Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1536 RESOLUTION 1536 . A RESOLUTION OF lHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 96-003 TO UTILIZE CLASSROOMS FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS AT 1900 S. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, . WHEREAS, on May 20, 1996, a.Conditional Use Permit application was filed by the Arcadia Christian School to install three modular classrooms for a period of 5 years, Development Services Department Case No. C.U,P, 96-003, at property commonly known as 1900 S, Santa Anita Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Part of lot 38 of Tract 14036 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 10-18 of Maps, in the office of said County Recorder. WHEREAS, A public hearing was held on June 25, 1996, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW lHEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached,report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity, 2, That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditionai Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. . 5, That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the . comprehensive General Plan. 6. That the new exterior design elements for the 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 for the installation of 3 modular classrooms for a period of 5 years at 1900 , Santa Anita Avenue upon the following conditions: I. That the use of the modular classrooms shall be 3 years with the opportunity to request an additional 2 years subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission, . 2, Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete satisfaction of the Building Section. 3. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department. 4. C,U,P, 96-003 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, 5, Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its inunediate suspension or revocation, SECTION 4, The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of June 25, 1996, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioner's Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter, and Daggett, NOES: None . ABSENT: None 2 1536 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 9th day of July 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner's Bell, Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: Kalemkiaiian ABSTAIN: Bruckner . /tiA. ~ Ch' an, Planning Commission City of Arcadia . APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~1Li~~ . 3 1536 June 25,1996 STAFF REPORT DEVEWPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT . FROM: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator ~ By: John Halminski, Assistant Planner ~ ~ TO: SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-003 1900 S. Santa Anita Ave. SUMMARY This Conditional Use Permit was filed by the Arcadia Christian School to. utilize temporary modular classrooms for a period of 5 years. The Development Services Department is recommending approval subject to the conditions set forth in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION . APPLICANT: Arcadia Christian School LOCATION: 1900 g, Second Ave. REQUEST: To utilize modular classrooms for a period of 5 years at the school. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING The site is currently developed with a school and is zoned R-l. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING North: South: East: West: Single-family residences; Zoned R-I Single-family residences; Zoned R-I Single-family residences; Zoned R-I Single-family residences; Zoned R-I GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential . CUP 96-003 June 26,1996 Page I BACKGROUND . The property is owned by the Arcadia School District and has been leased for the past 15 years to the Arcadia Christian School. Because the Arcadia Christian School is a private entity any expansion is subject to a conditional use permit. In 1995 a conditional use permit was approved toconvert-a "youth hut" into classrooms for non-credit art classes. PROPOSAL The C.U.P. process was initiated by the school's proposal to utilize three temporary modular classrooms, According to the applicant, the addition of the proposed modular classrooms will not be creating space for additional children, however, over the next five years the school will increase enrollment by an anticipated number of 12 students, Each modular classroom will contain 1,440 sq. ft. They are requesting to use the units for a period of up to 5 years while plans for permanent facilities are being planned and constructed, . Currently, there are two permanent buildings in the location where two of the temporary classrooms will be placed. The two permanent structures are being used for 'stomge purposes and will be removed by the Arcadia School District due to unsafe conditions. The school will be conducting regular classes for students within the modular classrooms during normal school hours. The buildings must comply with all Building Code requirements, as outlined in the staff report. ANALYSIS The City has allowed the use of temporary classrooms in the past at two different locations. Conditional use permits were granted for the Boys' Christian LeaguelRio Hondo Preparatory School in 1976, and Anoakia School in 1988. Both conditional use permits were approved subject to time limitations. The Arcadia Christian School leases the property from the Arcadia School District making it ineligible to be regulated under the jurisdiction of the State. This situation limits the Arcadia Christian School from building and expanding their facility without an approved conditional use permit under City jurisdiction. Because the Arcadia Christian School does not own the property, constructing new classrooms may take considemble time to plan and complete. However, modular classrooms are not permanent structures and should not.be allowed on a permanent basis. The Development Services Department would recommend that these buildings be allowed for 3 years with an opportunity to request a 2 year time extension subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission, The purpose for the review for a 2 year time extension is to allow the City the opportunity to evaluate the condition of the temporary structures, and determine whether or not the school is prepared to begin . CUP 96-003 June 26, 1996 Page2 construction on permanent strucfures, The maximum overall time allowed to maintain . the modular units would be 5 years. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Division has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance, When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed 'project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of C.U.P. 96-003 subject to the following conditions: . 1, That the use of the modular classrooms shall be 3 years with the opportunity to request an additional 2 years subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission, 2, Building Code compliance and conditions of approval must be met to the complete satisfaction of the Building Section as outlined in the attached memorandum. 3. Fire safety shall be provided to the complete satisfaction of the Fire Department. 4, That C.U.P. 96-003 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed an Acceptance Form (available at the Planning Division) indicating awareness and acceptance of JIll conditions of approval, 5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit shall constitute grounds for the inunediate suspension or revocation of said Permit: . CUP ,96-003 June 26,1996 Page3 FINDINGS AND MOTIONS . Approval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this project, 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 staff report, or as modified by the Commission, Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision, Should the Planning Commission have any questions regarding this matter prior to the scheduled public hearing, please contact John Halminski at your earliest convenience. . ~~~ Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Site Plan and Elevations, Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Zoning and Land Use Map, Environmental Information, and Conditions of Approval from Building and Fire. Letter in opposition. . CUP 96-003 June 26, 1996 Page4 . Pate: 6/4/96 To: P't Building. '12., ( ) Econ. Dev.. ( ) Engineering, ( ) Fire. ( ) Maint.. ( ) Police, from: Planning Services, John Halminski MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVlCES DEPARTMENT ( ) Waler. ( ) Subject: ApplicalionNo.: CUP 96-003 Location: 1900 S. Santa Anita D To install modular classrooms at the school and to allow that Project cscription: they remain for a period of 5 years. Plcase re\'icw the allachcd proposal and comment on the. following checked items"and an\' other item(s) with which your services may have concerns or special knowledge: - . . . . ( ) Dcdications ( ) Lega I description ( ) Traffic circulation ( ) Parkway width(sl ( ) Strcctlights ( ) Tentath'e Pareelfrmet Map contents ( ) Final Map contents ( ) Street trees & plants ( ) Is the subject address served by a sewer line that is tributary to a deficient City trunk line'! ( ) Location and design of driveway and apron ( ) Encroachment into a special setback on: ( ) Grading and dmimlge ( ) Water sc,....ices Please respond by: 6/28/96 ( ) Irrigation system ( ) Fire hydrants ( ) Back:f1ow devices ( ) Fire.safety ( ) Occnpancy limits ( ) Public safety !Uld security ( ) Aecesibility ( ) Compliance with Building Codes ( ) Signs ( ) Consistency' with Redevelopment and Reyitaliz.1tion Plans ( ) OUter: k Conditions of approval Respnnse' -J.,.---\;!tilities-sul'Jllicd-te the modular strnct"res shAll mmply with thp. 1994 UPC. 1994 UMC and 1993 NEC. 2, The meaular l1uilllillgs lIAl to be ~guntetl Anti sp.iomir.Ally ....r.".....d tn permanent concrete foundations, . Oi.ahled access to the buildings shall comply with the 1994 UBC. 4. Following approval of CUP 96-003, drawings and structural details must be submitted lor ~ ;Uk and approval prior to the iustallation of the modular buildings. . By: _~{ Date:~, /1 11qr-t> I (J I Date: 6/4/96 To: C) Building. ~Fire, ) Water, ( ) Econ, Dc\".. ( ) Maim.. ( ) ( ) Engineering, ( ) Police, From: Phmning Sel\'iccs. John Ralminski Subjcct: Application No.: CUP 96-003 LOCluion: 1900 S. Santa Anita . '"r;::'l,:;:,;)r 1'7{1(?'~-\\ -' - J. ,~'1. ~' , ';) I' )/ ,mN C 5 1996 AfClidle Firs Pr~lJllililt!i; MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT SERVlCES DEPARTMENT Projcct Description: To install modular classrooms at the school and to allow that they remain for a period of 5 years. Pleasc rcvicw Ule attached proposal and comment on U,C following checkcd itcms and any olbcr itcmCs) wilb which your services ma)' ha\'e conccrns or special knowledge: . . C ) Dedications ( ) Leglll description ( ) 1'r.1ffic circulation ( ) Pllrkwa)' widthlsl ( ) Strect lights ( ) Tcntath.c Parcelrrmcl Map coments ( 1 Final Map contents ( ) Street trees & plnnts ( ) Is the subjectllddress served by a sewer line Ulllt is lributar)' to a deficient City trunk line'! ( ) Loclltion and design of driveway and aprou ( ) Encroachment into a special setback on: ( ) Gmding and drainage \ ) Water services Please respond b)': ""8/28/11.6. (p - If'- 9G C ) Irrigation s,'stem ( ) Fire hydrants ( ) Backflow devices OIl Fire safetv (~ OccuPllllcy limits ( ) Public safely and security C ) AcccsibiJitv ( ) Compliance with Building Codes ( ) Signs I ) Consisteucy with Rede\'elopmenllllld Revilalizlltion Plans ( ) Other: r: Condilions of approval ResPofls&20 I wmE. AtresS ~F\TG OF F O~ .5tRVICE: !<,oP.O &EQ..("tl:RfD, (Af)'JACG- "" TO : "DDU",,y,-;: ::;1); :: A :: fAD~ @ff\~)<:rfflt!_O~~AAPAN~Y - .__~ __f'{) _ _ BE. w:-~:cs S'l-\~u.... BE- pOSTeD.:r1'-l EI'ICt-l Roo(Yl. - f'€f2. T-.:l4,Tf\.fSl.e IO-Pt. . By: ~~ l~ Dale: cDjt7/QC, @) MAt-SLlAL fULl s-rp.\T<JI"-J (}Jr'r\..\ \;\OR.N/=-T~'C35 RE&V\.'XR.ED :[1\.> EAG\ (\oo'{'Y). 1'HE-SE ()ev:t:ceS,. s ~Au..... l&s. "\:IGD -:I:NTO SCIrtOOl.'.s. j'1)A:t:N F:rR.G. P\\....AR('() $ySTEfY'\ f'F""'Gt..... uJt-lf,r-J ONG 'Is f'l<.O VJ:06 0 , RECEIVED JU~~ 0 6 1996 . (!JIM" ,"} (j1;>'cL C ~ ~ /hc4,c. 'CL- 2Cfo (d. rrv-".f::;-/D'7 ~'^" /frctU,(.,'{J. Ci 'Jo 66-6 D:{ J(;r~~%, Developmonl Servlcaa CalIullunltr Ilavsllljllllsll1 Dlvlcllln 'l1,e/r~ /{/1-.>. f Q { <f t.JalJ ~ 2)n~ h>-co-.c.'a ,Cff '7, - 6:. (0 tJio"" I'~ hr\J Ccnum: 14.J~ f-. 1b rP'f01r(e. ,/tr<<A- (ert~ &('tl (p, L /Illl;3o. 9-6 re;a-.of::; ih~-kd!.f8U?...rT '2 1?tcaUP~ dasP'ol>l'?!j ,,-" #c,",ce',,"- C:~lf-t.q" fl-.k.2. . 71t..,'s ;~ fz;. ~h't. '1tJVt- :t a",e-L cue "tJ !i!JLfh..,t.'e;:5 ()...", evel~ "''1 )tR..."'fhbcJl.j ~Q~" d.'>a~ (/ ,/ v tJ.-,. u.. c,\~ Cc..."..-r-t'Cl"'- ~ ~.!>-f ,),~ .fr:tf.f!. ?!ro)cid' a... C(af'>I'Do;n5. (jJlea.s.e >//fJpIJ"rr ~ O/,'/l-'OI1J 0I....c-f Jy,'if (JUt-<.. OI,>t.bM <fo ~ -fLf.tlA-'7!' '4fHM.. GOI'I(er11.. cr", ,,( (JW'5Janc..e. c./v M 4,''f/lfr a/ljJr('c.'t<~c.r.. 0t ~_ /;j7 . UIV"~"17~ ~ . File No.: CUP 96-003 . 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 96-003 A Conditional Use Permitto install modulw: classrooms.upon the school property and allow the units toremain for a period of 5 years. B, Location of Project: 1900 S. Santa Anita Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 . C, Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Arcadia Christian School 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, Mitigationmeasures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None Date: May 21, 1996 Date Posted: May 21,1996 -/1f // / '/ By: .~ ssistant Planner . . CITY OFARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91001 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: CUP 96-003 2, Project Address: 1900 S, Santa Anita Arcadia, CA 91006 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Arcadia Christian School 1900 S, Santa Anita . Arcadia, CA 91006 4, Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia 240 W, Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Petson & Telephone Number: John Halminski, AssistantPlanner (818) 574-5447 6. General Plan Designation: Expansion of existing school with modular units 7, Zoning Classification: R-I Single-family . -1- File No,: CUP 96-003 CEQA Checklist 7/95 FileNo.: CUP 96-003 . 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 addilionalsbeets if necessary.) Conditional use permit to install modular classrooms on the school site. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e,g., permits, fmancing, development orparticipalion agreements) City Building Services / City Fire Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards [ j Population & Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems . [ ] Air Quality t ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation / Circulation t ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources r ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance . -2- CEQA Cbecklist 7/95 . . . FileNo,: CUP 96-003 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I fmd 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 fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and 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. MI\Y 21. 1996 Date John Halminski Print Name City of Arcadia For -3- CEQA Checklist 1/95 . . . File No,: CUP 96-003 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. 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). 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 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section I 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: a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? (The proposal is consistent with the Residential designation in the General Plan and is a use for which is authorized by Section 9252,1 of the Zoning Ordinance,) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans 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 existing school is consistant with the surrounding land uses,) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g" impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (There are no agricultural resnurces or operations in the lU'ea.) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (The existing school is consistant with the surrounding land uses.) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The existing school is consistant with the surrounding land uses,) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No,:, CUP 96-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [] [ 1 [ J [ ] [ 1 [ 1 No Impact [X] [X] [X] [Xl [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 ~ . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan,) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and. general plan.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Faultrupture? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault:) b) Seismic ground shaking? (The site for the proposed use is 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? (The site for the proposed use is not within the vicinity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone,) d) Landslides'or mudflows? (The site for the proposed use is on flat land, and not within an inundation area,) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan,) f) Subsidence of the land? (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to subsidence,) Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] File No,; CUP 96-003 poteotially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 File No,: CUP 96-003 potentiaUy Significant . Potentially Unle~ Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No pOtential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Expansive soils? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (The site for the proposed use is not in an area subject to expansion of soils,) h) Unique geologic or physical features? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (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 runoff'? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (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)? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [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? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters,) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or wilter movements,) t) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or througb interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations or througb substantial loss of ground water recbarge capability? [ 1 [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters,) . CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo,: CUP 96-003 potentially Significant - Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters,) h) Impacts to ground water quality? [ I [ ] [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters,) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (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? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (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'c1imate? [ I [ I [ I [XI (Based em a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects,) d) Create objectionable odors? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not ha~e any such affects,) 6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan.) . OEQA Checklist 3/96 File No.: CUP 96-003 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g" farm equipment)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (The proposed project is consistant with the zone designation and general plan. The location that has not been identified as hazardous.) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] (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? [ ] [ I [ I [XI (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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists,) . f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e,g" bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies'supportingaltemative transportation,) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ I [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis; the proposal will not have any such impacts,) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? [ ] [ ] I I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nothave any such impacts,) b) Locally designated species (e,g" heritage trees)? [ ] [ ] [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) . CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo,: CUP 96-003 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural COmmunities (e,g.. oak foresl, 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 a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will not have.any such impacts,) qEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo,: CU P 96-003 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [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? [ ] [ ] [] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] . (Based ona projecHpecific 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 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-spedficscreening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts,) . d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] CEQA Checklist 3/96 FileNo.: CUP 96-003 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.) e) Other governmental services? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 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? [ 1 [ 1 [ I [XI (Based on a project'specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Communications systems? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [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 [ I [ 1 [Xl (Based on a.project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ 1 [ I [ I [XI (Based on a project-specific screening,analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Stonn water drainage? [ I [ 1 [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ I [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) g) Local or regional water supplies? [ I [ 1 [ 1 [X] (Based on a project-specific screening'analysis, the propnsal will not have any such impacts,) 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening.analysis, the . proposal will not, have any such impacts,) CEQA Checklist 3/96 " File No,: CUP 96-003 Potentially Significant ~ Potentially Unless Less than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impactS involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based ona project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Create light or glare? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) b) Disturb archaeological resources? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] (Based on a projcct,specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) . c) Affect historical resources? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) d) have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ I [ I [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will not have any such impacts,) CEQA Checklist 3/96 - . . 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? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the 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 on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considemble" means that the incremental effects of a project are considemble when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cUlTent projects, and the effects of probable future project.) (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts,) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. either directly or indirectly? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts) 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering. program ErR, or other CEQA processes to analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal. Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] FileNo,: CUP 96-003 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorpomted [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ,] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [Xl [X] [X] [X] GEQA Checklist 3/96 " FileNo, a/// ~6 rtJo,~ CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA. CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: Generallnformation . 1, Applicant's Name: Arcadia Christian School Address: 1900 S. Santa Anita Ave, Arcadia CA. 2. Property Address (Location): 1900 S. Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia CA. Assessor's Number: 5789-014-900 3, Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Steve Blankenshio. Arcadia Christian School, 1900 S. Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia CA. ('818) 574-8229 4. List and describe any other related pennits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: conditional Use Permit Building Permit 5, Zone Oassification: R-1 6, General Plan Designation: SFR Proiect Descriotion 8, 9. 10. . 11. 12 13. 7, Proposed use of site (project description):. See Attached Site size: 8.35 Acre Square footage per building: 1 ,440 Number of floors of construction: 1 Amount of off-street parking provided: Not Applicable Proposed scheduling of project August - 1996 Anticipated incremental development Not Applicable 14, If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes. expected: - Not Applicable 15. If commercial, indicate the type, Lee neighborhood,.city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: Not Applicable 16, If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: Not Applicable 17, If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: -=-See.. Attached.- " -__ 18, If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: CUP - Allowable use in Res. Area, ' . See Attached Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additionalsheets as necessary). YES NO 19, Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratinof ground contours, o liD 20, Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads, o liD 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. o liD 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. o lEI 23, Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. o I&l . E.I.R. 3/95 -2- I 24, . 31. . YES NO Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns, o I[J I[J III I[J [l I[J Ii) 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, aparbnent houses, shops, deparbnent 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. -3- 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. 17 ~b--~/~~ M;:lY __. 1qQI=; _~ _ Date Signature 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 Environmental Settin!?: 32, Certification E.I.R. 3/95 5/17/96 - . . Environmental Infonnation Fonn Response to selected items: # 7. The proposed use of this site is the addition of a 24' x 60' modular classroom building with associated decking and ramp. The building will contain two (2) 24' x 30' classrooms. The current site consists of conventionally constructed classroom and office buildings which are maximized in there usage and safety . # 17. The major function of this building addition is to support the educational needs of the children of Arcadia, We initially will request the addition of one (1) 24' x 60' modular building containing two (2) classrooms. This addition will support a total of approximately 60 students and will employ at least 2 additional instructors. # 18. This project will require a Conditional Use Pennit due to the use of modular buildings, This site was designed and constructed specifically as an elementary school and the property is leased from the Arcadia School Board, At tIus time the site meets all current zoning requirements for an educational facility, The requested life of this C.U.P. is presently 5 years. We would request an open application for the forthcoming two years to allow for the school districts proposed abatement and removal of two (2) existing buildings and thereplacement with modular buildings, #31. The project site is that of an elementary school with associated classrooms, off street parking, support buildings, playgrounds and ball fields. With the addition of modular classroom facilities to this . - 5111/96 - . e campus, there will be no noticeable impact to the site other than an increased student body count. There is no impact upon any existing structures at this site with the addition of these buildings and there will be no noticeable difference to plant or allimallife other than the trimming of a few trees, See attached photos, #32, Surrounding properties are a mix of single family residences and multiple family residences. See attached photos.