Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1548 . RESOLUTION 1548 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-005 TO OPERATE A SCHOOL FOR GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8TH GRADE. WHEREAS, on May 14, 1997, applications were filed by Father Charles Ward on behalf of Our Lady of the Angels Church to a school for grades kindergarten through 8th grade, to be located on a R-3 zoned property that is commonly known 1100 W. Duarte Road, and more particnlarly described on the attached Exhibit "A". WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on June 24, 1997, 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 because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the area affected by the proposed project. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the ArcadiaMunicipal Code. 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 because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the new exterior design elements for the subject building are in compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. 7. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit, to operate a school K-8th grade upon the following.conditions: 1 . Fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 2. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must .be met to the complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Manager. 3. That all gates leading into the parking lot shall remain open during school hours. 4. That a portion of the parking area shall be designated as an outdoor play area during weekly school hours, it's location, equipment/game design, and configuration subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department 5. C.U.P. 97-005 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission~s action of June 24,1997, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Murphy and Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Bruckner, Kalemkiarian 2 1548 . . . SECTION 5 The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July, 1997, by the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Huang,KaJemkiarian, Murphy, and Sleeter ABSTAIN: Bruckner ABSENT: Bell ~~~ City of Arcadia Jrr:; : S'ecretary, PI . g Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: (YkJJw jt Y/ldltIfJ Michael H. Miller, City Attorney 3 1548 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT June 24, 1997 TO:' . Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: John Balmin.ki, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 97-005 SUMMARY This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by Father Charles Ward to' operate a school for grades kindergarten through 8th at 1100 W. Duarte Road. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-005 subject to the conditions thatare outlined in this staff report.' . GENRRAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Father Charles Ward for Our Lady of the Angels Church LOCATION: . 1100 W. Duarte Road REQUEST: A conditional use permit to operate a school for grades kindergarten through 8th. LOT AREA: Approximately 43,475 square feet (.99 acres) FRONTAGE: Approximately 235 feet along Temple City Blvd and 185 feet along Duarte Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The s~te is currently developed with a church, and is zoned R-3. . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Family SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: ~ " North: Multiple Family residential;.zoned R-3. . South: Multiple Family; zoned R-3 and Single Family; City of Terpple City. East: Multiple Family; zoned R-3. West: Multiple Family; zoned R-3. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a school (K thru 8th) within an existing church facility, as shown on the submitted floor plan (copy attached). It is anticipated that during the 1997-98 school year there will be approximately 30 students with a future growth of up to 108. School hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Friday In March of1986, the construction of the original church facility was approved by the City, which includes a lower level multipurpose room with a kitchen and twelve classrooms. The classrooms have been used mainly for Sunday school (religious studies). Due to the need to expand it's daily use, the church is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new school. Schools are permitted within any zone with an approved conditional use permit. The applicant has indicated that the students will more than likely be dropped off in the parking lot by their guardians. Thefacility has an entrance into the building in the rear of the . church. . Access to the on-site parking is from a two-way driveway along Duarte Road and a one-way driveway along Temple City Boulevard. The site currently provides for through traffic circulation by the use of two existing driveways, as shown on the submitted site plan. In staff's opinion, such through access would enable the on-site pick-up and drop-off of the students in a safe fashion, and provides a means for convenient access through the site which mitigates the possibility of congestion on the public right -of-ways. ANALYSIS Staff believes that the additional daily use of the classrooms' will not impact the surrounding properties, due to the location of the existing classrooms and configuration of the parking lot. In addition, staff recommends that an outdoor play area should be designated within 'the existing southwesterly portion of the parking lot The play area should be closed off during weekday school hours for safety and convenience. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial. study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise . CUP 97-005 June 24, 1997 Page 2 <. . . ~ and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDA TrONS: The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No.97-005, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Building code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete satisfaction of the Inspection Services Officer. 2. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. That all gates leading into the parking lot shall remain open during school hours. 4. That the southwesterly portion of the parking area shaIl be designated as an outdoor play area during weekly school hours, it's location and configuration subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Department. 5. That CUP 97-005 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Office indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporated the Commission's decision, specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth. in the staffreport, or as modified by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the Commission sbould move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. CUP 97-005 June 24, 1997 Page 3 Should the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to the scheduled public hearing; please contact John HaIrninskiat your earliest convenience. Approved By: 'I ~ . I .::b~~.. . lDonna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Land Use and Zoning Map, site plan, and floor plan CUP 97-005 June 24,1997 Page 4 , ., I \ .. \ . . (. . ... Vl ..::::: 130 I Cl t.l t) M\&.--____ ;::. Z 133 \ <( l- i .-11 f-----" I . ~() ::> I tC II o 't'", (f) .. I U) :: r.~ Ie 11- j )< R-3 130 '" 15 .0 77' ..... ~I , TRACT In ...::. -.... I \ 40 ,.. ,.. ffi''' ~ \ (1033) I _ / .:::J.:::J ... "" (/~:If1) o' I "':",.Bo..'S"'~%O' ~ ~ !;>' . 70.:'2~ .{CoilOo mini. m). . l' IO<t.O .l:,e:."3 . 1\ I 'I (lilT) IOS.aT ","j. (1II9) I 10.t65 'lo.tOS ~ "_ DlJA.R'fE eo ~/t2) 1124) '!!'lo) . \ I \ \ \ I \ \ , 1ELES !:IO \ (f! Iv) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ R-3 \ ",\ 'i;l\ 'gl \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \50 1500 -r R A C-r ..... 3121 .:;J .,0.,!Lpa ~a:Od1itli@l) ,nr.:: r 115.00 ~- .-.0 "'- rJ' ...-' ~.:J R-3 (1031) 'lO 10,~IH ROAD . 81 ,80 GoO \ <:;.0 \ /io~2) \ (IOla) . 3M3' r'7f};Z) \ r/o~13) \ . \ 7()4~) \ I \ \ ~1.11. \ \ \ \ "" ;::;\ \ I \ ~ Uti \ . \ \ ; \ \ \ \ 100 \ \ 1;0 I GO 50 _ ');,'.).9~ .:; 1 3 9 ~ -r RAe r ~ .to . !Il.I1. R-3 ;; . LoT \ r:Jt ~Cco~dO/l"li"i\JrT1) N t;. 7. 9.9Z -..:. '2,90 ;:; ..; (:l. ~ ~ ~ ';l- ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GoO N-~ ~~N l" "," eg........~ 'l.qo LE.RO'l' ST . , \ \ . r VICINITY MAP 1100 W DUARTE ROAD CUP 97-005 . A I NORTH Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet \:...... :~.,"~.. ~.. .,~ . ::~~~.., Ig -4 m 3: "'D r m () - -4 -< OJ r < c o. , ro~ ~ ,. o :: HJ.~ON'" l,JI'OlId ,u. 'J,.D~ ~... i- ~ ~ ... c :: ~ ~ ;; ~ '" 1: z '" .- e '" , c 0 . lc.'-oU 1 1 I .-q:"I'.. .' . ..,~, .,~,.' ...-......... ..~~ "."'" 'i fJ \, ~:"..-. . ~~, .~. ,.:., \i~7:"'-''''''' . ..':~< ~. ?~'. - : .x~/ '=- .,.~. . ,~"'. ,.' '~I ~ . l,~;., r.~; "'-~- ~ :'~~\.:..:.: . "'.' ....... ".:..,.,., o :I: C ::a o :I: .:~tI'W~ .~.~'v . n..~~'"......j ..." ..~. .".... ...~ '.....~~:. .1..".."""'-\..~ .. -~;''':;l''~''''..~-;.~ "'.'. , h,-.... Ili\ ':,., i\.t,,~ .~ .: bl\l"..' , ~.~ .,~:,) 6:..,.. ~ l """~' .'""'--",-~~. . .'1."" \!!It~ /~. ~ ~....,\..,... ~""'.I'.~' . ;~I~~.: . ~ r" ..- ... ... ~... ...-.......~ f>....jh..'. ........~. ........... ""..:,' "._' @ WEST '09>'_0\1 1'1'-0" ~ . f-r T",_ , o " ~ '" ,,\ ..t:.~ '" ..~.",;- ,', l'l ',,~.., .'d;'~k'\}" 1"'1&.~ I'It ~.. '. .J'!" .. -~, " .. .~ t,.~....... ~___.... l'- . :. .....______ .~:.-..;...i:~ ' ...... @ -;~ (.~ " - ",t'Jr:. ,'j'.Y(~/ ~. - ....)l,. ~ ~~~f ....r:.l....... ,,\!II:V.I.',., 1 l:"'~'ll . ':'V"~:"'.\..i/-:;~ _' ::;i lY'<.:;: ::~"_)\ <:~ ....~: ~ i..:...r:-.. . '.; /;.",,~ "':1-1h~;~ . ,t.> e "'b~w'''' r- .; ';;c"f;, V / -"'//1 . 'Ii; .'/V ::-. -" . .-~.'\ \"I~""----l ,- . . .. I ___v_"\ --... . L .~;~ ..~~, l~_.~.~. ~li 'Ii ~ i. :IIffi. .:... IS! ..' . : ~,;l'.:i;::;,. J.'Y.'[I/' ~:<~;~f;~ . . "'. I .-- \'-:'r--~ ~ - 1& ~ :.I~=~:l~ , .. ,'t. ,I. \ ,@!,; I,. T':~"'"'' ~~ .~ tUl\-.A; .: ' -~ ~. -". ',.' ~ . I...., I : ;;.~./.... ~ :, . l_t'J~:'..::t I ~ '. . ~..: ~..~ . : "_..' '_ 1 _ I ~ '\1 . _ -". ..-. ,..".. , 1 ":....,.<."': .......: ...-.:......:1, ~. ~ ! r',=.:':. .:(:' : ~.:>' I 'i,~..." : \~. I .' . T. I : I I "'$~ ~__..__..._____-I :~ uI:..>... I ,~ , , , ...L ~"T :~, I ' ~---J--- ..: ..,...,~ I "'. ,. I I I : i.~" i I :1 I i.. .':!..,. .@. .. t'~!! ~,:.~~\" ~..~.J~_.~ ~~,\~ ""'" .~v. .......~. .......... ...... III 'I" @ DUARTE ROAD ,., .,.~ :::- ..t" ...,,~ . .'!,~ '-.~I ,. It .~:. ~"~ ...y~. ....> . T.I .; :._..... \1" c~~1 ;s) 01 .. ~\ Iii,; Jk' ,\~ 17'~' .~!f'ic ~.' ... '\ .~ : .. $' @ N .,..J;. '''1, ..... , "". . . ~, .~ ...,I\'~ ~:~.Iit-'-;; ...:"'....~ ~:_\" '" .' .:/.."" 'Il'" ..' I . r .~:.." I'''", .~";~;; .....~...-~,.,.. , . .1 c Z C 5: Z ~ [ ...--- J G) ...-..-.:::t -'-- n [--- - ...ifi . .J ___ .z. . ,,, .- ~ Ii '"-'-''' . . a .., ..- . i" ::u I n n - r- ~ -.. - :I> en en . en .. .-. . en 5: -... c ~ I " '." . n c n ::u ~ " ~ 0 en en en en m en - ----,-- I n , n ~ r- :I> ., en en i en en I 0 0 ~~.""1 0 en r'" -4 ! 3J 0 i .... ::u . n :I> . m I t.~ . . j. i . ( _m. ~..... .'{ n en !!: n ~ d ~ . s; . . . en . . 0 en . . en ::u / - \. ::u en .. ::u .. '.' .... en \. Ie lID LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Sc:.../.c.. - I"': 7,'5' '1' ...._~..t.. --- OUR lADY OF THE ANGELS r.HlIRC:H --- - File No.: CUP 97-005 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Title and Description of Project: Conditional Use Permit CUP 97-005 A Conditional Use Permit to operate a school for 30 children between the grades kindergarten through 8th. B. Location of Project: . 1100 W. Duarte Road Arcadia. CA 91007 C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Father Charles Ward 1100 W. Duarte Rd Arcadia, CA 91007 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: None . Date: May 27,1997 Date Posted: May 29, 1997 By:~A ~~, ,Al:ssistant Planner File No.: CUP 97-005 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUJimNGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA .91007 . CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: CUP 97-005 2. Project Address: 1100 W. Duarte Rd. Arcadia, CA 91007 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Father Charles J. Ward 1100 W. Duarte Rd Arcadia, CA 91007 (818) 447-1752 . 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person & Telephone Number: John Halminoki,Assistant Planner (818) 574-5447 6. General Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential 7. Zoning Classification: R-3 . -1- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: CUP 97-005 . 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.) Conditional to operate a school for 30 children between the grades kindergarten through 8th.. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., pennits, fmancing, development or participation agreements) City Building Services I City Fire Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentialIy affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "PotentialIy Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise . [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation I Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance I . -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No;: CUP 97-005 DETERMINA nON (fo be completed by the Lead Agency) . On the basis of this initial evaluation: [Xl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE. DECLARATION will be prepared. [ .J. 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 theproject. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the pr.oposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measllI'eS based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been.addressed. . [ ] I 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 have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. );:;. ~. Ml\V 27 1997 Date John Halminski PrinlName Citr of Arcadia For . -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . File No.: CUP 97-005 EV ALUA nON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except ''No Impact" ariswers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A ''No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" anSwer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project"specificscreening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction related as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section ] 7 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section l5063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section] 7 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g" general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. . -4. CEQA Checklist 7/95 Would the proposal result in potential impacts.involving: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: il) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? (The proposal is consistent with the Multiple Family Residential designation in the General Plan and is a use for waich is authorized by Section 9255.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.) b) Conflict' with applicable environmental plaris or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? (The proposed school is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (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 mmority community)? (The proposed school is conslstant with the s~unding land uses.) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) CUI11ulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The proposed school facility is within an existing. facility.) b) Induce. substantial growth In an area either directly or indirectly (e:g., through projects In an Potentially Significant Impact [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 FileNo.: CUP 97~005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact . [Xl [Xl [Xl . [Xl [X] [Xl . CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact undeveloped area or extension of major infrastnJcture)? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl (The proposed school is within an existing facility. The proposed classrooms are within the basement floor space.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ 1 [ ) [Xl (The proposed project is consistant with the zone . designation and general plan.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X) (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an.identified fault.) . b) Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ) [ ] [X) (The site for the proposed use is not more susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any other site in the area. The proposed use will occupy an existing building that complies with current seismic standards.) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X) (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity ofan identified fault or liquefaction zone.) d) Landslides or mudflows? [ ) [ ) [ ) [X) (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and not within an inundation area) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? [ ) [ ) [ ) [X) (The proposed project will not require any grading, excavation, or fill. The proposed school is within an existing facility.) f) Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ) [ ) [X] (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to subsidence.) '. CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP97-005 WouJd the proposal result in potentiilI impacts involving: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact . g) Expansive soils? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [X] (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to expansion ofsoils.) h) Unique geologic or physicalJeatures? [J. [ ] [ ] [X] (No such features have been identified at the site of the proposed use.) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface nmoff? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no such changes are included in the proposal.) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] . (The site for the proposed use is not within an inundation area) c) Discharge into surface. waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g" temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on.a project-specific screening ~alysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or water movements.) f) Change in the quailtity 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] .' CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incolporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: . a) Violate any air. quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] f ] [X] (The proposed use will be required to comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) d) Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) 6. TRANSPORTATION (CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: . a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (The proposed. project will generate a slight increase in daily trips to and from the site, however, the additional trips will be consistant with a school and will be substantially less than those trips'associatedto weekends.) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (The proposed project" is consislant with the zone designation and general plan. The location bas not been identified as hazardous.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The site of the proposed use is readily accessible and the proposed use will not inhibit access to adjacent or nearby uses.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or,off-site? (There is adequate on-site parking for both the tenants and guests.to serve the proposed use,) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting a!ternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation.) .g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Based on a project-specific screening. analysis, the proposalwill.not have any such impaCts.) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Potentially Significant Impact [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [ ] [ 1 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [ 1 No Impact [Xl [Xl [Xl [Xl [X] [Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . .. File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ) [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) b) Use non-renewable resources In a wasteful and Inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known . mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on aproject-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of . hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicats or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP97'OOS Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than . Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on.a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impactS. The proposal has been reviewed by the local fire authority and has not been deemed a hazard to emergency response.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health. hazard? [ ] r ] r ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts;) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ J [X] (Based ona project-specific. screening analysis, the. proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Increased fife hazard in areas with flammable . brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Woulil the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specifiC'Screening analysis, the . proposal will not bave any such impacts. The CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP97-00S Potentially . Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potentia! impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact proposal has been reviewed by the local fire authority and has not been deemed a hazard to emergency response.) b) Police protection? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-speCific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Schools? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screeninganatysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ I [ I [ I .. [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening. analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Other govemmentat services? [ J [ J [ ] IX] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any. such impacts.) . 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Woutd the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to theJollowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? I] [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will notbave any such impacts.) b) Communications systems? [ I [ I [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Local or regional water' treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] .. [ I [ ] [Xl (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ I [ ] [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specifie screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Storm water drainage? [ I [ ] [ I [X] (Based on a project-speeifie screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . f) Solid waste disposal? [ I [ I [ I [XI CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than . Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific: screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nothave any such impacts.) 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Create light or glare? [ I [ ] [ ] . [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will not have any such impacts.) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based 1m ~ project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on l! projectcspecific screening analysis, the propOsal will not have any such impacts.) d) have the potential to cause a physical change whichwouJd affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nOlhave any such impacts;) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] . CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, th~ proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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 project) (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) Potentially Significant Impact r 1 r 1 r ] [ 1 r 1 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated r ] [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact r 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 No Impact [X] [Xl [Xl [Xl [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 Would the proposal result in potential impacts. involving: d) Does the projeclhave environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have,any such impacts.) 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pui'suantto the tiering, prollflllll EIR, or other CEQA processes' to analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from.the proposal. Potentially Significant Impact [ 1 File No.: CUP 97-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ 1 No Impact [Xl CEQA Checklist 3/96 . . . i t..':' . File No. C J1. P 91-(JD~ CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Father Charles J. Ward Address: 1100 W. Duarte Road, Arcadia, CA. 91007 2. 1100 W. Duarte Road, Arcadia, CA. 91007 Property Address (Location): Assessor's Number: 5382001067 and 5382001047 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project Father Charles J. Ward 818-447-1752 1100 W. Duarte Road, Arcadia, CA. 91007 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public' approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state andJederal agencies: NONF. 5. 6. Zone Oassification: R-3 General Plan Designation: Multiple-family Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Grammar School K-8 No change in property. No construction necessary. 8. Site size: .lI~..lI.,c:;, Q:'111:::l1T'" Foo'" \ 9. Square footage per building: 16,000 Sa.ft.Total (lower level 8190 Sq. ft.) 10. Number of floors of construction:' Two floors, already existing. .. Amount of off-street parking provided: 61 spaces 12. Proposed scheduling of project No construction involved. Ready as is. 13. Anticipated incremental development N/A 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: MIll . 15. If commercial, indicate the.type,.i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: lJ llo . 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loadingJacilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project Sp-p ::::at:.....~t"'hpn 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: . Conditional use permi't required, as per Mr. Roy Streeter. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes . (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existingJeatures of any hills,or substantial alteratin of ground contours. o iii 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands'or roads. o lit 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 lit 0 ~ 0 [i] . E.LR 3/95 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity; -2- .4. .1. YES NO Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. o [] [) [) [) IU aD ~ 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. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, . animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will.be accepted. Certification 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. o o o 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives; 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). o 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). o 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. o Environxnenta1Setling 32. 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. Mav 14. 1997 ~;!4~iiL/ Date Signature . -3- E.I.R. 3/95 Ci(y of Arcadia . Environmental Information Form 17. This Church proposes to have a day school. The Church has been in operation for . many years, holding at the same time religious .instructions. Said Church desires to extend its hours of religious instruction and. incorporate in the same a day school. Proposed times of operation would be Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m.- 3:00 p.m. To employ 5 full-time teachers and two part time teachers. Grades kindergarten(6 year olds) through 8th(13 year oldsj. Estimated children for the proposed 1997-1998 school year is 30 children, for a ten month progam. The children would bring packed lunches to the proposed school.Benefitsderived from the proposed school are wetl mannered and educated students. 31. There will be no change,to the existing site. No construction will take place and hence there will be no effect on soil stability, plants, or animals. There will be no disturbance ofcultura1 or historical or scenic aspects. . The currentsite holds a 16,000 square foot church with. a lower level. The main level is reserved for worship services. The lower level is used as a meeting hall for the parishioners of the parish. The classrooms on the lower level are currently being usedfor religious instruction, mostly on weekends. 32. This site has 185 feet on Duarte Road and 235 feet on Temple City Boul.evard. Surrounding land use & zone is Multiple-family and single-family dwellings; zoned R-3. This is strictly a residential area, with beautiful trees, and plants.in the area. Within the 300 foot radius, there is an even split between single family dwellings and apartments. The apartments are two level. The single'family dwellings are modest in size with 20foot front and rear yards. All land appears to be developed. .