Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1533 . RESOLUTION 1533 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-001 FORA MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO AT 921 S BALDWIN AVENUE WHEREAS, on February 15, 1996, a Conditional Use Permit application was tiled by Delon Tan to operate a proposed 1,500 sq.ft., martial arts studio, Development Services Department Case No, C.U.P. 96-001, at property commonly known 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Portions of Lot 24, Tract 24 No. 2731, and of Santa Anita Rancho, Arcadia, CA recorded in Map Book 5783, page 13, Parcel No. 5783-013-068. WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on March 26, 1996, 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 I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: I. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use 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. 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. 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 for the operation of a 1,500 sq.ft., martial arts studio at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue upon the following conditions: I. Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete satisfaction of the Building Section. 2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. A Modification be granted for 50 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 103, and that this approval shall not constitute an approval for the general reduction in parking for the total site. That this parking modification shall only be for the use approved by CUP 96-001 (a martial arts studio). 4. The operator of the martial arts studio shaH encourage the dropping off of students in the rear parking lot and there shall be no drop off along Baldwin Avenue. 5. C.U.P. 96-001 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 March 26, 1996, and the following vote: 2 1'533 . . . Commissioner's Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter, and Daggett. NOES: None ABSENT: None AYES: SECTION S. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of April 1996. by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Bell, Huang, Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter, and Daggett None Kalemkiarian NOES: ABSENT: Chairman, Planning . ssion City of Arcadia ATTEST: 4n~~ .;/ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ?2:!1iCi~ 3 1533 '.. STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 4 March 26, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members, of the Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner .:..oA SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 96-001 A martial arts studio at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue SUMMARY . This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Delon Tan to operate a martial arts studio at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-001 subject to the conditions that are outlined in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANl: Delon Tan LOCATION: 921 S. Baldwin Avenue REQUEST: A conditional use permit to operate a proposed martial arts studio with a related parking modification. LOT AREA: Approximately 31,100 square feet FRONTAGE: 171 feet on Baldwin A venue and 122 feet along Fairview Ave. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is currently developed with a retail shopping center and is zoned C-2. Three restaurants (two take-out and one sit down), a dentist and jeweler are the current businesses at the shopping center. All three restaurants contain minimal tables and are in operation with approved conditional use permits. . . . . . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Color Tile, OD's Cafe(under construction), and mixed commercial; zonedC-2. South: 7 Eleven, Mexican restaurant and mixed commercial; zoned C-2. East: Mixed commercial and restaurants; zoned C-2. West: Multiple Family Residential; zoned R-3. PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a martial arts studio which would occupy a retail space of approximately 2,200 square feet within the existing sl;1opping center, as shown on the submitted site plan (copy attached). Business hours would be from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 .p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. . Automobile Parkins: Access to the on-site parking is from both Baldwin Avenue and Fairview Avenue which provides for through traffic circulation on the site. This through access would enable the on-site pick-up and drop-off of the younger students in a safe fashion, and provides a means for convenient access through the site that mitigates the possibility of congestion on the public right-of-ways. The applicant has indicated that the majority of the students are 15 years old (90% of the students), and that they will more than likely be dropped off in the parking lot adjacent to the building by their guardians. Also, a number of the students will be commuting on foot and bicycles. Martial arts studios require 1 parking space for each 35 sq.ft. of gross floor area that is within a practice area andlor non-permanent seating area. Within the proposed martial arts studio there is approximately 1,500 sq.ft. of practice area, which amounts to a parking requirement of 43 on-site spaces for the studio. The existing on-site parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross retail floor area results in a net parking space requirement of 32 spaces for the proposed. martial arts studio. There are a total of 50 on-site parking spaces,. including two handicap spaces. The existing 9,998 sq.ft. commercial building was originally built as a retail center with a parking ratio of 5 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor area that totals 50 required spaces. This existing amount of on-site parking does not comply with the current code requirement of71 spaces, due to the addition of the non-retail uses in the center (i.e., two take-out restaurants, dentist, and a sit down restaurant). Concurrent with the approved restaurant uses there were three parking modifications and a parking modification for the dentist. With the addition of the proposed martial arts studio the total number of on-site spaces required for the retail center would be 103. CUP 96-00 I March 26, 1996 Page 2 . . Staff has made random on-site vehicle counts and noted that approximately 70% of the on-site parking is available normal business hours, which indicates that the existing parking would be sufficient for the proposed martial arts studio. The Development Services Department has not received any complaints by the current tenants regarding the parking situation. In addition. staff believes the current code requirement of I space per 35 sq. ft. of gross floor area within a practice area and/or non-seating area was meant for large gatherings (i.e., churches, banquets, and community buildings) and should bere-evaluated for less intense uses such as a martial arts studio. Staff's observations of other martial arts studios support 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, Arcadia Transit, the use of bicycles, or walking. The parents rarely wait in a parking space for the children because the classes are on a strict schedule. Approximately IS to 18 students will attend classes during any given one hour session. ANAL YSIS USj:s such as martial arts studios require conditional use permits, 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 applicant's proposal and the random parking counts by staff, it is staff opinion that the proposed use would be an appropriate addition to the retail center. . 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 in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDA nONS: The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No.96-001, subject to the following conditions of approval: I, 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. . CUP 96-00 I March 26, 1996 Page 3 . . 3. A modification be granted for 50 on.site parking spaces in lieu of 103 for the addition ofa martial arts studio to the retail center. This parking Modification does not constitute an approval of a general reduction of the parking requirement for the entire retail center, but rather only for the specific use approved by this CUP. 4. 1bat CUP 96-001 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. 5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its 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 fmdings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission. . Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the Commission should 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. Approved By: ,,' <------ '~ CY~~~/-c~~ Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map and site plan . CUP 96-001 March 26, 1996 Page 4 ; l:.~~':~:~.~~~.. - - ~'" 15 . I'. ~ ~to P.,/ 01' C 8- . DO'S CAFE :D Q Lot 22. -2 "':=S2 . l~8.4.& '1C.I'S.... --~--- \ ZO.I'!'" 100 I I I I I R.3 ir I. I I . (rl,) .. , I (7/7)' 100" : .1 70 FAlRVlEW 0 ..s 7!; \~'1,U (7ZoJ I I i~ ;:) R-3 g\ 7 ELEVEN 0 ~~ 0 I I 14~5~ ~: lI) ~\ MEX REST ~~ (j ,>; , _.J~,'10_':::. ~ ('\lc-2' 'Z ~; '1oo;.'Zi \S RETAIL "'~ t> ", ~ ~~ l'l'l.l8 _~ - ------- .., ",... '" ( 3 ::j--.: 2 f o ...J ~ ~ ~ Z' .1 o F=3. (;1 ~ ~7oo (, . c!,-t'" . o """""':1:1 A &=:A~ ~"l. ~ '*='. 58. 'a I w > < .t L~'" N RETAIL ~~ '" :: ,61.1, g. ' '.J\ ,C=J;2t '214.11 Ci) O'~ ~ <:) "!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l.rT,GA-_ ___ fi)_ ___ --- <I _ ~ ~ l_RE;AIL 11Q.'~,----:; ,(1)0 ,..~ L.... -1.CJ\ ;;; ,. ISO~4. "'c-"-. :lO~\_N 'I, .s..______-~ cS \SI '" ... o - ~~ .'. Q 0'\ RETAIL C-2 r--.;.: , I~l.e! J- --1 0 --------1 50 <- I!us) RETAIL _ /_ oJ ....1 0:- 0'.% ~ ~ ~"'!Ia .... '4 '<j 0\0- 0 '" (.9zz) .'1 'i ~"'I- - .::! ~ (!1.z~) 1100.1'2 .,'1 ]---.ui U~ -<:( n:: ]---. ("5:1) S9./ T o AVE <Xl ..... ,,' 1.:L.t'-t SJ I::A,'\ . .,1 ((',60) I ;r ~ i>' ~ d?1 dll ~ ~ ~ RETAIL <II", 6!1 \S ~ 1"-1'" ell __~c~~--::d 3S ~I ..~ !:'r- I :; IS RETAIL ~ I "'\$ 144,07 - 314.01 .~ 100 (t<-.ff2) 20'-; ~~ C-2 I ~ _ ~1e.~9_ _ _ _ _ _I' - - 'RETAIL 31; 0- '" ,.; I"~ <;j <) ~ ~'l3.'1'l. SCALE:1"=100' \j..:~g.~;:~,~, , 'l \';'~~,'''' , 1" 't~ :".~~";;"i~ ",:'..:f.t .:r~~'t~:' . :.:;;~ ...~;$ ''!'.-:r. ~.~-~~. ~- ~/' :~r:".'i1;.;':..:~' . /_,~ ~*11li1l~-'O'rEffi'f\.Jl . .~.,;; t:~"'!.l1'.9~~u-'.nJ . ...../ ,,:,'"':.:Jt.:";i:.f.,.1 .t ~. -- " ~ ~ . LAND USE AND ZONING CUP 96-001 921 S. Baldwin Ave. ~ ~ :;;: ~, ~ s: !l: ~. ~ e ~. ~~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ...... . " ~ ( G : F) E ,.. A tTAIIIOlll - a H ...."" -. "I If (3/20 SCAu "'.Q BALDWIN _ AVENV" lDT SlZE,,~/.'()() s.F. _ 8U1LDINfJ SIZE, .. .111 So'- LANDS&APED AREA, 1,6/S 1.'- PARJ(JN(; SPACl$, >>ItEGlA.AIf g',2O' 1D tDMM&1 6' x Ir 6 IIANDICAI' 11'6. 92/ S. BALDWIN AVE (UNITS F 8 G) ZONE: (;.z OWNER: WlNf1 KWONt: C1IAN p.o. I1DX 68T AIICf/JIA . CII. MtJ66 (II') ."6-IZ/1 APPUCANT, /JEU)N rAN IIIMT1AI. ARTS STlJDI(J IIs-e M 0tA/IIDl.EH AV, JiIfJNTEREY PARK. CA. mTS4 I I File No.: CUP 96-001 . 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 96-001 A Conditional Use Permit to operate a proposed martial arts studio. B. Location of Project: 921 S. Baldwin Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 . C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Delon Tan D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: -~ Date: March I, 1996 Date Posted: March 1, 1996 By: ,U7)~' .<ssistant Planner . . CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Proj ect Title: A proposed martial arts studio. 2. Project Address: 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91007 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Delon Tan 125-129 N Garfield Avenue . Monterey Park, CA 91754 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person & Telephone Number: John Halminski, Assistant Planner (818) 574-5447 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-2 Commercial . \ -1- File No.: CUP 96-001 CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: CUP 96-001 . 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.) A proposed martial arts studio. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., penn its, fmoocing, development or participation-agreements) City Building Services and City Fire Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTlALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages~ [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards . [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance . -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . File No.: CUP 96-001 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a 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 docwnent 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 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 pursuantto 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. 'iJ.. IhL '...-L. !gnature John Halminski Print Name March .1. 1996 Date City of Arcadia For -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 , . . . File No.: CUP 96-001 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 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 resultin 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 9253 of the Zoning Ordinance.) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? (The proposed use is a martial arts studio which is consistant 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 ammgement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (The proposed use is a martial arts studio which is consistant with the sUlTounding land uses:) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The proposed use is a martial arts studio which is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an Potentially Significant Impact [ 1 [ I [ 1 [ ) [ 1 [ I File No.: CUP 96-001 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [ I [ 1 [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ i [ 1 [ 1 No Impact [Xl [Xl [XJ [Xl [Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan,) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) FauJtrupture? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault) b) Seismic ground shaking? (The site for the proposed use is not more susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any other site in the area, The proposed use will occupy an existing building that complies with current seismic standard,,) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.) d) Landslides or mudflows? (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and not within an inundation area.) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) f) Subsidence of the land? (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to subsidence.) Potentially Significant Impact [ I [ I [ I [ ] [ I [ ] [ I [ I File No.: CUP 96-00 I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ I [ I [ I [ I Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ I [ I [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [XI [XI [XI [Xl [Xl [X] [Xl 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 surface runoff'? (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 surface 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 surfacewaters.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) e) Changes in currimts, or the course or direction of water movements? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or water movemenlS. ) t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by culs or excavations or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No.: CUP 96-001 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No:: CUP 96-00 I 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? [ 1 [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) h} Impacts to ground water quality? [ I [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) i} Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? [ I [ I [ 1 [Xl (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? [ 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 sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ 1 [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.) c} Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis; the proposal will not have any such affects.) d} Create objectionable odors? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [XI (Based on a projeCt-specific screening ana.lysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) 6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) . CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan. The location that has not been identified as hazardous.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The site of the proposed use is readily accessible and the proposed use will not inhibit access to adjacent or nearby uses.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (There is adequate on-site parking for both the tenants and guests to serve the proposed use.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.) t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation.) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) LocaUydesignated species (e,g., heritage trees)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nolhave any such impacts.) Potentially Significant Impact [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I File No.: CUP 96-00 I Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I Less Than Significant Impact [ I [ I [ I [ I [ ] [ I [ I [ I No Impact [XI [Xl [XI [X] [XI [XI [XI [XI CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 96-00 I Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ ) [ ) [ I [Xl (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)? [ I [ ) [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ I [ I [ I [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 conservation plans? [ I [ I [ I [XI (The proposed project is consistant with the zone . designation and general plan.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ I [ I [ ] [Xl (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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ I [ I [ 1 [Xl (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 [ I [XI . (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 96-00 I Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will 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.) 1l. 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.) b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No,: CUP 96-00 I Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Other governmenlatservices? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the fOllowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will.not have any such impacts.) b) Communications systems? [ ] [] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific. screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Stonn water drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) t) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not liave any such impacts.) 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis.the . proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo.,: CUP 96-00 I Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would,the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ I [ I [ ] [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Create light or glare? [ I [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific, screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nolhave any such impacts.) d) have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ I [ ] [XI (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? [ I [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ I [ I [ I [XI . (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . W ou Id the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major' periods of 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 considemble? ("Cumulatively considemble" 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? (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 96-001 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpomted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 . c.up q(o- Oat FileNo. CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1. Applicant's Name: DELON TAN 125-129 N. CHANDLER AV MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 Address: 2. Property Address (Location): 921 S. BALDWIN A V . Assessor's Number: 5783-013-068 ARCADIA CA 91007 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: SUSAN CRAN . 159 E. HUNTINGTON DR SUITE 7 818 446-1212 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, induding those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: NONE . 5. Zone Classification: C-2 6. General Plan Designation: COMMERCIAL Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): MARTIAL ART STUDIO IN UNITS F & G ONLY 8. Site size: APPROX. 31,500 sq. ft. 9. 10. 9,998 sq. ft. Square footage per building: Number of floors of construction: (ONE-FLOOR EXISTING BUILDING) .n. 12. Amount of off-street parking provided: 50 ONE MONTH FOR MINOR INTERIOR REMODELING. Proposed scheduling of project 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: 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: N/A 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading fa~ilities: N/A 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estiIilated occupancy. loading facilities. and community benefits to be derived from the project: TEACH MARTIAL ARTS, OPEN TO TIlE COMMUNITY. ONE TO TWO INSTRUCTORS FOR 15-18 STUDENTS PER SESSION. 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: PROJECT INVOLVES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, REQUIRED BY CITY FOR DOING BUSINESS. . Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. o I!l 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. o I!l 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. o I!l o IJJ o III 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. . E.l,R. 3/95 -2- '. . . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 31. 32. EXISTING ONE-8TORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON LEVEL IMPROVED LAND. EXISTING USES WITHIN BUILDiNG: . . ,r , FAST FOOD TAKE-OUT, 'IMPORT EXPORT OFFICE. 'DENTAL OFFICE. THE USES OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE MOSTLY COMMERCIAL/RETAIL . " ALONG BALDWIN AVE AND RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE, SIDE StREETS. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES APPEAR TO BEF'lJ1.4Y DEVELOPED',