Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1337 .. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 1337 A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-4 TO RELOCATE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA FOR DAY CARE CENTER AT 66 WEST DUARTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on February 24, 1987 an application was filed by The Lutheran Church of the Cross to move the outdoor play area, Planning Department Case No. C.U,P, 87-4, on property commonly known as 66 West Duarte Road, more particulary described as follows: Lots 11 and 12, the west 10 feet of Lot 10 and the east 9 feet of Lot 13, of Tract 6074, located in the City of Arcadia. County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 67, Page 83 in the Office of said County Reco rder. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on March 24, 1987 and June 9, 1987, 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 Planning 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 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 use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants 11 Conditional Use Permit to move the outdoor play area upon the following condi tions: 1. The site shall be maintained as per the plans on file in the Planning Department. 2. Compliance with C.U,P, 74-23 shall be maintained except fOI' the location of play yard number 2. 3. That C.U.P. 87-4 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 4. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Condi tional Use Pennit shall constitute grounds for the immedi ate suspension or revocation of said Permit. Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of June 9, 1987 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Kovacic, Papay, Szany NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Fee, Galinski Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Re~;olution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Arcadi a. 1337 -2- ~ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23th the day of June, 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Kovacic, Szany NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Fee, Galinski ABSENT: Commissioner Papay ATTEST: ion /;flM/~d / Secretary, Planning Commission Ci ty of Arcadi a . . -3- 1337 o . .. June 9. 1987 TO: ARCADIA CITV PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILFRED E. WONG, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-4 CASE NO.: The Planning Commission at its March 24, 1987 meeting continued the pUblic hearing for Conditionlll Use Permit 87-4 to its meeting of June 9, 1987. This continuation WllS to llfford the applicant on opportunity to submit reYised plans for the new p111yground llt 66 West DUllrte ROlld, Ortg1nlllly the appllcant had proposed to moye play yard number 2 to the southwest comer of the lot. The PlannIng Depllrtment hod recommended deniol of this proposo!. The reYised plan moyes the play yard within the church grounds. An existing 6'-0. high concrete wall and a new 6'-0. wood fence will surround the playground. The Planning Department feels the new location resolyes any negatiye impacts that may be created by the playground upon adjacent properties, Pursuont to the proYisions of the Co1ifomio EnYironmentol Quolity Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adyerse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affectecl by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of hlstortcal or aesthetIc sIgnIfIcance. Therefore, a NegatiYI~ Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approya1 of C.U.P. 87-4 subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be maintaIned as per the plans on f11e In the Planning Department. . . . 2, Compliance with C,U.P, 74-23 shall be maintained except fOI" the location of Play yard number 2, 3. Thot C.U.P. 67-4 sholl not toke effect until the owner ond applicant haye executed a form ayallable at the Planning Department Indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approyal. 4. Noncompliance with the proylsions and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or reyocation of said Permit. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Aooroyal If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approye this project, the Commission should moye to approye and file the Negatlye Dec1aratim1 and find that the project w111 not haye a significant effect on the enYironment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings and conditions of approyal set forth lin the staff report (or as modified by the Commission), Denial If the Planning Commission Intends to take action to deny this project, the Commission should moye to deny and direct staff to prepare an approprillte resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. C,U.P.137-4 6/9/87 Pflge 2 e . - . ~'., - t~I.t: ~. ~I. ,.~" 6L.,,, ",.LL ' lZ~D ~ 0 . ~~ " -' ~'(4~ (jJ./..!J{I{l /././ /iJ7IiJ'lI7itl ","..u, " l,<. f'a'l'0I14 A ., I PLAY YARPn/ '2:12'O~/';"~~ "01,,,,1 II .z.".&,,-(;,U.t... "No.I":~"'l"""'~;~'II;.\;~ ._. I\....;,."X-..../"Ilf" MW, .' 4(,' '......'. ..,t', , ..... 4.- --rJL 1:1" ,,-. ",..,/10.,:- . .,:.... ,'....~--~ '.' lii .: : ;'. 'l'WI'c??E:\) ~ ',j ~Yqfa}ll) ~ , lii "~ ' ~ ',lil\ iii .~ ,\~,,, '-fu," ~ . .......... '.,'..-' .. ,-:. -~ , ...:.,..:;..: ' f\O~O oU ~f\IE. 66 I!J. \2.EVlSED PLAr-J N,T.S. . . . PUBLIC HEARING C.U.P. 87-4 66 W. Duarte Road Consideration of conditional use permit to ,move outdoor play area for day c.lre center to the southwest corner of the lot, adjacent to the rear property line. The staff report was presented. Staff indicated that the play ground as it exist is not walled in and was never approved. In response to a question from Commissioner Fee, staff said thllt they did not feel that the playground would create substantial noise, therefore, it was not included in the Environmental Check List. If this was approved, the structures would have to be a minimun of 3' from the wall. The State Licnese for a day care center requires that such facility shall have a specific sq. ft. of inside and outdoor area available for each child. The public hearing was opened. Scott Alvik, 8610 E, live Oak, San Gabriel was there to represent Lutheran Church of the Cross. In answer to Commissioner Papay's question, he said that the extended hours of the play ground would be for children whom their parents pick them up after work. He explained that they needed a larger space that would provide for approximately 4000 sq, ft. vs. the existing 1120 sq. ft. He commented that one of the alternatives suggested was to relocate some ,of the parking stalls to the rear to provide room for the playground; however, this would force them to eliminate 2 handicapped spaces and relocate them and Inoted that they would have to fence the play area, thereby, blocking off the entrance to the education building where the Montessori academY is located which would not be safe in case of a fire. The court yard area has been utilized for many different uses and purposes such as special events, youth activities and church services and by placing the play yard there they would eliminate any wide open space for the church to use for the mentioned purposes. The use of the c,ourtyard area as a lunch area or a recess area would disturb the students that are still in class and working on their school work. He explained that the academY divides the students in small groups, whereas the majority of the students are still in class during a 2-hour period lunch time. With the above-mentioned altern~tive the entire side of the wall would have to have shatter proof glass in the event that a child was pushed into it. However, the proposed site would put the children away from the building and would avoid any possible safety problems with the glass. He commented that they would utilize the play area for approximately 3 hours a day and noted that they intended to keep the noise down to a minimum. They would be wll11ng to modify the area to include a block wall and a roof if permi'tted. He said that none of the residents on Magna Vista are against the intended use. There are currently 37 students enrolled in the Montessori school and remarked that they did not intend to increase the number of students. Approximately IS to 18 students between preschool through 4th grade would be using the play area which would have a swing set and a jungle-gym at anyone time. He explained that Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/24/87 Page 2 . . . there were some complaints in the past,about some young adults drinking beer in the evening and throwing rocks in the neighbors' yards which was remedied by asking them to leave. In response to Commissioner Fee's question of how they proposed to monitor the use of the playground during non-school time, Mr. Alvik said that they would lock the area with 2 gates. Thi~ area would not be utilized on the weekends during' church hours and said that they intended to use it from 11 to 2 and for approximately ~ hour in the evening on weekdays. Staff clarified that the ,proposed play area in the conditional use permit for the church was a 25' easement for a possible alley and commented that the chul'ch could uti1fze the area for a barbecue or a wedding without violating the Code. Under the current Code the church would be'd~ficient in its parking and went on to say that at the time that the c.u.p. was granted, there were no parking standa rds for churches. Doris Pfeifer, 160 W. Camino Real was present and said that she is a church member. She asked if any restrictions were put on the play area and staff commented that there were no restrictions put on play yard 12. Bernie Wijesiriwardena, Monrovia said that they are the operators of the Montessori school. He commented that they have operated the school for g years and have never had any complaints during that time. They have always heard positive comments from the parents because this is an educational program. He was in favor of moving the play yard the proposed area away from the building, He believed the proposal is a good one and asked for approval. Play ground '1 is used for the little children and said that they have one teacher and one -aide each for every 12 students. They are lisenced to have 42 students, Mr. Weidaw, 65 W. Magna Vista, directly behind the church, spOke against the proposal. He was concerned about the church leasing its property to the Montessori school and commented that they are not opposed to children or play yards. He remarked that children do not play quietly in play yards and shout, scream and laugh which would create noise. The location of the play yard as it exists is ideal for the neighbors to the south. He went on to say that play areas are usually right next to class rooms and not 100' from them. He asked the Commission to move the play area next to the education building which would not create any problems with the neighbors. He was against having the play area in a~ place along the southerly boundary line. Commissioner Galinski asked what structures on his property is located near the proposal and Mr. Weidaw said immediately next to this fence is a garage but his study is located near the rear of their house which would be about 30' from the play ground. The noise created by the play ground would be a problem. He mentioned that the children were supervised by teachers who utilized whistles and shouted at the children to get their attentton. If the children are on the swing or the jungle-gym they can see the yard. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/24/87 Page 3 . . . Mike Shaw, 75 W. Magna Vista spoke against the proposal. His house is located di rectly behind the proposed area., He commented that sometimes the church ut ili zes the ext sti ng play area for 'gatheri ngs and sa i d that they can hear' thei r applause. He felt that if the play area was to be located where they are proposing then the noise would be substantially more. He suggested utilizing the area to the west marked as "kitchen/fellowship hall, platform". By doi ng so they woul d probably lose 4-6 parki ng spaces but woul d not have problem with the, residents to the south and they would still have their buffer zone. They could gain about 12 parking spaces to the rear in lieu of placing the play ground there. He said that in a recent experience (Sunday, March 22), three boys were on the wall who were throwi ng rocks at thei r dog, he told the k,i ds to get down and upon leaning over the wall he noticed that several adults were standing in the parking lot and did not say anything. He was concerned that the children would c11imb up the wall and get into his swimming pool or antagonize his dog who could bite them, He felt that another alternative might suit the church, Montessori school and the neighbors. Frank Bonfelio, 69 W. Magna Vista, directly to the rear of the church was concerend with the litter created by the children, He commented that they make quite a bit of noise and was against the proposal. In rebuttal. Mr. Alvik said that all of the neighbors were concerned with trash and litter and he asked the Commission to increase the height of the wall which would eliminate that problem. He explained that the play yard would be approximately 70' from some of the homes to the south with 2 block walls in between the'noise level would decrease substantially. He commented that he did not feel that a maximum of 18 children would create more noise than the high schoo 1 duri ng any event that the school mi ght have such as a football gam,e or a band practice, Staff said that Code allows a maximum 6'.0" high wall, Mr. Alvick, in response to a question from the Commisison said that the students have a specific lunch hour and place as to where their food is consumed. Food is not allowed in the play area. It is possible that the high school kids are the ones that are creating the trash problem. He felt that they have tried to accommodate everyone and said that they would even lock off their parking lot so the high school kids could not get in. Mr. Shaw's suggestion of relocating the play area to the westerly area would not be feasible since the area would not be large enough. Commissioner Fee commented that the church would be able to place a large play area along the westerly property 11 ne by relocating 6 westerly parki ng stall s along the southerly wall. He reminded the applicant that the church is in R-l zone whtch abuts residential properties and noted that to the west of the property is another church and felt that backing up to the church would be less of a problem than backing up to residential properties. Arcadia City Planning Commission , 3/24/87 Page 4 . . . Mr. Alvik remarked that the Board of Health requires the play yard to have a sandy bottom and cannot be dirt or mud. The area suggested by Commissioner Fee is currently black top and he did not believe that they could have a play ,yard on that type of surface. He went on to say that the run off is very steep and could pose other types of problems. Even though the suggested alternative is possible, they would have to go through great expense. They have looked at many alternatives and felt that the proposal is the best. Staff said that if that area was approved by the Commission then the applicant would have to come up with suitable plan. The City requires a school to have 7S sq. ft. of outdoor play area per child. Ms. Butler commented that there are other schools in the City that have asphalt areas where the play area is located. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Galinski to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Kovacic expressed his opinion and said that the church should try to find a place for the play yard along the westerly boundary, even though it would be expensive, If the play ground was to be relocated to the westerly boundary, he felt that the noise level would be the same, Commissioner Galinski said that the solution for the church would be a bad one for the neighbors. He felt that even though the goals for the Montessori school are beneficial to the children, the proposed use is an adjunct activity to the church. There are other solutions which may cost more but would be better for the neighbors, He was against the proposal as presented, Commissioner Papay commented that the proposal is the best from the school's point of view but the worst from the neighbors. He favored the play yard to be as far from the southerly property line as possible recogonizing that if it were to remain where it is it would infringe upon the use of the grass for other functions and based upon the c,u,p. approved in 1974 they may have to give up that area for the play yard. He said that he would try to place the play yard as close as possible to the church's buildings so to minimize the noise from the residents on Magna Vista. He did not like the play yard where it is proposed on the south property line. He commented that the further away the play yard from the property line it would be better. Commissioner Fee remarked that it is economical to place the play yard on the south property line but it would be done so at the expense of the residents to the south in their freedom and interference of peaceful life. He felt that there are other alternatives over what haS been proposed that would be less of a problem than what would be generated by the way that it is proposed now. He was against the proposal under the present situation. Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/24/B7 Page 5 . Commissioner Hedlund said that this would be moving the play yard from onE! bad place to another. He was opposed to it because he felt that they could come up with a better alternative. The 10' wall proposed by the church would not be acceptable by Code, Commissioner Amato agreed with the other Commissioners. Chairman Szany also agreed with the other Commissioners and felt that an alternative design could be reached. Staff suggested continuing the c.u,p. in order to allow the applicant to come up with a revised plan. I()TI ON It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissening, Mr. Alvik was in favor of continuing the c.u.p. to the first meeting in June. f()TlON It was moved by Commissioner Papay, seconded by Commissioner Kovacic to continue the public hearing for C.U.P. 87-4 to June 9, 1987. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissening. tID -------------------------------------- . AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mike Shaw, 75 W. Magna Vista asked the Commission of the status of the survey that was to be done by the City on the north side of Duarte Road and the south side of Campus Drive near the high school for the no parking. Staff indicated that this matter should be directed to the Director of Public Works who would be able to provide him with the information that he was request i ng. MATTERS FROM COUNCIL None MATTERS FROM COMMISSION None Arcadia City Planning Commission 3/24/87 Page 6 . . . March 24, 1987 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILFRED E. WONG, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-4 FROM: APPLICANT: Lutheran Churcb of tbe Cross LOCATION: _ 66 West Duarte Road REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to permit outdoor play area number 2 for day care center to be moved to the southwest corner of t~e lot, adjacent to the rear property line. Play area to be 28'-5" by 103'-3". LOT AREA: Approlimately 80,500 square feet 0.8 acres) FRONTAGE: 232 feet on Duarte Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: Church; zoned R-I SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: Arcadia High School; zoned R-I South: Single-family dweUinas; zoned R-I BaSt: Masonic Temple; zoned R-I West: Church; zoned R-I GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential (0-6 du/ac) . . . B1STOlQ' On August 6, 1963 the City Counell adopted Resolution 3609 which approved a zone variance (V -61-14) for the construction of a church at 66 West Duarte Road. ' On December 10, 1974 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 875 granting a conditional use permit (CUP 74-23) for a classroom addition and a day care center. Approval Is subject to the property being maintained in accordance with the plans filed for CUP 74-23 (see EIhiblt "A" for a reducecl Copy of the site plan). , Each day care center is required to have no less than 75 square feet of outdoor play area for each child. The applicant is proposing to move play yard number 2 (see EIhibit "A") to the southwest corner of the lot because there is more room. The new play area will be 28'-5" by 103'-3" or approximately 2,930 square feet (existing play yard 1.120 sq. ft.). As stated in a letter from the applicant, the play yard will be used between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm and on occasion between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm, This will only occur on weekdays and the children will be under teacher supervision. When possible residential uses should be protected from the potential of any negative impacts created by other uses, MOVing the play area will create more noise for the adjacent single-family zoned lots. The Planning Department is not in favor of the proposal since there are alternatives which would minimize the noise and still provide for adequate yard area. One alternative would be to leave the play yard at its present location and expand it further to cover the courtyard if a larger area Is desired. The total area of the courtyard is approximately 4,000 square feet. A second alternative would be the expansion of the parking lot into the rear 28'-5" of the lot, while eliminating parking spaces adjacent to the church for a new yard. Adding parking spaces to the rear of the lot would require a 5 '-0" wide landscaped buffer along the rear property line. If the Commission approves the proposal as submitted by the applicant, conditions should be imposed restricting the use of the playground to minimize its impact on the adjacent properties. C.U.P 87-4. 3/24./87 Pane 2 . . . Find attached a letter from the Council President and Pastor or the church. ExhibIt "Au, an aerial or the sIte, and a site plan. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning 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 or historical or aesthetic Significance. Tberefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this projecl ~ TJle Planning Department recommends denial or C.U.P. 87-4 as proposed by the applicant. The Planning Department would recommend approval or C.U.P. 87-4 subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing play yard number 2. which was approved by C.U,P. 74-23. may be enlarged to toVer all or part or the existing church courtyard (north or the parking lot). Revised plans shil11 be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 2. A portion or the parking lot (only the first row or parking spaces closest to the church) may be converted into a play yard If the follOWing conditions are met: A. An equal number of parking spaces displaced by the pJlay yard shall be provided within the rear 28'-0" or the lot. B. The new parking spaces shall complay with the commercial standards stated in Sections 9269.7.1, 9269.8.1,9269.9.1,9269.12,9269.14 and 9269.15 (size or spaces. striPIna. wheel stops, drIveways, pavIna and drainage). C. Per Section 9269.13 a 5'-0" wide landscaped buffer shall be provided along the rear property line. D. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Plllnnitlll Department for approval 3. The site sbaU be maintained as per the plans on flle in the Plllnning Department. C.U.P 8,7-4 3/24187 Pale 3 . . . 04. That C.U.P. 87-04 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant bave executed a fonn available at the Planning l)epartment indicating awareness and acceptance or the conditions of approval. S. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation or said Permit. If the Planning Commission intends to approve C.U.P. 87-<f as proposed by the applicant, the Planning Department recommends the fonowing conditions: J. The new playground located adjacent to the rear property line shall only be used on weekdays (Monday through Friday), between the hours of 11 :00 am and 2:00 pm and between ':00 pm and 6:00 pm. 2. Children shall be under teacher supervision at all times when the playground is being used. 3. Per Section 9275.3.3 any structure or play equipment within the playground in excess or five feet in height shall be located a minimum of three feet from the masonry walls along the property lines. 04. The site shall be maintained as per the plans on file in the Planning Department. That C.U.P. 87-4 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Plallning Depar~ment indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions or approval S. 6. Noncompliance With the provisions and conditions or this ConditionaJ Use Permit shall Constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation or said Permit. C.U.P 87-4- 3124/87 PaKe <f . . . .. FINlllNGS AND MQJ'lONS. A ooroval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve tbis project, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings and conditions of approval set forth in the staff report (or as moc!lfJed by the COmmissIon). penial If the Planning Com mission intends to take action to deny tllis project, the Commission should move to deny and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support or that decision. c.U.P 8:'-of 3/24/87 Paae~ . . . .. Sc.hool O\JA~e. ROAd :/ eh RC~ I ... .tl o r;\ 6.014 IAO,"" I ,1 (~O) I I A~A lA l , I MAS !\lIe. I iTel"1 ,Ie : e;' .... , cO, ~ ' ~r" '" ... ., ,.... ;i s:1;;:~.... '" I'" i. uJ , I 45 ; I 0: N ~__~__ _ o_~/ ~ ~ ~: 10 ;31 -. 90 GO <10 G~ GO:> :.~ ..0 ~c<<r.-tr" CUI (i -.,. ~:. 108 G') (,; oil> o~o t'/D<J G-S r84J GO "4) n:o~ :.-:> GO r&tJ GO ~ n:SJ GO f~ ~! AND USE' AND ZONING I"~IOOI :t~~~AN CHURCH OF THE CROSS i... The Reverend Margaret Ann Duttera. Pastor 66 West Duarte Road. Arcadia. California 91006 . (818) 447-72~2 Karch 13, 1987 !l'o Our Neighbors end Members of The City P1ann1ng CamI1ss1cm: One of our neighbors has canp1a1ned to the Ci ~ of Arcadia regarding the Montessori Academy'p1ay-yard as bdng a disturbance because of the noise. '!'he children (age 2-9 years), use the play-yard for t:wo t:h1rty-minute periods, between the hours of 11:00em end 2:0Opn, week days only. On occasion, it is used for 30-minutes between 5:00 and 6:00p.m. '!'he children are under teacher supervision at all t:1mes. '!'he Montessori Academy has occupied our facilities for the past nine years, during which t:1me there has been no other canp1aint. '!'here was a six-month period fran July, 1985, when our facilities were used by a family counseling group, which proved to be unsatisfactory for both principals. We . feel this group may have been a contributing factor to our neighbor's canp1eint, and arrengements with the group were terminated in January of 1986. '!'he play-yard hils been located at the southeast comer of our church properi.y against the back, block wall. It is enclosed by a chain link fence with a locked gate. It -contains a jungle gym end a swing set. '!'here 1s no pemanent structure in the area or against the block wall. It has been brought to our attention, due to the canp1aint. that a violation of city code may exist. '!'herefore. application has been made to relocate the play-yard at the southwest comer of the church property. We feel the youth of our c:anmun1ty ere our most ~ortant asset, and request: your support with the Ci ~ Planners to continue to e110w Montessori Academy to provide the valuable progrlllD tha~ 1t hils been doing so well. You will be receivUlg a not1ficat.1an of II hearing before the City of Arcad1e Plan- ning Camlissianers in the very near future. We would appreciate your support and ask that your views be DIIlde to the cCllllll1.ssian by 1et~. phone call or by your presence at the meeting. Sincerely, ' ~UcJ 9? ~ Xaren J. Lse. Council President ?'7...!Y tf..f) ~ :::J Margaret A. Duttera, PlIStor . " j -, .' ";. ..-,;- . &$' PLAY '(ARP'" ':htO~ /":'6~ ,.,." . . e. u,IooP.tC~... .....~.:tll".,~I~~;..II:.\-;. r" .~. :}';j:(; ,,~:j, . " " ,.: ,-, ~..,A' :' '.~~~ .o......;;.iiit&TIO....:: . -::: 6r.1u"Ou.,.. ~...,.. . ~,Q.i._i,:..I.--.:..;---- .:: ,ifSs:':;--- 4-., , '1 IlL +1" ~II1~}fi.i I ~I , 1 , J , - ..... .' ..............-..::t. . u..c........~"t'''';~..:. ...1..."........" .....,..... . . ,.," '" ......,,,, . -. ...........,'... ...........- ". -- ." '0 ,. . , :. 0.: -~ .... OU{>.f\1E f\Ot>.O e6 '14. EXHIBIT "A II, . N.T.S. - - --- =='---- ------==-- - --~~~=~="""=----~~--=--~~-- . { I I, . ,If I . , SITE PL"'.... ,..., LA ....... ~. -....T.'. ~1."IttIC.~ ..........alO:-yi. , - ': ..,.. If'. PROPOSED Pl.A y GROUND ~ &..1 ...... -....... ""-- ...... _let. ....,... -. .:..'... WI - -- - /.J.J.J.J.J.JJJ'.JJ.JJy.J.J.J ///////////////17 .~~ -.......,...... L - ....or. ......0........ '\ . . ... - --- ~ 8 A :ra. "O~D. .....,. _~c.: _It:nl . I". ~O' ..... Ca.OUND ...,....... """........ ........... -.... ......... ow. aII....ar.. .Ct.. ....c.a......"ea...--..., .......... ." ....... ... ...... ..,.. , "_ 11_... ~.."'L a......I~'.MI~. ... ...~...-r _01'..... ......,.. __.. If......... T1I&.... .. ..,.. pea. .... .". .... ..0 ~MU.." '"'WIG. c.............; ..... ........ ... ....".. ZONING: ..... I --.~..:-;-~,,:,-~ .~..,.; -....--...-- , , ' 1 I I I I I i , I , I ,_d . File 110. C.U.I'. 87-4 CALIFORNIA ENVIllONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFOJINIA A. Description of project: C'.L1I"rlf t:i""::II 1 n~p PPnnf t" t"n Y'P 1 ty'> At'P t-hP d''II tt"clt'Y'\T olav area for an exlstlrw day care ~hool. B. Location of project: 66 West fuarte Road, Arcadia, CA 91006 . C. Name of applicant or sponsor: lutheran OuIrch of the Cross D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmerltal Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attaclled Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: Date: 3/6/87 ~t~ . Date Posted: Associate Planner Title Pile No. C.U.P.B7-4 . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Fod , A. BACKGllOtIND 1. NIIIIIe of Proponent Wthel'an O1urch of the Cross :2. Mdreaa anI! Phone NllllIber of Proponent 60 W. fuarte Road Arcadia. CA 91006 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (E:lp1anaUons of all "yes- anI! "maybe- answers are requirel! on attachel! e:tleets.) .~. m .."" .!!l. "'do of 1IIMn.. ... UtlI ~al &11-..... . 1'1ak or UI ...l_Lon 01' U. ..1.... of .......-.- .uIlIIUAOII. (Ulcl11l4h... h" ~ U.U.ed to. 011. ~~U~tC:;-:~~~:U-1 ....C ~tJ._? ~Uln. .Ul... p~d UMI' u.. aoca1.lIllft. 4Ult.r1bllUOfI. ....UJ'. 01' ~ ,..1.. or U. ...."" pap.v.1e- U... of .. .....1' / n. / . u. ~. W111... pnpoaal &Ifact . Iloul.... 01' ~... . ...... a441U-l .......' L II, 1l....00rt.t1<mtc:..l"C'lIl.UOft. .1ll pnIpOlI.J.........u.lB' / ./ L .L L L '.. ~_ 01 ....t.aaUal ...... ~ -.biClllal"_1.' .. ar.n. 1;1III. .....u... .-u., CacUJ.u.- .. ~ ~ _ 1IUUII9' c. "'t.Ult.1&1; ~ _ a;Mu., . .~u._-rn-' d. U...,aU- tit ....-.. pRtau -.I dzaal.U_ _ -.-t at faOPla ..-.".. ...' . .... .. U""'U_"'- _ .... ....,&C, r. bcI'Mn" t.ntfia .....- to ~ ...uc:_. "'~oUaUi _ -.a-' a., I!.uc .....1.. ...U... ~al .. .ua ...... IIlI' ..."h 1Jl . .... f. _ .. alu...... __ _1.&1 ~_ .&II ., of UIe folHriag -. .. n.n ~_, .. -.1&. phUCU.., ..~., ~ J .; ..,... 01' .... "lCnn1~ _.u.uU'" .. ~., .-Uc: fac1U. ..... a-lild1all 1r'Nita1' L -2 _. ..... r- t.<J~"_' u. !rl!!D. w1n ell&' pnpoa.l _It. "" e. ... ot .ablItailU.u _u 01 __I Olr _rvrl' ..L I . lb. "'U7It.hl laenu. 1ft lIaand ..,aD_...t1ft1.Da'C'allof~I'9Y.1JI" ......... tM ""''''''-t of _ __ cd "I'D' Dtl11Ue.. WUl Ula ~ ..-vlt Ji"""i""'ifOl'_."'~,OJ" ....t_tl.1 a1t....U'OU u tM 'oU_ ~.ullU"1 n. .. ....... ,. ..t.az61 ...1 ~ .. ~_u.. .,..~, ..L .. - .1 d. ...... m'. aepdc: uakal ./ ., ..,.. _u.. ~, -:z .. a.u. "'u all u.po.al' 1. ... ~t.~~UI. tUU U. pnpoad ., Cl'ont.1on 01 ..,. MaUll 1Ia&Nd or pot....hl buIll! UauoI taul~ ~ _bJ. ...1t.bl't lb. ____ of 1'MIP1. to ,...ual IIa&lU ..audllt Date 3/6/fIl .' 11. II! eI!! J!2. ....thaUcs. tUll tile JlnIfD&al ..aU Ii""EM _tl"llll:UOII of aD)' ua1e ..1".0" ..1_ 0;.1'1 tD 1:1I. ,mUc. 01' w111 .... propcM;a1 nnU u. tH, / cnaU.- 01 all _tIl.UaU, ofl_he .iu opul to pWIUc: ..i.' "cn.Uon. .Ul ell&' ~.1 ...-1I1t. Iii all -..c:t IIlpClIl t.M quality CIS' .L 't'IUUty of oJ..uot ncnatJ.OU1 GPfIClJ'tgDfU..' IU'r:tIacI01111c:a1lXhtodcal. .111 tM propo..r"..\IIi &1'1 an .n...aUOII of . .1p1UCMt ara-lotled 01' / ~.::n:~,;it.. atroC't_. c*jact: _ 11, ... n. ~~:-' ~~~:J:c::ffl:~~C;:~.l t.o ..,1'.. U.e 'IU!ity of tM .rrr1..-at. ~r':":~~:Url;:":::C::::. ~_":t. o~..:a =1~~~~J:r'~:.~::- .u.u.Mt. . ,IPt 01' an1Ml -s.e,. nctoc:a u.. D~" o:r ....tdct u. lfUI" .r . rare or ..,II........, ,1ant 01' _&-.1 01' .l1a1011t. ~nu1. ~l.. of aM _:to:r "l'iolIa 01 Ca1Uonia w.COI'J' L u .-.-..... II. ...... JtI'V111et tMl"ftI tbe ...d.al to .dU.... allan.u.... to tba dJ.aanUt&fl1 01 JoDrt.ra .m-l_Ul ~1a1 IA abQ:rt.UN ....,.et on Ula ""1~" ia _ nlc:b oeII:1&n 1fI . nl.U...l, Hld. Oau.a.tU.. ....lod of u.. wIl1~ """'e", iIIpHU .iU ....... ..U &at.o L ... ''''''.1 11I'. __ tIte P*'O:tact ..... ......c:u 1fMdl .... 1JuJ1'rillluaUJ' l1II1t.e4. .'IIt _1.1.1ftl, _l....abl., ea proj.ct NY 1..." 1m c.o o:r IEIn ....1'.... ...o.....coa. ..1'.' th. ......rt ... ..dl. ....0....." 1a ...laU..l1' _11. b1rt ....... the .U.c:t of u.. total 01 tbM.e ~ Ol:l tb. ""i_I. ... .1p1"'_",' L ~f"::- ""~dlP~i~a::: .:::=:t.l .d,"na .U.c:u 011 b_ Mln,.. ..tha.. tUnrt!y 01' b41J'.c:t.!yl' L C. DZ.CVS.1Cll1,. crn--.rAlo ft'A1oIa2'%CIIl D. m:n__n%OM (to be cmIIPld-' Ily tbe ...ad Afmqo) "1: buu 01 &hi. 1A1.......1 ....I.....u.. I I1Ild t.!III pI'OpOMd lII'Dj.ct COULD .". tI... . .J.plUc&llt .U.ct OIl tIl. .flvi"-Dt. u4 a D"!lV! ~lCl11 w111 be pnpu.d. . C I 'lad tIlllt. .11..boaP tba ~ 'I'D~ ~d ..... . .1p1UCMt .".Itt. em the .o."....-"t. tMn .Ul IIDt ... . .1pUle.,.t .U.c:t. .La tIlJ.. c:..e ~_. tba .sU..UDfl _uu.. ".c:r1bad on PI .t.tam.. .....1. .... bMrI .Od.d ItD U. sm>>'IIC't... a IIIGIoT:rn: ~C1. ..u.a. u. 'IIUAUD. C % fUMll tM PJ"DIIOMd ,",WI. MY .... . ."pUJ.caftt .Uect _ tM ....s.~t. _4 co arn~ I.aer 1D0Il! .... ......... -2- . , rUe IIO'~ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM . Address, I}ITHERAN CIWRCH of THE CROS~ 66 West Duarte Road, Arcadia, California 91006 ... J\ppUc:ant . s lIame, B. Prclperty M4ress (IDcat1011I, SAME AS ABOVE. Lots 11 and 12_ Tract number 6074, book 67- page 83. C. General P1M Dedlplat1ol11 Single family. residential D. Zolle Clus1f1caUollI Rl Z. p~e05 U8e (lltate exactly what use 18 1Dtellc!el! for the property. 1. e.. cype., act1 v1 ties. tllIIp10ymsnt I . Playground area for children to use at lunch times, between the hours of: no earlier than 7'A.M., and no latter than GP,M., Monday through Friday, Current Leasee of the Education Building is Montessori Academy. . r. Square rootage of Sitel 2889 G. Square rootage of Ex1sUng Buildings. 1. 'J'o Ilula1n, 5,400 Square feet :2. 'J'o lie IlalIloftd I Non e 8, Square rootage of New BuUding8 I No new buildings. r. Square rootage of BIl11dingll to be U8ed forI 1. CoIIaIIn:1al Act1 v1 Ues I N/A 2. Industrial Ac:t1v1Uell. N/A J. Jles1dlll\Ual Act1 v1 Ues, N/A IIUlllber of UD1 te , N/A . QI . sepuata sheet, dellcribe the fOlloring' . 1. !be lIJ\v1rcMent:a1 setUng of the project Bite &8 it exists. ~ 2. fte pr~ed alterat10ns to the project site. J. !be lIBe am! development of the s=ding propert1u. -1- . . , . Bnv1ronmental Information pom . It. atec:k the appropr1ate anllWlln = the following questiOlUl' Yes No -~ - 1. W111 the propos.d project result in a substant1al alteration of ;round _=1U'8 and/or alteration of existing drainage pattern? .L. 2. W111 the propoSlld project result in a change in 1JZ'0\lll4vater quality and/or quantity? -- .L. 3. Will the propoalld project result in an increue in no18e, VillratiClD, dust, dirt, sllOke, fUlll8ll' odor or solid "ute? .L 4. Will the Propoalld project nsult in the ase or disposal of potentially ha&~U8 materialS? - .L 5., W11l the P.lllld' project result in a substantial 1ncreue in demand for lI\111icipal services and/or energy consUIIIPtion, X _lain in detail lUIy "YES" answen to the abOve questiOll8 on additional sheets. L. Provide any additional information which would elsborate on the potentid env1Z'011111811tal consequences resultant from the proposed project. K. Certification. I hlareby certify that the statements fum1shed sbove and in the attached exhibits Present the data and information required for this ini'~ial evaluation = the blast of ftrJ ability. and that the facts. statements and informat101'l presented are tr1Ml IUId correct to the best of lIlY knowledge and belief. . Datel Qop1Z. I ct ~:::j- ~M C t(~ Signature of ~licant . -2- . . . .' 1.) The current playground area, number 2 is a grassy area betw'een the Education Building and the Church Fellowship Hall, It is intended for the use by (14) fourteen children. There is another playground area that was constructed on the southeast corner of the property against the (6) six foot concrete wull. 2.) This proposal is submitted to move playground number 2 to the southwest corner of the property. Lots 11 and 12 the west (10) ten feet of lot 10, and the east (9) nine feet of lot 13, of tract number 6074 per map recorded in book 67, page 83, in the records of Los Angeles County. 3.) The use and development of the surrounding properties shall not be altered.