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',