I<;-- .:.' ,,:.:~::-,:B:~~~~~~~":.::,;:~:.i':':~~
~'r-, ~f..4- sA.p~~' ;if;~;i it":' . :: i ,'.\' ,
L...J. At~1' . ';"ij. ~,,"t
fN/j'a ,,;;;"J,J,::"'- {f' ';;",1,
Ztvte - eM. :. .
.~.'- .,..
. -.'
~
i,
'"
"-
0_
)>
\
'..t-.
.,..."
j
..'
SIrE PLAN
6z &."
w.
[.6S
];uA"'S Dr.
jl read;",
EVer f'iyA { fj,t~1":Srs
tH~- 514 - ~D18
. ;
Lot "
S",nt", hilt..
Co 'It.'(
elMs TfJOI>\
, ..
Z'" - 0
f S5Z<f)
..
ClASS rfJO,",
, .,
IIf - O.
1238 'f)
, "
'7 -0
b.'? .C 66
-E~_~ht bderp"'s,s
8/8 -67!/-;ZfJ/S
, "
~I-D
, "
" -D
Live.
Oak Ave
10'-D"
OllD . )
,. .
-0
u). Las 'f..unu Dr.
-l
i
I
, ~'f "'0"
,"-D"
o <271-t)
/?.ceft....~ Ay....
STU'1>y AREA
o
____8
'0
, "
I,t -f)
ClassrfJom.
t3Go" )
, "
.z"-D
cl..t.,..,,,"!-
,a-'-o"
, ..
.ar- 0
(375+)
G&"-~:-~s ~ P-:'AJ'C~;1'
Ittlt 6' $",.t... ,.,,,.-t. C.I."J
i
PARKING tlVEY
. .
LITTLE HARVARD ACADEMY - NEW LOCATION AT 62 & 66 W. LAS TUNAS DR. ARCADIA
90: OOl'am ,10:00 aD 11:00 an 12 :00 pD 1:00 pm 2:00 pm 3:00: pm 4:00 pm 5:00 pm 6:00 pm 7 :00 pm 8:00 pm
6/2/97 MON 15 11 16 18 14 12 17 15 15 17 13 10
6/3/97 TUE 13 12 15 19 17 11 12 16 17 15 18 9
6/4/97 WED 12 13 14 20 18 12 16 16 15 13 14 8
6/5/97 THU 16 15 18 21 17 15 18 20 20 18 20 10
6/6/97 FRI 15 12 15 19 13 14 17 15 17 12 15 7
6/7 /97 SAT 17 15 17 19 21 18 16 14 15 18 18 12
6/8/97 SUN 7 8 8 10 12 10 11 8 8 7 10 8
File No.: CUP 97-009
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 CUP 97-009
A Conditional Use Permitto operate a tutorial school
B. Location of Project:
62-66 W Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Ie
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Little Harvard Academy
103 W Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
626-574-2018
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 measmes, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effectS:
..JJone
.
Date: June 26, 1997
Date Posted: June 26, 1997
BY:~~'
J H"lmm~ki, ASSIstant Planner
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
CUP 97-009
2. Project Address:
62-66 W Las Tunas Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Little Harvard Academy
103 W Las Tunas Drive
. Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-2018
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. HuntingtonDrive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
John Halmin.1ci,.Assistant Planner
(818) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
CoM
.
-1-
File No.; CUP 97-009
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 97-009
.
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.)
Conditional Use Permit to operate, a tutorial center
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:,
(e.g., permits, fmancing, development or partiCipation agreements)
City Building Services 1 City Fire Department
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POlENTIALL Y AFFEClED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise
[ ] Geological Probleins [ ] Public Services
. [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation / Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
~
~2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
..
~
FileNo.: CUP 97-009
DETERMINATION
(To be complelc:dby the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[Xl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[- ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially
Significant Impact" or ."Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to
analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could 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.
U M-. -,;^--
~gnature
June 26' 1997
Dale
John H..lminski
Print N8Ille
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP 97-009
EV ALUA nON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except ''No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by ,the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
fOllowing each question. A ''No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the
one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on. project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e:g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account. of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
related as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from ''Potentially Significant Impact" to a
''Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced).
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 Checklist
7/95
~
.
..
,
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning?
(The proposal is consistent with the. Commercial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which is authorized by Section 926 I.I of the
Zoning Ordinance.)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted 1>Y agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
(The proposed. use will be required to comply with
the, regulations of any other jurisdictional agency
with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the
South Coast Air. Quality Management District.)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity?
(The proposed tutoring center is consistent with the
surrounding land uses,)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
(There are no agricultural resources or operations
in the area,)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
(The proposed tutoring center is consistent with 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 with the
surrounding land uses.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectIy (e.g., through projects in an
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
IncOIporated
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ )
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
hqusing? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Wonld the proposal result in or expose people to
potential.impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? [ ] [ I [ ] [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity of an identified fault.)
b) Seismic ground shaking? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
. (The site for the proposed use is not more
susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any
other site in the area. The proposed use will
occupy an existing building that complies with
current seismic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity of an identified fault or. liquefaction zone.)
d) Landslides or mudflows? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and
not within an inundation area.)
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? [ I [ I [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consi~tent with the =e
designation and general plan.)
t) Subsidence of the land? [ I [ ] [ I [X]
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence.)
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
g) Expansive soils?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to expansion of soils.)
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
(No such features have been identified at the site of
the proposed use.)
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surfaeenmoffl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no
such changes are included in the proposal.)
.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
(The site for the proposed use is not within an
inundation area)
c) Discharge into surfaee waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
(Based on a projectcspecific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect surface waters,)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect any currents or water
movements.)
I.
j
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations
or through substantial loss of ground water
recharge capability?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposalwilI not affect ground waters:)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]'
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
, [ ]
[ )
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available far public water
supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters.)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of the South coaSt Air Quality
Management District.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis the
proposal will not eicpose sensitive receptors to
pollutants.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or
cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific ,screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ]. [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION 1 CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [Xl [ ]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will have minimal increases in trips and
. traffic to the site. Due to the age of the students
and transportation provided by the tutoring center,
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
no such impact will Occur. In addition, a parking
survey indicates that approximately 75% of the on-
site parking spaces are available on a regular
basis.)
b) Hazards to safety from desigu features (e.g" sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e,g., fam equipment)? ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan. The location has not
been identified as hazardous.)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? [ 1 [ ] ( 1 [Xl
(The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
and the proposed use will not inhibit access to
adjacent or nearby uses.)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( .] ( 1 [X] [ ]
(There is adequate on-site parking for both the
, . tenants and guests to serve the proposed use. A
,- parking survey indicates that approximately 75,%
of the on-site spaces are available on a regulllr
basis. In addition, off-site .parking is adequate and
will not be impacted) .
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screeniDg analysis,
there are no existing or potential hazards or
barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.)
1) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? [ ] I ] ( ] IX]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or potential conflicts with
policies supporting alternative transportation,)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fISh,
insects, animals and birds)? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Locally designated species (e,g., heritage trees)? [ ] [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. e) Wildlife dispersal or, migration corridors? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy CODSelVation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(The proposed project is consistent with the zone
designation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
9. HAZARDS
. Would the proposal involve:
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts,involving: Impact InCorporated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ I [ I [ ) [X)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
propo~al will not have any such impacts.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
hcalth hazard? [ ] [ ) [ ) [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? [ ) [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush,.grass or trees? . [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a), Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based oil a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal wiD not have any such impacts.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ], [ ) [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Police protection? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific'screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
e) Other governmental services? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific. screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or
. supplies, or substantial alterations to the followiiJg utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any sucb impacts.)
b) Communications systems? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any s!,ch impacts.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl.
(Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Storm water drainage? [ r [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screeniilg analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts.)
CEQA Checklist
3/96
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
.' Significimt
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorpomted Impact Impact
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific:screening analysis,the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will nothavc any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ,l [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) DistUrb archaeological resources? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
d) have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such Impacts.)
.
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impaclSoinvolving:
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the, project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause atish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to' eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a 'rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis> the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-teno, to the disadvantage of long-tenn,
environmental goals?
(Based on a project-specific screening. analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future project.)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
( ]
( ]
( I
[ ]
( J
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
(X]
[Xl
[X]
(X]
CEQA Checklist
3/96
.
e'
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts;)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
File No.: CUP 97-009
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
'.
No
Impact
CEQA Checklist
3/96
1,
^
L\.
.
.
FileNo. C.UP ~ \ - OO~
CIlY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
JUlte 10, 1 ~97,
General Information
1.
AppJicant's Name:
Li ttle Harv,arC!- 'Acaae,~y.
Address:
103 W. Las Tunas Dr., suite B, Arcadia CA 91007-8513
2. Property Address (Location): 62 & 66 W. Las Tunas Dr. Arcac.lia CA 91007
Assessor's Number:
5788-021-016
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Gr~~p T~n or Cathy Yana A1A-~74-2018
103 W. Las Tunas Dr., SUite B, Arcac.lia, CA 91007-8513
4.
Ustand describe any other related permi~ and other public approvals required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
Conditional use permit and a bus-iness license for a tutorial center
5. Zone Classification: CM
6. General Plan Designation: Rpt.~ i 1 ..nace
Proiect Description
8.
9.
10.
.1.
12.
13.
7.
Proposed use of site (project description):
Tutorial center for 80 students.
Operating hours are 9:00a.m. to ~:OOp.m. Monday t~rough Friday,
and 9:00a~m~ to 6:00p.m. on Saturdays.
Site size:
?~nn ~qn::trp. fl::lop+, nf r~t::a i 1 g.nace.
Square footage per building: 10740 "quare feet of buildinq T-
1812 square feet of building II.
Number of floors of construction: Qne
Amount of off-street parking proVided:
58 parJdng spaces
Proposed scheduling of project
A"~,,C!'" laa7
Anticipated incrementatdevelopment
none
14.
.
15.
."
'0
t
16.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
lfcommercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
This site has 2,600sqft of sales area, and is in a neighborhood
type of commercial district. Hours of op!,!ration will be 9:00a(.'.I11.
~o ~;OO~.rn. Mu11Ja] Ll~Lu6~1~ rriday, aft~ 9.9Q3.m to ~.OOr ~ nn ~~t.
,
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this
and indicate clearly why the application is required:
. ~itr of JrC'aQ~~ 1'"1O.'!n;YI'::H:l ::t ~nnnit:innrtl llRP-' "Permit for all scl1oo1
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).
19.
YES- NO
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
D
~
20. Change in seemc views or vistas from existing residential areas or public D ~
lands or roads.
21. Change in pattern, seale or character of general area of project. D ~
22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. D ~
,-r, D EI
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-2-
.24.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
YES NO
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
o I.il
25.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
o GJ
o ~
o ~.
Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc,).
o CiI
Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
o ~
Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
o GI
Environmental Setting
.1.
32.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants,
animaIs, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential,
commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department
stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach
photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
Certification
-
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements, and information presented. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
,Ipne 5, 1997 A/?~~
Date ... .. . .,%gnature Cd;' '1-<./
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-3-