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.