HomeMy WebLinkAbout1538
.
RESOLUTION NO, 1538
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO, CUP 96-004, VARIANCE NO, V 96-001 AND
ARCfllTECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 96-008 FOR AN
UNMANNED WIRELESS (CELLULAR) TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY WITH A FIFTY (50) FOOT HIGH MONOPOLE
ANTENNAE SUPPORT AT 35 W, ST, JOSEPH STREET,
.
WHEREAS, on May 31, 1996, applications were filed by Rudy Figueroa of JM
Consulting Group,lnc. for Cox California PCS, Inc, for an. unmanned wireless (cellular)
telecommunications facility with a fifty (50) foot high monopole antennae support,
Development Services Department Case Nos. CUP 96-004, V 96-001 and ADR 96-008,
to be located in the northeast corner of the Arcadia Unified School District Maintenance
Yard which property is commonly known as 35 W, St. Joseph Street, and more
particularly described in Exhibit "A".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 23, 1996, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development S'ervices
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
A. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial
study are appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
and, when considering the project asa whole, there was no evidence before the City that
the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or
the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative Declaration was
approved.
.
. B, That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized,
C, That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate 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,
D. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type
to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use,
E. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or, to the intended use of the property, that do not
apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity.
F, That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone
and vicinity,
G, That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance will not be
. detrimental to the public health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements
in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located.
H. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance will not
adversely affect the comprehensive general plan,
SECTION 3, That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Architectural Design Review for an unmanned
wireless (cellular) telecommunications facility with a filly (50) foot high monopole
antennae support upon the following conditions:
A. The cellular installation and the site shall be maintained in a manner that is
consistent with the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 96-004,
V 96-001 and ADR 96-008.
B, The final installation plans shall include the following which shall be subject
to review, approval and applicable permits by the Development Services Department:
.
-2-
1538
. I, Low maintenance, xeriscape landscaping with irrigation shall be provided by
the applicant for the parkway along Rolyn Place adjacent to the cellular installation site,
and the adjacent unpaved area to the north, However, if the School District will not allow
the planting of landscaping, the applicantshall pave those areas with concrete.
2, The north perimeter fence shall be repaired or replaced,
3, The cellular equipment, monopole and antennae shall be painted a light sand
color,
C. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection,
occupancy, and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and
the Fire Department.
D. Approval of CUP 96-004, V 96-001 and ADR 96-008 shall not take effect
until the property owner and applicants have executed and filed the Acceptance Form
available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the
conditions of approval.
. E. All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion and
operation of the cellular installation, Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and
conditions of CUP 96-004, V 96-001 and ADR 96-008 shall constitute grourids for
immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals which could result in cessation
of operation and removal of the cellular installation.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions of approval contained in
this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of July 23, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Murphy, Sleeter and Kovacic
NOES: Commissioners Bell and Huang
ABSENT: Commissioners Bruckner and Kalemkiarian
ABSTAIN: None
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
.
- 3 -
1538
. ] HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No, 1538 was adopted at a
regular meeting of the .Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August, 1996 by the
following vote:
A YES: Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter and Kovacic
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~.~~
Ch an, PI . g Commission
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
.
Ission
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/'f(u4I f mIL
Michael H. Mi ler, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
.
-4-
1538
.
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
THE ARCADIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD
AT 35 W. ST. JOSEPH STREET, ARCADIA, CALIFORNlA
Parcel I:
.
That portion of Lot 2 of Tract No, 949, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 17, Page 13 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the easterly boundary line 'of said Lot 2, distant southerly 207.77
feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south along the easterly boundary line of
said Lot 2, 207,76 feet to the southeast comer thereof; thence southwesterly along the
southeasterly boundary line of said Lot 2, 699.31 feet to the southwest comer thereof;
thence north along the westerly boundary line of said Lot 2, 633.25 feet to a point, said
point being distant south 633.25 feet from the northwesterly comer of said Lot 2; thence
easterly in a direct line 553.77 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Except that portion of said land lying easterly of a line 203,00 feet easterly measured at
right angles from the westerly line of Lot 2 of Tract 949.
And except that portion described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 2, thence north 010 03' 43" west 115.51 feet
along the westerly line of said lot; thence south 890 53' 42" east 96,58 feet to a point of
intersection with the southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence southwesterly along said lot
line to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2:
That portion of the Santa Anita Rancho as shown on map recorded in Book I Page 97 of
Patents in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 2 of Tract No, 949, as shown on map r~orded
in Book 17, Page 13 of Maps, in the Office of said Recorder; thence north 010 03' 43"
west 115.51 feet along the westerly line of said Lot 2; thence south 890 53' 42" east 96.58
feet to a point of intersection with the southeasterly line of said Lot 2, said point of
intersection being the true point of beginning; thence continuing south 890 53' 42" east
105,58 feet; thence north 010 03' 43" west 100.42 feet to the said southeasterly line of
Lot 2; thence southwesterly along last mentioned line to the true point ofbegiIming.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 23, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Rlanning Commission
FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
Bq;ames M. Kasama, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CUP 96-004 & V 96-001 & ADR 96-008
An unmanned cellular facility with a 50 foot high monopole antennae support.
SUMMARY
.
These applications were submitted by JM Consulting Group, Inc. for Cox California PCS, Inc. to
place and maintain an unmanned cellular facility with a 50 foot high monopole antennae support
at 35 W, St. Joseph Street. The Developme,nt Services Department is recommending approval
of these applications subject to the conditions in this report,
GENERAL lNFORMA TION
APPLICANT: JM Consulting Group, Inc. for Cox California PCS, Inc.
LOCATION: 35 W, St. Joseph Street (NE Corner of the School District maintenance center)
REQUESTS: A Conditional Use Permit for an nnmanned wireless (cellular)
telecommunications facility, and a Variance for a height of SO feet for a
monopole antennae support inJieu of the maximum height of35 feet allowed by
the zoning regulations.
SITE AREA: Approximately 112,820 square feet (2.59 acres)
FRONTAGES: 501.50 feet along Rolyn Place
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use -- CommerciallIndustrial
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
The site is used as the maintenance center for the School District. It is improved
with small offices, warehouses, and garages, The site is zoned M-l.
.
.
.
.
.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Manufacturing firm -- zoned M-I
Assembly and service firm -- zoned C"2
Commercial offices -- zoned CoM
Single family residences -- zoned R-I
BACKGROUND
Communications equipment facilities are permitted in any zone with a Conditional Use Permit
(Sec, 9275,1.11) The proposed location is an unused comer of the Arcadia School District's
maintenance center. The area is zoned M-I for light industrial uses. Communication facilities
are considered appropriate in industrial areas,
These applications have been submitted as part of a network of facilities. A similar facility is
being proposed for a location at 141 W. Live Oak Avenue. Those applications are scheduled to
be considered at the Planning Commission's August 13, 1996 meeting, Attached is a letter from
the applicant explaining the proposed installations.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposal is to place cellular telephone equipment on a concrete pad and a monopole at an
unused comer of the Arcadia School District's maintenance center, The area is adjacent to the
east property line (along Rolyn PI.) and setback ten feet from the north property line. The area is
in the vicinity of an existing maintenance center office building,
Site Selection
The need for a cellular installation is determined by the amount of cellular activity in an area and
the distances between other network installations, To establish a network, distances between
installations are determined on the basis of signal range and quality, The proposed installation
has been determined to be necessary in order for an adequate signal to be provided in this area.
The effective range of the proposed installation is W. Sierra Madre Blvd. to the north, Camino
Real Ave. to the south, Myrtle Ave, to the east, and Baldwin Ave. to the west. The proposed
installation will link with 8 other locations proposed for this region,
In selecting a location for a new installation, the applicant conducted a study to establish a
"Search Ring" within which the installation must be located, Ideally, the installation would be at
the center of the Search Ring, For practical purposes, however, only commercial and industrial
sites were considered. While the proposed installation is not at the center of the Search, Ring, it
was available, and impacts upon surrounding properties will be minimal.
CUP 96-004 / V 96-00 I / ADR 96-008
July 23, 1996
Page 2
.
.
.
The M-I zone provides for an overall maximum building height of 45 feet. The rnaximwn
structural height is 35 feet (Sec. 9266.2.1) and an additional 10 feet is allowed for mechanical
equipment and facilities (Sec. 9282,1,3),
The applicant's first choice would have been to install the antennae on an existing building of
adequate height. No such buildings within the established Search Ring are available. Therefore,
a monopole has been proposed, and the requested height of SO feet should assure that reception
and transmission will not be blocked by existing or future developments.
Site Improvements & Architectural Design Review
The location for the proposed installation is at an unused comer of the Arcadia School District's
maintenance center in the vicinity of an existing maintenance center office building. The
maintenance center is secured by a six foot high chain-link fence.
The cellular equipment will be placed on a 200 square foot concrete pad and the triangular
antennae support-will be atop a freestanding 50 foot tall monopole. The cellular equipment and
monopole will be separated from the maintenance center by a 6 foot high chain-link fence. The 3
strands of barbed wire shown on the plans will not be included. An additional gate may be
installed on the Rolyn Place side to provide 24-hour access to the proposed installation. These
gates would need to be designed so that they will not encroach upon the public right-of-way.
.
No improvements are proposed to areas outside of the equipment and monopole area. The
parkway adjacent to the proposed installation is not landscaped, nor is the unpaved area to the
north, and the existing property line fence along the north side of the maintenance center is not in
good condition. These items should be addressed to enhance the area surrounding tI:1e proposed
installation, as well as reduce the potential for property maintenance problems.
Architectural considerations for the proposed installation are limited. The applicant has
indicated that the proposed monopole will be painted a light blue-gray, The chain-link fencing is
proposed so that the interior areas will.remain visible for security purposes. The existing palm
trees are being maintained to help screen the monopole, As mentioned above, the adjacent
parkway along Rolyn Place and the unpaved area to the north should be addressed to enhance the
site. Final plans shOuld include landscaping'and/or additional paving, and repair or replacement
of the north perimeter fence,
CEOA
.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development
Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed projects. 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 projects 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 projects will have any potential for
CUP 96-004 / V 96-001 / ADR 96-008
!uly 23, 1996
Page 3
.
.
.
.
.
adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for these projects,
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of CUP 96-004, V 96-001 and
ADR 96-008 subject to the following conditions:
I, The cellular installation and the site shall be maintained in a manner that is consistent with
the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 96-004, V 96-001 & ADR 96-008.
2. The final installation plans shall include landscaping and/or paving for the adjacent parkway
along Rolyn Place, and the unpaved area to the north, Also, the north perimeter fence shall
be repaired or replaced, The final plans shall be subject to review, approval and applicable
permits by the Development Services Department,
3. All local code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, ,and safety
shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department.
4, Approval of CUP 96-004, V 96-001 & ADR 96-008 shall not take effect until the property
owner and applicants have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval,
5, All conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to completion and operation of the
cellular installation, Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of
CUP 96-004, V 96-001 & ADR 96-008 shall constitute grounds for immediate suspension
and/or revocation of any approvals which could result in cessation of operation and removal
of the cellular installation.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
For a Variance to be granted, the Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented,
must make the following findings:
I. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the attached initial study are
appropriate and that the projects will have no significant effect upon the environment within
the meaning ofthe California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when COnSidering the
projects as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed projects would
have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends, and therefore, approve the Negative Declaration.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to the
property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity.
CUP 96-004 I V 96-00 I I ADR 96-008
July 23, 1996
Page 4
.
.
.
.
.
3. That the granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the
property is located.
4, That this Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity,
5, That the granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan,
Motion for Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve these applications, the Commission should, based
upon the evidence presented, make the above findings and move to approve and file the Negative
Declaration and direct staff to prepare 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,
Motion for Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny these applications, the Commission should
specifically state, based upon the evidence presented, which of the above findings are not met by
the proposed project and move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which
incorporates the Commission's decision and supportive findings,
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 23rd public hearing, please contact Associate Planner,
Jim Kasama at (818) 574-5445.
Approved by:
onna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Plans
Applicant's Letter of July 15, 1996
Land Use And Zoning Map
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
CUP 96-004/ V 96-001/ ADR 96-008
July 23, 1996
Page 5
.
.
.Consulting Group, Inc.
TELECOMM U N I CATIONS
.
.
July 15, 1996
Mr. Jim Kasama
Planning Associate
City of Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Re: Conditional Use Permit
No. 96-004, Variance 96-001 and
ADR 96-008
This letter is in response to your inquiries regarding the criteria for site selection, the
desired coverage objectives and the height of the two PCS facilities Cox is requesting
per the referenced applications.
JM Consulting Group represents Cox California PCS, Inc. in their development of a
network of PCS (Personal Communications Systems) digital telecommunic;ation
sites in Southern California. When the network is complete, Cox will have a sys-
tem in place that will provide service from the Mexican border north through San
Luis Obisbo County and from the Pacific Ocean to Las Vegas, Nevada. .
PCS is based on an old technology being applied in a digital format that will provide
communications that are sharp and clear and free from the cross-talk that is com-
mon with current analog cellular systems. Because a digital system is able to ac-
commodate more voice and data traffic than analog, incomplete and dropped calls
will not be problem. In addition, PCS transmissions willbc more secure than cellu-
lar calls, which suffer from eavesdropping on conversations and the theft of elec-
tronic ID numbers, PCS digital signals are encrypted (scrambled) to prevent eaves-
dropping and "cloning."
The PCS system will also provide features unavailable to the analog user, such as e-
mail, Internet access, data storage and retrieval, voice mail and two way paging
combined into a single handset.
PCS service will change wireless telecommunications by improving upon tj1e fea-
tures and sound quality of present analog systems. PCS will permit calls to be touted
to people instead of places. It will also enhance the control people have over their
telecommunications by allowing them to determine when and where they ,can
Long Beach Office 3760 KUroy Airpon Way, Suite 440 . Long Beach, California 90806 . Telephone: (310) 981.1660 . Fax: (310) 981.1675
Offices in: Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Barbara and San Diego
e
.
.
Page 2
Letter to Jim Kasarna
July 15, 1996
.
.
make and receive calls. Unlike the cellular system, PCS will allow users to bring
calls inside buildings and tie outside wireless service into home and business phone
systems. Based upon the newest form of digital wireless technology, PCS is emerg-
ing as a necessary emergency service and business tool, as well as a convenient serv-
ice for personal and family use.
Cox California PCS, is one of the two PCS providers licensed in Southern California,
Cox, is currently in the process of developing its network of telecommunications fa-
cilities. Each PCS site in the system must be able to provide adequate coverage to
serve the users in an area approximately two (2) miles in diameter and the antenna
array must be at an elevation that the signal will not be blocked by either buildings
or trees. Within Arcadia, two search ring areas were selected because the City and
the surrounding area is very developed and are an important region in the design of
the Cox PCS network for Los Angeles County. It is an area composed of an affluent,
commercially urbanized region with a major thoroughfare (Foothill Freeway) trav-
eling through it. Cox determined that coverage (service) of the area is needed and
can be satisfied with the implementation of the two sites selected in the City. Initial
drive testing and signal measuring, in this region revealed that in-building coverage
was possible, with a smooth transition (absolutely essential when crossing cell
boundaries while in the process of an active call) if the two PCS facilities in the City
of Arcadia could be implemented in their current locations: 35 W.St. Joseph St. and
141 W. Live Oak Avenue.
Adequate signal, in the areas that will be serviced by these two sites has been veri-
fied through a series of very detailed drive tests and signal propagation simulations
on Cox's signal analysis software. Regarding the St. Joseph Street Site, the drive test
found to offer coverage from W. Sierra Madre Boulevard to the north to Camino
Real to the south, Myrtle Avenue to the east and Baldwin Avenue to the west.
The Live Oak Site picks up nicely, in the south, where the St. Joseph Site leaves off.
There is an adequate region of overlapping signals in the area around Naomi Ave-
nue between these Sites. This is ideal because a well defined but controlled overlap
area is very essential to one of one of the qualities of CDMA technology", smooth
and uninterrupted hand-off between PCS Sites. The Live Oak Site can service farther
south to Ramona Boulevard and east to Peck Road; the west boundary for this Site is
also Baldwin Avenue.
Points of special interest within the region serviced by these two Sites include the
Santa Anita Golf Course, Santa Anita Racetrack, Methodist Hospital of Southern
California and Arcadia Regional Park.
The coverage of the two Arcadia PCS Sites is detailed on the propagation overlay
map that accompanies this letter. The two colors on the transparency overlay sig-
Page 3
Letter to Jim Kasama
July 15, 1996
.
.
.
nify the different degrees of coverage. The green areas detail in-building coverage
and the red areas detail in-vehicle coverage. Please note that the in-vehicle cover-
age is easier to achieve than the in-building coverage ( the radio signal can penetrate
a car much easier than a house or other building due the their physical makeup).
Please note that on the second map, this coverage will be supplemented by addi-
tional PCS facilities in regions adjacent to the City of Arcadia.
*Cox's PCS network is designed using Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), low-
powered, spread spectrum technology. Cox's system is similar to cellular, although
PCS occupies a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum than cellular, Le,
the 1850-1990 MHz band.
The two Arcadia Sites provide a very important link to the other Sites on the pe-
rimeter of the Arcadia area. Two search rings were established in this region with
the intent to locate the two sites that met Cox's selection criteria of desired coverage
as well as locating wireless communication facilities in primarily commercial and
industrial zoned areas, It was Cox's desire to locate on existing structures such as
buildings or water towers, However, due to uncontrolled leasing problems, this
was not possible, thus the selection to the referenced two Sites.
.
Needless to say, the two subject Sites only lend themselves to the monopole an-
tenna system because they lack tall structures. The height of the proposed mo-
nopoles is mandated by the height of the built-up environment and the need to
provide the necessary coverage to the intended service areas.
In closing, Cox respectfully urges you to recommend approval of the PCS sites in
the City of Arcadia. These sites will provide enhanced telecommunication services
to the City. Cox's philosophy is to be a good neighbor and thus we welcome the op-
portunity to work with the City in the development of the PCS telecommunication
Sites to make them compatible the immediate area and its surroundings,
Thank you for the opportunity to address your concern regarding the selection of
the Site in your Community. Please call me at (310) 981-1660 if I can be of further as-
sistance.
.
~
Rudy Figueroa
Senior Planner
JM Consulting Group, Inc
.
.
.
.
.
File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-00]
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
Application Nos, CUP 96-004 & V 96-001
A Conditional Use Penn it for the placement and maintenance of an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility, and a Variance for a height of 50 feet for a monopole in lieu of the
maximum height 005 feet allowed by the zoning regulations.
B. Location of Project:
35 W, St. Joseph Street
Arcadia, CA 91007
C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor:
Applicant's Agent:
JM Consulting Group, Inc.
attn: Rudy Figueroa
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 440
Long Beach, CA 90806
(310) 981-1660
Applicant & Lessee:
Cox California PCS,lnc,
2381 Morse Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
(714) 660-0500.
Property Owner:
Arcadia Unified School District
attn: Jay Horton
234 Campus Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(818) 821-6625
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, ifany, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects:
None
Date: June 18, 1996
Date Posted: June 20,1996
.
.
.
.
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 96-004 & V 96-001
2. Project Address:
35 W, St Joseph Street
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number:
Applicant's Agent: Applicant & Lessee:
JM CODSulting Group, Inc. Cox California PCS, Inc,
attn: RudyFigueroa 2381 Morse Avenue
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 440 Irvine, CA 92714
Long Beach, CA 90806 (714) 660-0500
(310) 981-1660
4. Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
240 W, Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 910.07
5. Contact Person & Telephone Number:
James M, Kasama, Associate Planner
(818) 574-5445
6, General Plan Designation:
Mixed Use -- Commercial/Industrial
7. Zoning Classification:
M-I/ Planned Industrial District
-1-
.
File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Property Owner:
Arcadia Unified School District
attn: Jay Horton
234 Campus Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
(818) 821-6625
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
.
File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
8, Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any
secondary. support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation, Attach additional sheets if
necessary,)
A Conditional Use Permit for the placement and maintenance of an unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility. The facility is comprised of a less than 400
square foot concrete equipment pad to support ground-mounted wireless
communications equipment, and the installation of a 50 foot high ground-mounted
steel monopole with nine (9) cellular antenna panels (each panel measuring
48"xI2"x2") and one ten inch (10") GPS antenna. The ground-mounted equipment
includes electronic radio transmitting and receiVing equipment, a main power source,
a battery cabinet (emergency back-up power sources) and eventually a generator (an
additional emergency back-up power source),
A Variance for a height of 50 feet for the monopole in lieu of the maximum height of
35 feet allowed by the zoning regulations,
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Ce,g" permits, financing, development or participation agreements)
City Building Services / City Fire Department / City Engineering Division / City
Maintenance Services Department
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected DY this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use & Planning
[ ] Population & Housing
[ ] Geological Problems
[ ] Water
[ ] Air Quality
[ ] Transportation / Circulation
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Hazards
[ ] Noise
[ ] Public Services
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Resources
[ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance
-2-
CEQA Checklist
1/95
.
.
.
.
.
File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
DETERMINA nON
(To 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.
[ ] I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, aild an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is
required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially
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.
By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner
For: The City of Arcadia - Development Services Department
,7 /?? 7
Date: June 18, 1996
-3-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
.
File Nos,; CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the
one involved (e.g" the project is not within a fault rupture zone), A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2, All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
related as well as operational impacts.
3, "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence .that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required,
4, ''Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section 17 "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced),
S. 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 I S063(c)(3)(D)} , Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist, references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
-4-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
. .
File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1.LANDUSEANDPL~G
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with g~neralplan designations or zoning? [ I [ I [ ] [X]
(The proposal, with the exception of the monopole
height is consistent with the commercial/industrial
designation in the General Plan and is a use for
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by
Section 9275,),)1 of-the Zoning Ordinance.)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the,project? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(The proposed use will be required to comply with
the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency
with applicable environmental plans,)
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the
vicinity? [ ] [ ] [ I [Xl
. (The proposed use will be in an industrially zoned
area and will occupy an existing industrial site,)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g"
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
(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)? [ ] [ I [ ] [XI
(The proposed use will be in an industria1ly zoned
area and will occupy an existing industrial site,)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? [ I [ ] [ I [Xl
(The proposed use is an unmanned communication
facility and will not generate an increase in the
population,)
.
CEQA Checklist
-5- 1/95
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
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 is an unmanned communication
facility and will not generate an increase in the
population.)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
(The proposed use will be in an industrially zoned
area and will occupy an existing industrial site.)
3. GEOLOGIe PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
immediate vicinity ofan identified,fault,)
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(The site for the proposed use is not more
susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any
other site in the area The proposed facilities will
be constructed to comply with current seismic
standards,)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The site for the proposed use is not within the
immediate vicinity of an identified fault or
liquefaction zone,)
d) Landslides or mudflows?
(The site for the proposed use is flat land, and is
not within.an inundation area,)
e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(The proposed use will occupy an existing paved
industrial site, will not alter the topography, and
any excavation, grading or fill will comply with
current soil stability requirements,)
-6-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ j
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
. . File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorpomted Impact Impact
t) Subsidence of the land? [ ] [ ] I J IX]
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to subsidence,)
g) Expansive soils? [ ) [ ) [ ] [X]
(The site for the proposed use is not in an area
subject to expansion of soils,)
h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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 mtes, drainage patterns, or
the mte and amount of surface runoff'l [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The site of the proposed project is paved, and the
project will not alter absorption rats, drainage
. patterns, or surface runoff,)
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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X)
(Under normal circumstances, the proposed project
will ,not emit any discharges, nor have any affects
on, surface water quality.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed project will not affect any surface
water amounts,)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed project will not affect any currents
orwater.rnovements,)
.
-7-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
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?
(The site of the proposed project is paved, and the
project will not affect ground waters,)
g) Altered direction ollate of flow of ground water?
(The proposed project will not affect ground
waters.)
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
(The proposed project will not affect ground
waters,)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
(The proposed project 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?
(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?
(No sensitive receptors will be exposed to
pollutants asa result of this proposed project.)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or'temperature or
cause any change in climate?
(The proposed project will not have any such
affects,)
d) Create objectionable odors?
(The proposed project will not have any such
affects,)
-8-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ i
[ )
[ )
[ )
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
1/95
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(The proposed use is an unmanned
communications facility and will not generate any
notable vehicular trips,)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g"sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e,g" fann equipment)?
(The proposed use will occupy an existing
industrial site. The vehicular traffic.and circulation
in the area has not been identified as hazardous,)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
(The site of the proposed use is readily accessible
and the proposed use will not inhibit access to
adjacent or nearby uses,)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(There is adequate on-site and off-site parking to
serve the existing industrial site. The proposed use
will not generate any notable vehicular trips and
will not affect the existing parking facilities,)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(Based on a review of the proposed project, there
are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to
pedestrians or bicyclists,)
f) Contlicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e,g" bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
(The proposed project will not conflict with
policies supporting altemativetransportation,)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
(The proposed project will not have any such
impacts.)
-9-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
File Nos,: CUP 96..Q04
& V 96,001
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/95
. . File Nos,: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentia11y Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(No such species or habitats have been identified in
the Vicinity of the site of the proposed project.)
b) Locally designated species (e,g" oaks & heritage
trees)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposal will not impact any oaks or locally
desillJUlted species. The existing palm trees in the
vicinity of the site are proposed to be preserved,)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g,. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc,)? [ ] [ J [ ] [X]
(No such communities have been identified in the
vicinity of the site of the proposed project.)
. d) Wetland habitat (e,g" marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl
(No such habitats have been identified in the
vicinity of the site of the proposed project.)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ i [X]
(No such corridors have been identified in the
vicinity oCthe site of the proposed project.)
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(The proposed use does not include any facilities
subject to any energy conservation requirements.)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(With the exception of a future generator for
emergency power, the facility will be powered by
electricity,)
.
-Il)..
CI:QA Checklist
7/95
. . File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Result in the loss of availabilitY of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? [ I [ I [ J [X]
(No such resources have been identified at the site
of the proposed project, and the project will not
utilize any such resources.)
9. HAZARDS
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(The proposed project includes the installation of a
battery cabinet and future generator. These items
will be installed in compliance with all applicable
health and safetY codes.)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
. plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project will not have any such
impacts. The proposed use may complement
emergency response capabilities.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project includes the installation of
electronic equipment, a battery cabinet and future
generator. These items will be installed in
compliance with all applicable health and safetY
codes.)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project includes the installation of
electronic equipment, a battery cabinet and future
generator. These items will be installed in
compliance with all applicable health and safetY
codes;)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush. grass or trees? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No such hazards have been identified in the
vicinitY of the proposed project)
.
CEQA Checklist
-11- 7/95
. . File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless LessTban
Would the proposal result in Significant MitIgation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(The proposed project will not generate any noise.)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(The proposed project will not generate any noise.)
11. PUBLlCSERVICES
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered government services in any of
the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project.)
.
. b) Police protection? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project)
c) Schools? [ I [ ] [ I [XI
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No changes to existing -services will be required
by the proposed project)
e) Other governmental services? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project.)
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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project)
.
CEQA Checklist
.12. 7/95
.
.
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impaclS involving:
b) Communications systems?
(The proposed use is intended to improve current
wirelesS'Communications capabilities.)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project.)
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project)
e) Storm water drainage?
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project)
f) Solid waste disposal?
(No changes to existing services will be required
by-the proposed project)
g) Local or regional water supplies?
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project.)
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic:highway?
(The proposed installation will not affect any
designated scenic vistas or highways.)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(A monopole would generally be considered
aesthetically undesirable, however, the requested
height will not exceed the height of existing utilitY
poles in the area.)
c) Create light or glare?
(No additional lighting is indicated for the
proposed installation. Any lighting that may be
added will be required to comply with the
directional and shielding requirements of the
zoning ordinance.)
-13-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ I
.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Less Than
Signifi~ant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
No
Impact
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
[Xl
[XI
[Xl
[Xl
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
7/95
. . File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Potentially
. Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No
potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontologIcal resources? [ I [ I [ j [Xl
(No such resources. have been Identified at the site
of the proposed project)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ I [ I [ i [Xl
(No such resources have been identified at the site
of the proposed project.)
c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ I [ I [X]
(No such resources have been identified at the site
of the proposed project.)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ I [ I [ I [Xl
(No such potential has been identified of the
proposed project.)
~ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses withIn the
potential ;Impact area? [ I [ I [ ] [Xl
(No such potential has been identified of the
proposed project.)
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighhorhood ,or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? [ I [ I [ ] [Xl
(No changes to existing services will be required
by the proposed project.)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ I [ I [Xl
(No such potential has been identified of the
proposed project.)
.
-14-
CEQA Checklist
7/95
.
.
.
.
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 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?
(No such potential has been identified of the
proposed project.)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental.goals?
(No such potential has been identified of the
proposed project.)
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.)
(Due to the existence of utilitY poles andanteMae
in the area, the addition of one monopole will not
have an impact on the aesthetics of the area.
However, additional monopoles in the immediate
viCinitY could result in a significant impact upon
the aesthetics of the area.)
d) Does. the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
(No such effects have been identified of the
proposed project.)
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
No additional documents were referenced pursuant to
the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to
analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
-15-
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ I
[ I
[ I
.
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ I
[ I
[ I
File Nos.: CUP 96-004
& V 96-001
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ I
[ ]
[X]
[ I
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[ I
[Xl
CEQA Checklist
7/95
. '.
'.
'.
-~-" .
.
am. 96-004 &
FileNo. V 96-001
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Date Filed:
5-3/-9(,
~6)7),b~
General Information
'4.
1. Applicanfs Name: Cox California PCS, Inc.
Address: 2381 Morse Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714
2. Property Address (Location): 35 St. Joseph Street
Assessor:s Number: 5775-021-902
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
Rudy Figueroa, Senior Planner (310) 981-1660
JM Consulting Group, Inc., 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Ste. 440, Long Beach CA 90806
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:
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
5.
6.
Building Permits
Zone Classification:
fJlhJIJUJ :JlJp(/!.",~ /)U7'~~c-7'
11-/
General Plan Designation:
I'IU/b tiS-it:
~1'I/#ac,x.4<- / :t.IJD(.I$""~rM-
,
Project Description
7. Proposed use of site (project description): 0-_ _ L Ls _I".a B:.Jllllll ".1"
-6EE. E,xPl-AM"'-1:kJrJ t'lF pfl()PoSo,ff,.. - Ar7,AsGIfMEN"T '~"
9.
IlD.
n.
8. Site size: 19 acres
Square footage per building: N/A
Number of floors of construction: N/A
Amount of off-street parking provided: N/ A
. .....
,
.
I 12.
13.
14.
.
.
Proposed scheduling of project
45 days, start to finish
Anticipated incremental development: ##r
fUTURE.. ~Q.MOIt
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or
rents, and type of household sizes expected:
15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square
footage of safes area, and loading facilities, hours of operation:
N/A
16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities:
N/A
,17.
18.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated
occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project:
N/A
If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state
this and indicate clearly why the application is required:
See attached Exhibit "B"
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.
Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground
contours.
YES NO
0 ~
0 et
0 @
E.I.R.
3/93
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public
lands or roads.
Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
-2-
.' .-
.'
, 22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
.
.
Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing
drainage patterns.
Substantial change in existing noise or vibration revels in the vicinity.
Is site on fined land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more.
Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, .such as toxic substances,
flammable or explosives.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water,:
sewage, etc.).
Substantia] increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas,
etc.).
, 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
, Environmental Setting
29.
YES NO
0 lU
0 8
0 l&a
0 In
0 ~
0 ~
0 In
0 In
In 0
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 wi![ 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
(residentia[, 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 wi![
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
:~'.:'b::~;~m'n~, =d info=.tion p~mted ~ 'me =d ro7\~to the be~t of my knowledge
May 31. 1996 ~
. Date Signature Rud F' gu oa
-3-
E.I.R.
3/95