HomeMy WebLinkAbout1532
.
.
.
RESOLUTION 1532
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-012 FOR A TUTORING SCHOOL AT 1245 WEST
HUNTINGTON DRIVE
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1995, a Conditional Use Pennit application was
filed by Raymond Cheng to operate a proposed 876 sq.ft., tutoring school, Development
Services Department Case No. C.U.P. 95-012, at property commonly known as 1245
West Huntington Drive, more particularly described as follows:
See Attached Exhibit "A"
WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on December 12, 1995, 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 frods:
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 locatioll 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 sUllject 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 876 sq.ft., tuturing school at 1245 West
Huntington Drive upon the following conditions:
1. Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the
complete satisfaction of the Building Section.
2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire
Department.
3. A Modification be granted for 3 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 12, 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 95-
012 (a tutoring school).
4. All Employees shall park in the on-site parking provided.
5. C.U.P. 95-012 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 orrevocation.
SECTION 4 The decision, fmdings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of December 12,1995, and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioner's Bell, Huang, KaJemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy,
Sleeter, and Daggett.
None
None
.
.
.
NOES:
ABSENT:
2
1532
.
.
.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of December, 1995 by the
folIowing vote:
Commissioner's BelI, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy,
Sleeter, and Daggett.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
AYES:
hairman, Planning Co
ity of Arcadia
Secretary, PI . g Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
W:!iul.!!:3-
3
1532
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
December 12,1995
TO:
Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L..Butler, Community Development Administrator/A'
By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner ffc;:l'
SVBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit No. 95-012
SIJMMARY
.
This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Raymond Cheng to operate a tutoring
school for students between the 8th and 12th grades. The Development Services Department is
recommending approval of Conditional use Permit No. 95-012 subject to the conditions that are
outlined in this staff report.
fiENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Raymond Cheng
LOCATION:
1245 W. Huntington Drive
REQUEST:
A proposed tutoring school for students between the 8th and 12th grades.
LOT AREA:
34,578 square feet (.79 acres)
FRONTAGE:
188 feet along Huntington Drive and approximately 180 feet along Woodward
Boulevard.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is currently developed with a two story office building zoned C-O.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
.
1
CUP 95-012
December 12,1995
.
.
,.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Single-family residential in an un-incorporated area of Pasadena.
South: Multiple-Family residential zoned R-3.
East: Multi-occupant office building zone CoO and Mixed Commercial zoned C-2.
West: County of Los Angeles Park and Single-Family residential in an un-
incorporated area of Pasadena,
PROPOSAL & ANAL YS1S
The proposal is to operate a tutoring school for students between the 8th and 12th grades. The
proposed school will occupy an existing space which will not require any tenant improvements. The
hours of operation will be from 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p,m. Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a,m. to 9:30
p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The facility consists of two classrooms, one with five (5) students and
the other with ten (10) students for a total of fifteen (15) students, There are a total of two
employees.
Automobile Parking
Access to the site is from both Huntington drive to the south and Woodward Boulevard to the west.
The existing parking layout provides for through traffic on the site. This. through access would
enable the pick-up and drop-off of the students in a safe fashion, and provide convenient access
through the site, eliminating the possibility of congestion on the public right-of-ways.
The applicant has indicated that the majority of the students are under 18 years old and will more
than likely be dropped off in the parking lot adjacent to the building by their guardians. In addition,
a number of the students will be commuting on foot and bicycles. It is staff's recommendation that
the school administration install a bike rack and encourage bicycle commuting and carpooling if
possible.
There are a total of 53 on-site plU'king spaces, including two handicap spaces. The building was built
for general office use which has a parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1000 sq, ft. of gross floor area
totaling 50 required spaces. A tutoring school requires one parking space per 35 sq. ft., of the
classroom's gross floor area. Based upon this requirement, and that 434 sq. ft. of the proposed
tutoring school will be used for the purpose of tutoring classes, the proposed school requires 12 on-
site parking spaces.
The applicant has submitted a parking survey (copy attached) which was conducted over a three day
period between the hours of3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.. The survey indicates that the office building
has a peak parking demand of 30 parking spaces. As noted, 53 spaces exists on the site, which
indicates that there would be ample on-site parking for the proposed tutoring school. Staff has made
random vehicle counts on the site, and concurs with the applicant's parking survey.
2
CUP 95-012
December 12, 1995
.
.
.
Observations of other tutoring centers 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 in carpools or
by Arcadia Transit, or use bicycles, or walk. The parents rarely wait in a parking space for the
children because the classroom hours are on a,strict schedule.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services
Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose
any substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
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 011 wildlife resources. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-012,
slibject to the following conditions of approval:
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 3 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 12, 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 95-012 (a tutoring
school).
4. That CUP 95-012 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.
3
CUP 95-012
December 12, 1995
.
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 adopt Resolution 1532, a
Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 95-012 for a tutoring school a 1245 W. Huntington Drive, which incorporates the
Commission's decision, specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application, the
Commission should move for denial and adopt Resolution 1532, a Resolution of the Planning
Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-012 for
a tutoring school a 1245 W. Huntington Drive, 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:
~~/-
DonnaL.Butler~
Community Development Administrator
Attachments:
Land Use and Zoning Map, parking survey
.
4
CUP 95-012
December 12,1995
.
.
.
~
fA
~
<
<:>
o'
~
~
C)
ti
<t
~,
Q
o
o
S
.... ...J
... -
- ~
\>
I
. az
17 714J W
CrZ1l X
(n-f) ~~
tfUIJ
t (7:1)
~.
C-2
<1
s.
~
Z
..J
:d
:r:
u
::E
.
10""
" 11<
~ ~
.. '"
c-o
I
ClUJ) (l/~l~'
. ...
(1Ull
..
(l,:351
.,
...
...
~
I-IUNTI~GTON
..
. p~'"
" .1
..
S'
tl
~
." nr~ ""...,
1 P/48)
I I I I @~:; @-r
. J I I I
I I :tg -.
I I I I . Q..)>
I I I 1"'- ~ 0
I I I I <:>~3nHt I
I -~ f 10 ~~5' CiO"
~ J I r..3 '17 7 . ~.-{ aQ R-3:
; -;a oO~
I I M.lII:",M,~ll .. ...l.--:- I I f-I\l
I I I I I I I t>
I I 1 I I I I ~
Q)
Q)
I~~.
SCALE:1 "=1 00'
LAND USE AND ZONING
CUP 95-012
1245 W. HUNTINGTON DR.
.
,
l
I
t
.
I
Ii':':.-::"~_'
",..'_/
:.
Ill...I'
'11:'1
......_Ol
...11\. ',rtJ'oll':'
1...."'.,,4
".
.
.
r.:
~~:.~:.
.=:::......;...,.t..:-:-'t
--...... -.'
-
~':';'.':-
~
~
~
-"','.-: ,'..
';;:'~.2F~~
.....
~ :;:--.
... ....-
~l :.-::..
--:~ =---
~0
----->'~:~I- r~
;
~f~
-~'-'~t"'.....-,rIAN
-"'~-_._..
.~
..-
.,....,...~e
1./1;':1-1
~.-.-
",1:I1ll'.-~~_
J>H.1f'oIl':J~~
"...,'w.oc:~.Tf"
~"'"fo'~
.....'" (tkWIUli .
~zM;.~r
~.$.'N1~"" -"'f
T
~
~
. . t
I
. I
. ....A_.~..
Ia-~. ""
,-
-........ ..........-. .... ..~.
,,-...... ...... ...,-.-" _.~."...~tv"~,--;.It:Ic-..
~~-~~
......111 "10'
~~~
'-'J GtaJDHf.....
. .: ~
i
U....__.......-...CIl
~.-..:"I-.
...~....,.3r.lIM-
..- -
'--I'U~W .~~.. ..........,.~. l'*--v~rf-I.-e
',J'
.~~~
,
o'llJr> fLM,e..
~t"..114.
~ vAN
..4"
,.,.
T
~.
~""'''''1---t
~-~~,:
.-- ';.)11 A.....-...,A--,.c::-..--. !.
....--:---..--.'.--.-...-
I~ '1''''
OW. ~tJ~Of~~
H-lAOI,.. .
~,
.
PARKING SURVEY FOR
1245 W, HUNTINGTON DRIVE
DATE TIME OCCUPIED TOTAL SPACES
I. 11/29/95 3:30 29 53
2. 4:00 27 53
3. 4:30 21 53
4. 5:00 20 53
5. 5:30 19 53
6. 11/30/95 3:30 30 53
7. 4:00 28 53
8. 4:30 25 53
9. 5:00 18 53
10. 5:30 17 53
II. 12/1/95 3:30 28 53
12. 4:00 26 53
13. 4:30 23 53
. 14. 5:00 19 53
.,
15. 5:30 18 53
.
.
....
.
File No,: CUP 95-012
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCAElIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Conditional Use Permit 95-012
A conditional use permit for a tutorial center.
B. Location of Project:
1245 W. Huntington Dr., Suite 102 Arcadia, CA 91007
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Raymond Cheng
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:
Date Posted:
11/7/95
11/7/95
/fl~
. Assistant Planner
.
File No.: CUP 95-012
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Project Title:
A proposed student tutoring school for students between 8th and 12th grade.
2. Project Address:
1245 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Nwnber:
Raymond Chang
1611 S Garfield #100
Alhambra, CA 91081
. 4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
5. Contact Person & Telephone Nwnber:
John Halminski, Assistant Planner
(818) 574-5447
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C-I Limited Commercial
.
-1-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No.: CUP95--012
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later pha'\es of the project and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for ils implementation. AUach additional sheels if
neceSsary,)
A proposed student tutoring school for students 8th between 12th grade.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g" penn its, financing, developmenl or participation agreements)
City Building Services and City Fire Department
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTfNTIALL 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
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation I Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
-2-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No,: CUP 95-012
DETERMINA nON
(1'0 be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis ofthisinitial 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 ENVmONMENTAL 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
Signiticant 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 WILI" 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.
tf~~-
~gnature
John Halminski
Print Name
November 9. 1995
Date
City of Arcadia
For
-3-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
File No,: CUP 95.012
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answcrs 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
infOlmation 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 detemlination 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 Envirorunental
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
FileNo.: CUP 95-012
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Un less Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: lmpact 1 ncorporated Impacl Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or ZQning? [ 1 [ J [ 1 [Xl
(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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(TIle 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. (The proposed use is a tutoring school which is
consistant with' the surrounding land uses.)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl
(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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed use is tutoring school which is
consistant with the surrounding land uses.)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [X]
(The proposed use is tutoring school 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
.
CEQA Checklist
-5- 7/95
.
.
.
Would lhcproposal resulL in
potential impacts involving:
undeveloped area or exlension 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) Fault rupture?
(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 seism ic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
vicinity ofan 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 ofthe land?
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence,)
-6-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
FileNo.: CUP95-012
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[XI
[X]
[XI
[XI
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would Ute 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) ChMges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runofrl
(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 surface waters,)
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 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,)
f) Change in the quantity of ground walers, 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
proposal will not affect ground walers.)
-7-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No,: CUP 95-012
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
Less Than
Signiticant
Impact
[ J
L J
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X)
[XJ
[X]
[X]
[XJ
CEQA Checklist
7/95
File No.: CUP 95-012
Potentially
. Significanl
Potentially Unless Less 111an
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of now of ground water? [ ] [ I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters,)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ ] [ ] [ I [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 for public water
supplies? [ I r I [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not affect ground waters,)
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal;
a) Violate any air 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects,)
d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
.
CEQA Checklist
-8- 7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal resull in
potential impacts involving:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" sharp
curves or dangerous. intersections) or incompatible
lIses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation at1d general plan. The location that has
not been identified as hazardous.)
c) Inadequate et11ergency 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 tbe 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.)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e;g" bus tumouts,
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) bndangered, mreatened 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) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
-9-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
File No.: CUP 95-0 12
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[XI
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g" oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
(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)?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(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?
(The proposed project is consistant with the zone
designation and general plan.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and'
inefficient manner?
(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?
(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)?
(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?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
-10-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File No,: CUP 95-012
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less 'n,an
Significant
Impact
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7195
File No.: CUP 95-012
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? [ I [ I [ ] [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? [ ] [ I [ J [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? [ I [ I [ J [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? [ I [ ] [ I [Xl
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
b) Police protection? [ I [ ] [ I [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ I [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ I [ ] [ ] [X]
CEQA Checklist
-\1- 7195
File No,: CUP 95-012
Potentially
Significant
. Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(B<1Sed on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(B<1Sed on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
12. VTILlTIES 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, tlle
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? [ I [ J [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based ona 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 have 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
-12- 7/95
Pile No.: CUP 95-012
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? [ ] [ ] r ] (X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
c) Create light or glare? [ ] ( ] r ] [X]
(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 [XI
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a projeCl-specificscreening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
. c) Affect historical resources? ( ] ( ] [ ] [X]
(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? ( ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts,)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
. proposal will not have any such impacts.)
CEQA Checklist
-13- 7/95
File No.: CUP 95-0 12
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentia lIy
Signifieant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of II 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 imponant examples of the major periods
of Cali fomi a history or prehistory? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Based oh a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such impacts.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short.tenn, to the disadvantage of long"tenn,
environmental goals? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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 considerableu 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.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(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? [ ] L ] [ ] [X]
(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.
.
-14-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
fileNo, (lap 95" ~o/?-
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMA nON FORM
Date Filed:
1/- 3--').C:::
General Information
l\J\'-(McNI') C+!~tco' / Ar2cr<tT<--q
-In-;-lJn; ene-Chen-rt-S tanforil-J:nst:ftute )--
<:.. (A'ffJ "1r;.tc:> itkb ~t<,"A- C-f'o
o "ellle-a-d B'vd; Te Ie eit GA 1-780-'
41.8-"
1. Applicant's Name:
./'
\"-.0(
Address:
2. Property Address (Location): 1245 W. HuntinRton Drive, Suite 11102, Arcadia, CA 91007
Assessor's Number:
:3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Raymond Cheng
(818)282-2828
1611 S. Garfield Ave. Suite 11100, Alhambra, CA 91801
4.
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals' required for this
project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies:
.
None
5,
Zone Classification: C-1
6. General Plan Designation: C-1
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): Please see attached list.
8. Site size: 34,578 S.F.
9. Square footage per building: 17 ,059 S. F.
10. Number of floors of construction: 2 floors - existing
.11.
Amount of off-street parking provided: 3 for this lease space
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
7).
Proposed use of site (project description):
Using an existing lease space for student tutoring service. Student age group
range from 8th grade to 12th grade. Their hours would be from 3:30pm after
regular school hour on week days ang at daytime on week ends. Facility consist
of two class rooms with one for ten(10) students and one for five(S) students-
total of fifteen(lS) students. Most of these students will be drop off and
pick up by their parents or using bicycles. We do not anticipate any parking
burden to the property.
.
,.
12, Proposed scheduling of project Existing Building
13, Anticipated incremental development: Existing Building
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:
Nei"hborhood Oriented - Office Building
16, If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
N/A
17.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
N/A
.
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state
this and indicate clearly why the application is required:
A tutoring service in the City of Arcadia reQuires a conditional use permit.
Pue the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked
yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
YES NO
0 IjJ
0 IjJ
0 IjJ
E.I.R.
3/95
20, Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
.
-2-
.
22.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more,
27, Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.).
29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
YES NO
0 [)
0 Ii)
0 0
0 [)
0 [I
0 [I
0 [I
0 Gi]
0 fiI
. Environmental Setting
31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it e"ists 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.
Existing Building Photo included
32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on
plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses
(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. Existing Building Photo included
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.
.
"3-
~~ C#~
~'f4' '
E.I.R.
3/95