Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1528
\
'-
RESOLUTION 1528
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. CUP 95-008 FOR A TUTORIAL CENTER AT 524 SOUTH
FIRST A VENUE.
WHEREAS, on August 21, 1995, a Conditional Use Permit application was
filed by Dennis G. Schrader (dba: American Resource Education Center) for a
tutorial center in a 5,000 square foot commercial building, Development Services
Department Case No. CUP 95-008, at property commonly known as 524 South First
Avenue, more particularly described in Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 26, 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 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
. SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental
to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in
such zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which
a Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommdiiate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading,
landscaping and other features required 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 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 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 a tutorial center in a 5,000 square foot commercial
building at 524 South First Avenue upon the following conditions:
1. The tutorial center and the site shall be maintained and operated in a
manner that is consistent with the proposal dated August 21, 1995 and the
Supplementary Information and plans that were submitted with the application for
CUP 95-008. This shall include, but not be limited to, preventing the students from
disturbing the adjacent residents and businesses, and providing a trash enclosure,
wheel stops, a van accessible parking space and bicycle racks to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Division.
2. A Modification for 14 substandard parking spaces with no landscaping in
lieu of 22 spaces with five percent landscaping is granted for CUP 95-008
3. CUP 95-008 shall be monitored by staff and, if there are problems, referred
to the Planning Commission for reevaluation at a public hearing. If the
Commission's reevaluation determines that there are detrimental or injurious
affects, the Commission may amend the approval and impose additional conditions
of approval to mitigate such affects.
4. CUP 95-008 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant
have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
5. All local code requirements regarding building occupancy, fire protection
and safety features shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services
and the Fire Department.
6. All of the conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to
.-
occupancy of the tutorial center. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and
conditions of CUP 95-008 shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or
revocation which may result in closure of the tutorial center.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of September 26, 1995 and the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalem:kiarian, Murphy and Sleeter
NOES: Commissioner Daggett
ABSENT: Commissioner Kovacic
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.
-2-
1528
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
. meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of September, 1995 by the
following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy and Sleeter
NOES: Commissioner Daggett
ABSENT: Commissioner Kovacic
ATTEST:
.
~~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
11iJ~)f
Jrl~~
Michael H. Miller, City Attorney
.
-3-
1528
..
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description
524 South First Avenue
Lot I and the South 51 feet of Lot 2, Block 63-1/2, Tract 866, in
the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as
per Map recorded in Book 16, Pages 198 and 199 inclusive of
Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
.
.
Exhibit "A"
1528
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 26, 1995
TO: Chairman and Members of
the Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrato~
By: James M.Kasama, Associate Plann~
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-008
A 5,000 square foot tutorial center at 524 S. First Avenue
SUMMARY
.
Conditional Use Permit application no. CUP 95-008 was submitted by Dennis G.
Schrader to operate a 5,000 square foot tutorial center for a maximum of 60 Junior
High and High School students at 524 'S. First Avenue. The Development Services
Department is recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit application
subject to the conditions in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dennis G. Schrader
(dba: American Resource Education Center)
LOCATION": 524 S. First Avenue
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit with parking modifications for an
accelerated academic tutorial center that will be limited to a
maximum of 60 students in grades 7 through 12 with minimUm 3.0
grade point averages.
SITE AREA: 13,635 square feet (0.31 acre)
FRONTAGES: 101 feet along S. First Avenue
135 feet along Fano Street
.
.
.
.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a vacant 5,000 square foot commercial
building, and another 1,900 square foot commercial building that is
occupied by a tailor and beauty salon. There are 15 substandard
on-site parking spaces. The site is zoned C-2 (General Commercial).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Insurance offices and a nonconforming residence zoned C-2
South: Florist and nonconforming residences zoned C-2
E a S t: Condominiums zoned R-3
West: Accountant's offices and a beauty salon zoned C-2
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposal is to operate a tutorial center in an existing 5,000 square foot
commercial building at the northeast corner of First Avenue and Fano Street. The
tutorial center will offer accelerated academic programs to Junior High and High
School students (grades 7 to 12) with minimum 3.0 grade point averages.
There will be four classrooms with approximately 12 students in each classroom,
and a computer lab for six students at a time. The maximum number being taught
at anyone time will not exceed 60 students. There will be four instructors and one
clerical staff person. Classes will be scheduled as follows:
Regular Acadernic Sessions:
Monday - Friday:
Saturday:
Monday - Friday:
Saturday:
3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
.- Summer Sessions:
Details of the proposal are outlined in the attached letter and Supplementary
Information. Schools are permitted in any zone with an approved Conditional Use
Permit (Sec. 9275.1.35.1).
The subject building was previously occupied by a retail interior design center. The
site is also improved with another 1,900 square foot commercial building that is
occupied by a tailor and a beauty salon, as shown on the attached site plan The site
needs a trash enclosure which the applicant will provide. The existing parking does
not comply with the zoning regulations, and there is no landscaping in the parking
CUP 95-008
September 26, 1995
Page 2
.
area. Further issues to be addressed are automobile access, parking area
improvements, and compatibility with surrounding uses.
Automobile Access and Parking
Access to the site is from Fano Street. The existing parking layout of the subject site
enables through access to the alley. This through access would facilitate the pick-up
and drop-off of the students, however, the access to the alley exists only at the
convenience of the property owners to the north. The access to the alley is not
secured by an easement. Without the through access to the alley, pick-ups and drop-
offs would have to take place at curb side, or in the rear parking area which is not
large enough to provide a good turnaround area, and the existing driveway is not
wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic.
There are 15 on-site parking spaces, none of which comply with the City's parking
design regulations, and the parking area lacks the required five percent landscaping.
There are eight parking spaces in a tandem arrangement directly behind the tailor
shop and beauty salon. The applicant has stated that there is an agreement that
these eight spaces are exclusively for the use of the tailor and beauty salon, and that
he will honor this agreement. It appears that the existing parking situation has
served the subject property adequately.
. The remaining seven spaces are available for the proposed tutorial center. There are
three at the rear entrance to the proposed tutorial center, one parallel to the east wall
of the garage, and three parallel to the block wall along the east property line. One of
the spaces at the rear entrance will be eliminated to provide a 17 foot wide van
accessible parking space. This will result in six substandard on-site spaces being
available for the tutorial center.
According to the applicant's Supplementary Information, six parking spaces are all
that is u,eeded. However, based on a maximum of 60 students, the zoning
regulations require twelve spaces (one space for each five classroom seats). The
tailor and beauty salon should have ten spaces (one space per 1,000 gross square feet).
Therefore, there should be 22 on-site parking spaces. However, if the parking area
was redesigned and landscaped to comply with the zoning regulations, staff
estimates that only six or seven spaces could be accommodated and the through
access would be eliminated.
Observations of other tutorial centers support the applicant's statement that on-site
parking for the students is not necessary. 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 need a parking space to wait for the children. Staff recommends that
.
CUP 95-008
Septernber26,1995
Page 3
.
with the exception of providing a trash enclosure, wheel stops, and a van accessible
parking space, the existing parking area improvements be allowed to remain as is.
The applicant will install racks in a portion of the existing garage for bicycle parking.
The situation should be monitored and if parking or traffic problems arise either
on-site or off-site, this application should be reevaluated to determine if conditions
of approval can be added to control the situation, or if the intensity of the use
should be reduced.
Compatibility With Surrounding Uses
In this case, the amount of traffic and the number of students will be greater than
the traffic generated by the former interior design center. However, the intensity of
the activity generated by the proposed tutorial center would not necessarily be
greater than that for other uses that could occupy the site without a Conditional Use
Permit.
Provided that the access and parking situations do not cause problems, and if the
students do not disturb the adjacent residences and businesses as stated in the
applicant's Supplementary Information, the proposed tutorial center will be
compatible with the surrounding uses.
. The situation should be monitored and if problems arise, this application should be
reevaluated to determine if additional conditions of approval can be added to
control the situation, or if the intensity of the use should be reduced.
CEOA
Pursuant to the provIsIons of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Developlll.ent Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially 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 adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
.
CUP 95-008
September 26, 1995
Page 4
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 95-008 subject to the following conditions:
1. The tutorial center and the site shall be maintained and operated in a manner
that is consistent with the proposal dated August 21, 1995 and the
Supplementary Information and plans that were submitted with the application
for CUP 95-008. This shall include, but not be limited to, preventing the
students from disturbing the adjacent residents and businesses, and providing a
trash enclosure, wheel stops, a van accessible parking space and bicycle racks to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Division.
2. A Modification for 14 substandard parking spaces with no landscaping in lieu of
22 spaces with five percent landscaping is granted for CUP 95-008.
3. CUP 95-008 shall be monitored by staff and, if there are problems, referred to the
Planning Commission for reevaluation at a public hearing. If the
Commission's reevaluation determines that there are detrimental or injurious
affects, the Commission may amend the approval and impose additional
conditions of approval to mitigate such affects.
4. CUP 95-008 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have
executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
5. All of the conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to occupancy of
the tutorial center. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions
of CUP 95-008 shall constitute grounds for its immediate su~pension or
revocation which may result in closure of the tutorial center.
-
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve of this Conditional Use Permit
application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative
Declaration and adopt a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision,
specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as
modified by the Commission.
CUP 95-008
September 26,1995
Page 5
. Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit
application, the Commission should move for denial and adopt a resolution which
incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
Note: Because there will not be an October 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting,
resolutions of approval and denial have been prepared for adoption so that
there will not be an inordinate delay in the processing of this application.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding
this matter prior to the September 26th public hearing, please contact Associate
Planner, Jim Kasama at (818) 574-5445.
Approved by:
Q onna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments:
Applicant's proposal letter and Supplementary Information
Site Plan and Floor Plan
Land Use & Zoning Map
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
.-
.
CUP 95-008
September 26,1995
Page 6
( (
AMERICAN RESOURCE EDUCATION CENTER
.
141 E. Duane Ro:ul. Sui'e IOJ. Are:ulia. CA 91006
Tel: (R I R) 445-6112
Fax: (RIR) R21-9057
August 21, 1995
Re: Conditional Use Permit
American Resource Education Center
Dear Sir or Madam:
American Resource Education Center will offer accelerated academic programs to Middle School
and High School students who qualify with a 3.0 G.P.A. As lhe owner and director of American
Resource, I have more than 25 years experience in classroom instruction and curriculum design.
Needless to say our educational program at American Resource is far more than a "business"; it
is a commitment.
Briefly, our curriculum will include the following:
I) Honors and Advanced Placement math and science classes: All designed around existing
Arcadia High School textbooks and taught exclusively by distinguished Cal- Tech instructors;
. 2) English Grammar and Composition;
3) ESL, featuring systematic vocabulary and grammar "groupings": All materials developed
"in house" for publication by American Resource;
4) SAT Math and Verbal; SAT-2 Achievement Tests;
5) Rapid Reading: State-of-the"arl technique and equipment to teach efficient eye movement.
We will in"lddition build a computer lab with both Intel Pentium-90 and Apple Power Macintosh
computers - Internet connected and open free of charge to all of our students. It is our sincere
goal to graduate students equipped with real 'Job skills" and logical reasoning ability. In this
increasingly complex world, we believe American Resource has a responsibility to do more than
raise grades and SAT scores.
If! can provide any further information regarding our program at American Resource Education
Center, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience, We very much appreciate your
considering us for the Conditional Use Permit.
Sincerely yours,
. ~~A~
Dennis G. Schrader
{
(
AMERICAN RESOURCE EDUCATION CENTER
.
141 E. Duarte Road. Suile 103. Arcadia. CA 91006
Tel: (818) 445-6112
Fax: (818) 821-9057
Supplementary lnfonnation
a) Schedule:
Regular Academic Session (September 10 - June 3): Monday - Friday: 3:00 - 7:00 p.m,
Saturday: 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Summer Session (June 19 - August 19): Monday - Friday: 1:00 - 7:00 p,m.
Saturday: 10:00 - 6:00 p.m.
Note: Our regular academic session is coordinated with Arcadia High School's quarterly system.
b) Rooms: 4 classrooms, I computer lab, a student lounge and a parent-teacher conference room.
c) Number of employees: 4 instructors and 1 clerical staff
. d) Number of students per classroom: 12 maximum per classroom and 6 maximum in computer lab,
Length of classes: 1. 5 - 2.0 hrs,
e) Parking and Access:
.-
Most of our students walk or bike from Arcadia High School, Dana Middle School
and First Avenue Middle School. Any vehicular traffic consists mostly of "pick-ups"
and "drop-offs" between classes. In addition, many of our students whose parents
are quite busy already have carpooling agreements amongst themselves or use
"Dial-a-Ride", It has been my obselVation at past facilities that even when we have
the maximum number of students on site, we do not need more than six (6) parking
spaces. For those students riding bicycles, we will provide a secured bicycle parking
area near the rear access.
f) Handicapped facilities will be. provided: including classroom spaces, restrooms and access to computers
for homework and independent study. All classrooms and facilities in this complex will be accessible,
Corridors are proposed to be 7 feet wide.
g) Students will not be permitted to congregate, loiter or create any disturbances in or near any portion of the
premises, but most especially in the rear parking area to assure that the adjacent residents will not be
disturbed. A sign will be posted at the rear door to inform the students of this restriction,
.
More than adequate lobby and lounge spaces are proposed to be provided for the students inside the
tutoring center should they arrive early for their sessions, or need to wait for Dial-A-Ride or their carpool.
.
--
..
(
('
,53.1 MEDICAL OFFICES 1 FAST fOOD ///S".I (//J/ P?.3/ t/J.s.J (/;:,/
50 50 50 50 50 50
ELDORADO ST.
1'% 141.7 50 SO so so
:;;~ MORTUARVO (MS) (/22) t'/?~/ 1'/3a/
"" 0 0 0 0
~'" 0
OFFICES ~~ ,..,
0
" '-' " 0 CD
- g~O z ~
-
:<
"
INS. OFFICE ~~ .:
CONFECTIONER 0.
NAIL SALON ~
SO C-2~ . _. 135 50
~ " C-2 R-3
141.7 '--:;" ;> T
o ~.o -<:: E4~ VACANT
!<j.o ~? INSURANCE 0
NAIL SALON <...:.
f-< "'-E. OH1<:E ~
0 ~ (I) x.. On
<.'J ACCT. ~..n () <:> ~
- c::: <S '"
OFFICES ~.o ..)< 1i)
..... (5) CD 0) @
i:.t.,
CD BEAUTY "" V
SA LON ~o '\. (lIS)
~'" (/2// (/Z5/ (/23)
14/.7 '- 100.0r;, SO IDP.~
FA NO ST.
50 141.7 135 50 SO Sit 50 SQ'"
CSJ.J '" o flORIST 0 02L7.J t'/2 t'/N) 1/3())
0 BOARD ~ "'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
-..:: . ,~
OF .!! /25
0 REALTORS :;:~O ~ 0 0 0 ~ ,
~
'C I
0 .
... VACAN'r ~\tl ::..
DENTAL OFFICE ~ t.1) ~~ FARTY RENTALS
!6
SO 141.7 ~ ~ 135
- R-3
C-2~ LC-2
SO
BEAUTY SALON OFFICES
'" '"
.n '"
LAND USE & ZONING MAP
524 S. First A venue
CUP No. 95-008 ... North
Tutorial Center Scale: 1" = 100'
--
>-1
~I
I
._ "",.1...
11:1' .-
"
fr.
:<.
".
,.
_...'.,..,. f'"1")
I...,
... ~. r ~ ~
V ... ~
.. ... ~
.. .... ~
... t! 0 )..
't ~ ..
.. ,.
:'; ~ ~
-> H 'Q
'-
.
Ir......'"
.l.\.........,.
-.-ru','t.T
o
.61";" rv,~
. !.It....... ~J 'I'"''
H~
,.,.
~......
.to'lt'r4ll'''''-''''''' r.l
---'-"-.~""'II~
,..
. .
,-.
.:-~~:,... ,..,,.....:
~) .-
-~~:,.. ....1..t~'....s.e.
:~,."'\.O
-.........
.'hr--""
.
,
~
1
I'; 11 I
.
,.
'T
I
._rP'""p~~Et7 r~ve.Gl.l( \
.:-. ~,.
~
"
'.
.
.,
."
'.'
.'
..
~
w
fi
~ '!.
JU'(.'
~ v
i>~,
'"
~.L
z~
~L
'"
\u +
'l: _
0(.'"
!' "
" .'
. r.'
';i..n~f
..:!~:,""
~ -.(f~r,
. ~;"';' j"" :~'.:.:;..: : .l~' ~/dt:;.,.. ,..~".::.n~~' .::-:
. ,... : >';~","'< ...'....:.'f.~~~.iJ.....~ ."'"
':. h;~::fi!.~.*IJii":"~:ti..'':'': "";:~:il?~"tt I"~ .
e~:,!~~1i}ic-I:~Tt'h~I!.:,..1.;.,...:.~....l.~~,~,\..:fiF, "~l""'_'" , .
J;:f'.."t.,,~'('~ ..........~,~.- .". ~""""" '.. I'. '~" .. _..
"
..
'/tr
. I.,.
, '
--.1......-
.)
.
( "
,,"} bl a- rt ,,'1,bl /r
-~-~-
I
t
~ C o,.Jl't,t(;.,.)(!- C.OMI'Vrr/t
oJ) (c:.ODM
, L-t'\1> ~
F~O~-r :t" ~
,
L068Y \3'
-
..t
, "-
s ..r;
, ..;
...
. .
....
04
C I- A H Il 1:10'-'
I..
.."
~
Gl..A ~ Sit OOM
,L
,
~
N
-
0"'
,
,
t
!
I
,,",r~
,/'1,57,
~
<:>
....
,
Cl
~
-
... .
0- .r''!'' ~
, '"
~
.... 1= L -" '-1]
, OFFr(f=.
-4)
I "'EAtZ ~ ,
<;rl/b [~., '"
/...o~y ~
1.(', ' Lof.},J/.r[ .
...!)
3- 1
J.11 II \!
. 'I ~
OOOIf: I
,,' (," 1 ,.". ~~ /1''1 " ,yJ''l'' ,y
.
.
.
(
File No.: CUP 95-008
CI1Y OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 95-008
A Conditional Use Permit for an accelerated academic tutorial center for a
maximum of 60 students in grades 7 through 12 with minimu 3.0 grade point
averages.
B. Location of Project:
524 S. First Avenue; Arcadia, California
C Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Dennis G. Schrader
dba: American Resource Education Center
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:
6a... ~(.J/?Pt.CHhl1ittZY /N~I'fA-7/o4 f7'(0V/Ol"b 6)1 Ar>Pt..ICA1<I-r:
&1- t3tJN IS. R17.6-C4IO?
.
Date: t7....--..I 28/ f~
Date Posted: !tit'.:/- 3 ~ (i'l.5'
[2_.~ $---
Sign ure
~~
Title
.
.
.
(
(
Pile No. CUP 95-008
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 97007
,(818) 574-5400
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
A Conditional Use Permit for American Resources Education Center
2. Project Address:
524 S. First Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number:
Dennis Schrader
American Resources Education Center
141 E. Duarte Road, #103
Arcadia, CA 91006
(818) 445-6112
4.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
Community Development Division
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(818) 574-5423
-
5. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Jim Kasama, Associate Planner
(818) 574-5445
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning Classification:
C-2 / General Commercial
CEQA Checklist
7/95
..
.
.
(
(
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 Conditional Use Permit for an accelerated academic tutorial center for a
maximum of 60 students in grades 7 through 12 with minimum 3.0 grade point
averages.
The location of the proposal is within walking distance of the high school from
which most of the students will be coming from, and the proposal includes the
encouragement of, and facilities for, the use of alternative transportation.
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement.)
Building Services for the issuance of permits for the construction of the tenant
improvements (if the Conditional Use Permit is approved).
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY 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.
[ 1 Land Use & Planning [Xl Transportation/Circulation [ 1 Public Services
[ 1 Population & Housing [ 1 Biological Resources [ 1 Utilities & Service Systems
[ 1 Geological Problems [l Energy & Mineral Resources [ 1 Aesthetics
[ 1 Water [ 1 Hazards [ 1 Cultural Resources
[ 1 Air Quality [Xl Noise [ 1 Recreation
[Xl Mandatdly FincUngs of Signficance
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-2-
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
(
(
DETERMINATION
(To be,complered by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 1
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... . . . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Xl
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . [ 1
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but
it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 1
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 1
.-
s~~
Da6~
~~--
28. /9?s-
,
Tames M. Kasama
Printed Name
Community Development Division
For
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-3.
File No. CUP 95-008
(
EV ALUA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
e1.
.
.
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
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside 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 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 ElR is required.
4.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation meas.ures 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, "Ealier Analyses" may be
cross-referenced.)
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ErR 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
informatton 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.
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-4-
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
(
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(The proposal is consisteI\t with the commercial
designation in the GeI\eral Plan and is a use for
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by
Section 9275.1.35.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (The proposal is not subject to the
jurisdiction of any other agencies with applicable
environmeI\taJ plans.)
c) Be compatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (The proposed use is a commercial
operation in a commercially zoned area and will
occupy an existing commercial building.)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses?) (There are no
agricultural resources or operations in the area.)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (The proposed use will
occupy an existing commercial building in an
existing commercially zoned area.)
2. POPULt\JION AND HOUSING.
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (The proposed use is
community based and will serve the existing
student population.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (The proposed use will occupy an
existing commercial building.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-5-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
( J
( J
( J
[ J
( ]
( ]
( J
f
r'otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
( ]
( ]
( ]
[ J
( ]
( ]
( ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
( ]
( ]
[ ]
[ J
( ]
( ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[Xl
[Xl
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
(
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (The proposal is for a commercial use in
an existing commercial building.)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupture? ('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 no more susceptible to seismic
ground shaking than any other site in the area.
The proposed use will occupy an existing building
that complies with current seismic standards.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site of the proposal 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.)
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ('The
proposal is for the occupancy of an existing
commercial building.)
f) Subsidence of the land? ('The site of the proposal
is not an area subject to subsidence.)
.-
g) Expansive soils? (The site of the proposal is not
an area subject to the expansion of soils.)
h) Unique geologic or physical features? (No such
features have been identified at the site for the
proposed use.)
4. WATER
Would the proposalresult 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.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-6-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
( ,'otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
1m pact
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
File No. CUP 95-008
o
.
.
(
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (The site for the
proposed use is within the inundation area of the
Santa Anita Dam, however there are no Special
Flood Hazard Areas in the City of Arcadia as
determined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.)
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 have any affect upon 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 have any affect
upon 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 have any
affect on ground or surface waters.)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of any aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of ground
water recharge capability? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any affect upon ground waters.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water?
(Based'bn a project-specific screening analysis. the
proposal will not have any affect upon ground
waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality? (Based on a
project-specific screening analysis. the proposal
will not have any affect upon ground waters.)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Based on a project-specific screening
analysis. the proposal will not have any affect
upon groll!'d waters.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-7-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
. 1'0tentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[Xl
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[ ]
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
I
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
5. AIR QUALITY.
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any affect upon air
quality.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (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? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.)
d} Create objectionable odors? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.)
6. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The
proposed use is within walking distance of the
high schooUrom which most of the students will
be coming from, and the proposal includes the
encouragement of, and facilities for the use of
alterniWve transportation.)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The proposed use
will occupy an existing commercial building at a
location that has not been identified as
hazardous. The proposed use with mitigation of
its potential parking demand will be compatible
with the surrounding uses.)
c) Inadequate emergency access Or access to nearby
uses? (The site for the proposed use is readily
accessible and will not inhibit access to adjacent or
nearby uses.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-8-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
l'otenlially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[XI
[XI
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[ ]
[ ]
[XI
File No. CUP 95-008
(
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
d) Insufficient parking capacity on,site or off-site?
(Both on-site and off-site parking capacities
would be insufficient except that the proposed use
is within walking distance of the high school from
which most of the students will be coming from,
and the proposal includes the encouragement of,
and facilities for the use of alternative
transportation.)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis,
there are no existing or proposed hazards or
barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists. The proposal
includes a spacious and secured area for bicycle
parking.)
.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (The proposed use is within
walking distance of the high school from which
most of the students will be coming from, and the
proposal includes the encouragement of, and
facilities for the use of alternative transportation.
The proposal includes a spacious and secured area
for bicycle parking.)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Based on
a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal
will not have any such affects.)
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 affects. The proposal is for the
occupancy of an existing commercial building in an
existing commercially zoned and developed area.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(No such species exist at the proposal sita)
.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (No such
communities exist at the proposal site.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-9-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
1'0tentiaIly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[X]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (There is no wetland habitat in the
vicinity of the proposal.)
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( The proposal is to occupy an existing commercial
building that is not in conflict with any such
plans.)
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 affects.)
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 affects.)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazarc;Wus 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 affects.)
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 affects.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? (Based on a project-specific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-10-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
,'otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
I ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
(
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (Based on a project-specific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (The site for the proposal is
an existing commercial building in an existing
commercially zoned and developed area in an
urban setting.)
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposal is
for a tutorial center with interior facilities for the
students. The rear parking area is adjacent to a
residential development, however, students will
not be allowed to congregate, loiter or recreate in
that rear parking area.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Based
on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
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? (Based on a project-specific
screeniRg analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
b) Police protection? (Based on a project.specific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
c) Schools?
analysis,
affects.)
(Based on a project-specific screening
the proposal will not have any such
d) MaintenaIlce of public facilities, including roads?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-11-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ 1
[ ]
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
<,otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[XI
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[XI
[XI
[ ]
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.
(
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
e) Other governmental services? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affectsc)
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? (Based on a project-specific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
b) Communications systems? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Based on a project-specific screening
analysis, the proposal will not have any such
affects.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Based on a project-speCific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
e) Storm water drainage? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.)
f) Solid waste disposal? ('Based on a project-specific
screening analysis, the proposal will not have any
such affects.)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Based on a
project-specific screening analysis, the proposal
will not have any such affects.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (The
proposal is to occupy an existing commercial
building. No exterior alterations to the building
are induded in the proposal.)
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-12-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
(
.-otentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] .
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ I
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
File No. CUP 95-008
( (
"otentially
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?
(Based on a project-spe'cific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.) [ J [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Create light or glare? (No new or additional
exterior lighting is included in the proposal.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Based on a
project-specific screening analysis, the proposal
will not have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Based on a
project-specific screening analysis, the proposal
will not have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c) Affect historical resources? (Based on a project-.
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e) Restrict existing. religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Based on a project-
specific screening analysis, the proposal will not
have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] . [X]
15. RECREA'TION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (Based on a
project-specific screening analysis, the proposal [X]
will not have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ]
b) Affect existing recrea tional opportunities?
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
.
CEQA Checklist
7195
-13-
File No. CUP 95-008
.
Would 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 fL_h or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal commUtlity, 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 affects.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (Based on a project-specific
screening analysis, the proposal will further
neither short-term, nor long-term environmental
goals.)
.
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
(Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the
proposal will not have any such affects. No other
uses with similar potential impacts exist at the
site, or in the vicinity of the proposa1.)
d) Does \!;Le 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 affects with the exception
of the mitigated parking demand. Should the
parking demand be inadequately mitigated, there
could be ad verse effects to nearby businesses and
residential uses,)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES:
.
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes,
that have adequately analyzed an effect resulting
from the proposal.
CEQA Checklist
7/95
-14-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
eotentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[J
[X]
[ ]
No
Impact
,
[X]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
File No. CUP 95-008
.
.
.11.
File Ni
Cup %-O()fj
(
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 9IO07
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
~ \21 \ 1~
Date Filed:
General Information
1. Applicant's Name: \J <E:. ,'\ ",',,, (.; .
Address: If fY\J?J", C c... '" R co: s. 0 '^' c:.. '"
52.'t~' :. c:
Property Address (Location): T,' t: _-)
<;:: c.. ~ r~ ~-t..r
)L/ I E. j) ""eM' \- "- i< A -#- I 03
o .II- . .}Ikc",t, " .) w,
!UC4"'1 tIJ!f,
2.
Assessor's Number:
3.
Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
D -'< \(\ ",',); c: ';. r ^'"' r 0.. J.. wJ" IiiJ E. h 'AoJ t e.. R J. tl...li0
1\ ( r c, ~ " r_ (' j(J., c:; I \) <J h ( ~ \ ~) '7 Lf')~- b 1/ 2 )
)
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:
NJA-
I
4.
5.
6.
Zone Classification: C - '2
General Plan Designation: (' ;::') "'" {'r-, .(> r ~",\i
-
Project Description
9.
10.
7. Proposed use of site (project description):
.sJ ~ " CO M ')
" 1,,0 C n
8. Site size:
Square footage per building: t '::l
Number of floors of construction: {, \;:) u \" 'Q "
Amount of off-street parking proVided(~ '\
"'--.........
1\ +
"<{:
(Wil/ /~ 15r"r~ 10 I"t"OVI"J.e
" yaw P&c-~9,?;J,/~ ~ei)
.
14.
.
15.
,
V(}r ~S-cx:>e:J
12.
( (
Proposed scheduling of project: () C. ( '--~ (}.. '^ (~ ~ ;) ^ ~ f ) c:.k-~ 0:1
0--1. -\- "'''''''- " ~ (' r:> V "-1"1<0
Anticipated incremental development: rJ J PI.
.
'13.
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and rpe of household sizes expected:
GJ A
I
If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
/VEl 1.."-1~(sot: j,ftrp,o
16. If industrial, 'ndicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
)
17.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
<:,€-~ r.~ "-~<..~ \' s;.\()\-f"(,,"\{c~~~"\ ;)r""<v*"';)~"
. \
18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state
this and indicate clearly why the application is required:
C \A ,rg
-,
.-
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked
yes (attach additional sheets as necessary).
19.
20.
21.
.
YES
~
c/
rf
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
o
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
o
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
o
E.I.R.
3/95.
-2.
( CUI" 95- Cl:1el
( (
YES NO
. 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 ~
0
23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
~
24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing 0
drainage patterns. ~
25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 0
26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 0 ~
27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, 0
flammable or explosives. CZ(.
28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, 0
sewage, etc.). cf'
29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, 0
etc.). ~
30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 0
. Environmental Setting
31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including
information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or
scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, 'and the use of the structures. Attach
photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.
32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on
plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses
(reside~tial, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses,
shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs,
rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will
be accepted.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
X--) '2-\ \ CJ~
Date
b.s
Signature
~~
.
E.I.R.
3/95
-3-