HomeMy WebLinkAbout1655
e
RESOLUTION NO. 1655
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
01-025 TO PLACE AND MAINT A.IN A 416 SQ. FT. UNMANNED WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FAClllTY WITH A 42-FOOT mGH MONOPOLE AT
5449 PECK ROAD
.
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2001, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed
by John Beke to place and maintain an unmanned wireless communications facility with
a42-foot high monopole, Development Services Department Case No. C.U.P. 01-025, at
property commonly known as 5449 Peck Road; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 9, 2001, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds for the reasons set forth in the above
report:
\. 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 whicb a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. That the site, or sites, for the proposed use are adequate in size and shape to
accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping
and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the granting of such Conditional Use Pennit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
5. 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.
e
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-025 to place and maintain a 416 sq. ft. unmanned
wireless communications facility with a 42-foot high monopole, upon the following
conditions:
I. The cellular installation and the site shall be maintained in a manner that is
consistent with the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 01-025 and
ADR 01-032.
.
2. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection,. occupancy,
and safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services, Public Works
Services, Development Services, and the Fire Department
3. Approval of CUP 01-025 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval.
SECTION 4. 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 October 9,2001, by the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Huang, Olson
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Baderian
tZ
~/~~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
f\ -'
~
"
Chairman, lanning Commission
City of Arc ilia
APPROVED ASTO FORM: .
~p~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
. City of Arcadia
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
October 9, 2001
TO:
FROM:
Arcadia City Planning Commission
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 01-025 and ADR 01-032
SUMMARY
This Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) and Architectural Design Review (ADR)
application was submitted by Tetra Tech Wireless for Verizon Wireless to place and
maintain a 416 sq. ft. unmanned wireless communications facility with a 42-foot high
monopole antennae at 5449 Peck Road.
.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of these
applications and adoption of Resolution No. 1655, granting the conditional use
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: John Beke of Tetra Tech Wireless for Verizon Wireless
LOCATION: 5449 Peck Road
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit for a 416 sq.ft. unmanned wireless
communications facility with a 42'-0" monopole.
SITE AREA: 48,000 sq.ft. (~.1 acre)
FRONTAGES: 160 Feet on Peck Road
.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a one-story industrial buiiding; zoned M-1 & D.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
Other than the flood control use to the west, the surrounding properties are
developed with industrial buildings and are zoned M1 & D.
e
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The subject site is designated as Industrial.
BACKGROUND
Communications equipment facilities are permitted in any zone with a Conditional
Use Permit (Sec. 9275.1.11). The proposed location is a 416 sq. ft. area located on
the westerly portion of the lot developed with a one-story industrial building.
The area is zoned M-1for light industrial uses. Communication facilities are
considered appropriate in industrial areas.
PROPOSAL
The proposal is to place cellular telephone equipment on a concrete pad and a 42-
foot monopole on a 416 sq.ft. area located at the westerly portion of the lot
developed with a one story industrial building.
The applicant is also requesting a height modification of 42'-0" in lieu of the 35'-0"
maximum allowed. The additional height is requested because it is necessary to
provide the best level of service.
. Site Selection
In order to meet the basic level of operational radio signal coverage, radio frequency
(RF) engineers have designed a network of wireless communication facilities for the
Los Angeles MT A. Specific sites are chosen after lengthy analysis by the applicant's
engineers. Selection criteria include: limitations imposed by surrounding topography,
the intended service area of the site, and the ability of the new site to "see" other
sites in the network from its proposed location. Other selection factors include
suitable access, availability of electrical and telephone service, and a willing property
lessor. Where the necessary design criteria can be met, co-location with existing
telecommunication facilities is a preferred option, and the antennas and equipment
are screened or integrated with the building whenever possible. Only after careful
analysis of many candidates and successful lease negotiations have been completed
is a land use application such as this one submitted.
Site Improvements & Architectural Desion Review
The 416 sq. ft. area is adjacent to an alley that services the industrial uses along
Peck Road.
.
The cellular equipment will consist of six (6) 4' panel antennas, one (1) microwave
dish, one (1) 2' pizza box shaped panel antenna, atop a 42-foot high monopole and
CUP 01-025
October 9, 2001
Page 2
e
.
.
three (3) Base Transceiver Station electronic (BTS) equipment cabinets.
Architectural considerations for the proposed installation are limited. The equipment
will be situated 284 feet from the front property line and behind the existing industrial
building. It will be out of public view and surrounded by a paved alley and driveways
not used by the general public. The equipment will be enclosed by a chain-link fence.
ANALYSIS
Uses such as this wireless communications equipment facility are permitted In any
zone with a Conditional Use Permit (Sec. 9275.1.11). Based upon the applicant's
proposal, location next to the alley, and background information about the site, it is
staff's opinion that the proposed monopole will be an appropriate use for the
industrial site.
The applicant shall be required to comply with all code requirements as determined
necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Public Works Services Director and
Community Development Administrator.
CEQA
Pursuant to the prOVIsions of the califomia Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed
project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects 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 Conditional Use
Permit NC? CUP 01-025 subjectto the following conditions:
1. The cellular installation and the site shall be maintained in a manner that is
consistent with the plans and materials submitted and approved for CUP 01-025
and ADR 01-032.
2. All City code requirements regarding accessibility, fire protection, occupancy, and
safety shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services, Public Works
Services, Development Services, and the Fire Department
3. Approval of CUP 01-025 shall not take effect until the property owner and
applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the
CUP 01-025
October 9, 2001
Page 3
e
.
.
Development Services Department to ihdicate acceptance of the conditions of
approval.
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve CUP 01-025, ADR 01-032,
the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 1655: A Resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 01-025 for a 416 sq. ft. unmanned wireless communication
facility at 5449 Peck Road.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this Conditional Use Permit application,
the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution that
incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested part~ has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the October 9t public hearing, please
contact Assistant Planner, Thomas Li, at (626) 574-5447
Approved by:
. ---:>
.""-7 . '" / d Y .c.:::;:;:) -,
/ "'Z':,..;Y",/(\c;, /7,..",Z'( .J
" '-
Donna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Applicant's plans
Land Use and Zoning Map
Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Resolution 1655
CUP 01-025
October 9, 2001
Page 4
e
~
-.
=.:;. "::...; c::e...-: ::..-:.........,:.,..-:-.:::.-- ~
::=--~--._..._"'-""""*-
-.
.._______N_Jq:n...
:;':.:"'":\::'~~~Z:.T..~~
~..-_....._.""--_.-
COOE.........._fJl_
:''='~-=-~===.:s~~
::::::~",-=;:;",,,:=_."._"-
.---
lMlIllUSIt...",._
I._......CllOf...
.I.___Q:Il(
.~
._l>''''''''~
__.10>_'_
- =-
t~
i a:_
"'~.
11- S5!?-
~F-
tl
I
1
r
1;.-
~~
g~
f~
!5!:-
~
~_..__...'
._,~~ ..
...-_--
.--
~F".::...
---
,-'"
"'l1~,,\n
------
--
! ~-
;{ ;:I,:l_
. 8-
~ ~....
~ 5"-
- a=.
it' 5T-
.i;-
s::
11
'"
.
ver'70pwireless
PUBI..IC UIllJ11ES COAII./1SSION WIRE/..ESS IDEN11FICATION NO.
U-3DCXl-C
LaNGDON PARK
991100263
5449 N. PECK ROAD
ARCADIA, CA 91006
PROJECT SUIIAfAItr
-=-
--
"""
--
-.--
_ibol'-
""'"'"
-_.
~IllJl__'
..........
--"""-
-.
""""'"
--
1l0l'-"__~
1___'_
--. Coou'_ .....
ABBREVIA1'JON9 1.\8YMB0l.B
r $S'D" -~, ~ =-
tJJJl ~;
~.I..- IE J ~:--
*~ ~~ -----
~ ~- i! - l ='.
-- ;;;. ..1 ===="=""
it;m:,... =-. ~=
l~~ I-a::. i ~ ~ g;f:
~=- == =n- =
I"="", C. ffiu- I
[; ii- ~ G\
if =-;: 'B'
i~i~ ~f '0
Ii ~- l ~ t ~ ~--
f ~- a ~ - ~
I~ ~~ ~il'-~=~
=" ~- r! er- :;0 a-'--
CONSUl.1JNG 1E4M
::....--:=--=--
IU____".
-.-
-...:0_...--
-. (Jq,lIll--__r
.. ....---
_"'_"-~Nr..lM'.
_......-..c
-""'----....
---
-.....--
_ UJlQI/U'''"
------
__fJ''''''''-'_'
----~-..
_(""""........'1_
"._carn.tII.
-
_.
===-<>:lO!
=---
---
---
:::~~
--
"""""-"""""'"
-
_PI ........
,-
.... ..~,.
.11llE.!l'Bi
G-G
~ ----
"r~/_.~ ..-...CDC...._
_.. .. _u__IP
.___iiJ
..-...
.._--
.._--
-.-
____.-oIn_
.....oas_
...-......,-.-
....,~-
=-...:...~-.......,
::.::':'".:;z-"
....___l\I-~..._-
.--....-.,...
--.'-
.....-....-..---.
_c._.....___~
:,..........=::.=-- ..-:'C'"-==----
=:t:'I.:..=-:.,:=".:.=...-:"",..:':=.
--.--.--.--.....
- .
.....,........----.....-
..___"'-Io.__/o,:ij_J""j
~
--
-
'.IM:__.Ir~_~""""'.
...-.......__~.._liOI>>-.J
....._-'*--"'.
UUIfllOlllNf_"'iUO___--.c
......__01"_..._"'._0<
1tC~__..../u
. _-.-.~_._.~-
W>OM:IDtOloIln__
~m~~~...".-;..;;:..._'"
PROJECT DESCRJPnOH
SHEEf'INDEJ(
::-_-=-~r-::=':-":'==-
..q.q>-..:..,_.._--"..
==-':~"':.\,f:Ia:::""~
..-........-...-.-
",___,-"'-__"'WTll'
--.....-......----
-:...--:-=.=l:J::=~~
~_._-----
~__a
-
,.,
-
'Ukt,
........
.
.
--...-., .,.. .....
~.-
"_ITY~
-------
:=~~"I".m",..-,..-
.........~.::r::::.."'..n:t"'...:::~.
--.....-.--..-..-..--
~-~_...-
1UIooIOOIO.____...__
~---~
1Ilr"'~___""_'''''1OoI
""'
=::;;-::'=nsr::..a=:_=
~-~---._~
__<l'._"'__lI_S_..r,_
_...,..:ns_",'~_
PUBJ.JC II1lUTIE9 ~P7ED
......- ~ - -. .,..
lIC_V___."'_'''_
..~ __-.......__n.~
---...-,-
...___~___lIl:l_
.....__""'r.ou__.....__
.,..-'r...,.OII!.iIIIl'!:I...._~_...'"
--_...._---~.........
........___..._h___
~.:==~"'l:'::.-:...."r"-
wo... ___cor____
~~
.-~
~
"
~
U~_
...
.
.'"
-
.
.
m ~~I~'
u Ae.a~~
~. ~h
I E11~sg!
I
,
j I
.~
jt!
,I
..
0:
<. ..
""II:!
zag;
~I
C>'~
zl!:
9
II
.
.
,
.
j.
1,1111.
I
.
rH111
I-T 1 I
e
N. PCCK ROAD
-----'.--__________-L-____._______
".....
.,,-
,,-
~-~-~I
s
I
s
I
s
I
".... s
I
s
I
s
I.
s
I
s
........-
l
i
i -,,-~ i
"LLOWlIMln.:r R
. ..- ---- .
, . .-.-.---.-.-.-.-... I
, ,
, ,
--=1Il-:w=---~v<<]- '--- ---'
SITE PIAN
1"J\I"
--
<Do tI).IIl['I
<!> """"..
<D l::=-~.
00 f:l:.t-:':O:U1-
<S> :::-lOtll~,=U.
~1IJ,~1_1(l1;t
~ ~=~'=&r-:'
<S> M~_'GD1QIClIIW
~ ~=~-:-:..-=
t€>~'::'_
.o..I'OQUIIItllCU
V_alaIlD
E> r&=~=:"'-=
~~=i,1IIUS
(? =i:k
A::\.MIIlIlJlJ..
V"JOan"llolD'b/Jm.1tJ
.o...(II)llJ/lI~.
'\:0' Q'Ion'lloA/lMlS
~(Q-'"
<@>(I(II.ICb:IDlIQIA6rllllOl
,Q..~M.a1lWlllD
"'''''-
~.......
AM__...urss
V~lDClifOfllJ
"ACDI': lUll
~lE)19tlOI1_
..or.. (JII:H-ol4'rw-.,_
'tY ao. 1U>>-1~ ow .. r.-n
~""","lOlI'lII1
KEY NOTES
I
~
~---+-
I
~
I
'-MJ:J~,-,~,~
i~+4~
I L' S
~ .-1.r I
I ~ I.
~ ,. :!
....
i
i
i
i
~
,
"
.,
<
J
Z
,... Z
,..
1
,
._,
':-;---' -- ''1 ':-::--d- - '-
<I'_t!" ~'"ll' ll'_I'
W--rfl1Ol~oIiSIYIICl
,'_r
C'_'"
-<!>-
a
3 RNLlRGEO SITE PLlN
.
H
m .;;..
hili!
~ !e.U
113 i~IIT
1
lJl I
.!!!
.~
2 )t~
,I
~ Ir
'" '" .
"
0: ..
<. '"
l1.' ~j
z, i5..
"'i -..
"'. '"
~l ;j
..
0 ~ ,
,.., ,
in .
: Illl.l
I
!I'~ till
.~IG
e -- .
!
M~iJ.t'n.aNC. m i:~~~
--'lOXl~.1lIl
!iflII,IIIIIDllUJ ~.q;i
1131:ln
........... I I J I
4rIGjIDQO.l
-- I ~
.... I
. . . .
l ! '"
MIUlIIIl~lCIIa.. . . . . ~
~tua""Sl,\I$ II . ~ ~ e
b . ~ l!!
. ,; . . Jf!
~ ~
~ ~ --
" b
:f
--
WEST ELEVATION -= <I EAST EI.EVATION -= II
.,-, . ., .. . . '" .
, ~.
, <n
"'I '"
"'.....- ;
"'-- ZI
"'I
~'-"
-.-----.--------- ~l
OOH"olf"l\IIw..L 0 ,
UI:IIIIllIilItGClO..#II.... .... ,
WlfAbIa_m Cl(I21''''',W-' ,
__wal,."....e
W\IUlIIllctm
.._.om i i (l4Ult01"tm II!
Il'IUUJlIIQ! P "'---
=-- --
. .... II r II
-Ii ~ .ll S
~-=,~~ .
Ii ." ~ Ii . ~
-.... . ~ .
. .
" . .
~ ~ ,
.
! ~ I II II
-- "
NORm ELEVATION ~ , 3 SOUTII ElEVATION ~ , ~
. " . .,. .. . . ,..
e
PHOTO SIMULATION
"-
-""
~ -' ....
~\...
, ~', " }
.
BEFORE
m1j
""
--'",
. ~L' " . t "..~~.'i"~"". ..,;~';
- ~ - _. "'.' ,,,.p,;< .- ~;!/~'-1; .
...... '" ,,'t;R. ".<Ji
~\'.~'" ,- ~i -...... . "r,., "
~ . =<- .' - .~" . ':::-.for" ,
. . ',L,:. . it i",
Y' " . <i{ f.1,
'I"';' -', ", ; . _...~." ',.
;:. ~;". ~.p '.t....,' I
"\.', .",,"",',~l
.. \'-"'-..'~~'
.t ,. _ . 'i.. ~
. . \. ";"''''.' ~\
... ~0 ,'., .
~
"
~
verJ;f2!Jwireless
AFTER
Project: Longdon Park Address: 5449 Peck Road
e
PHOTO SIMULATION
_..: c '--_:- :.= __
'"\
-'
.
BEFORE
:;. -- ---
--
---=.-5~~
~-
verianwireless
AFTER
Project: Longdon Park Address: 5449 Peck Road
e
PHOTO SIMULATION
~~
"'l ',-:
.:'\~.. _. ~ ~r,'! .
il:,' . ~~." ,,^,~,s~;:.-j.;l-if.'~~4'';:;''
../ .........-., -. " " p:- _.~ ~U ~~ _ -L.'-~~'
'f,1t.., . - '.. . _, -,'. ~".----~- " ~-,,~~~:...-. .~~"
....,; ,...,.~;4i_ ''''~'SS~\~~L~~~':''s-::",,--~'~
,..t~t;-.,:"(:':..'._~~~~:;,-~=.'~~-"<---'~' =-=. .",."
.'; ~-~~~1i~:'~~~r:;;-1 ~ ~ ~-~~:c..
'::'''~ ,~ . --y 'Wl .-- --- ~ ~ -., ~--
'- _.:, _'O~::_:-"_.'" '..c-_':~ -'"'' 'I:.~' ~-;:' (~ ..~~
~-- - -~- -::--~.:::::..::c"":::..~, ~
---_: ----~--.::.~ .;..- -;;:"--'-'
- -:::;~- -:-;.- ~
.
BEFORE
,----,-
:: ~_ ~~J~~"\
l' '-I., r.~\~'l~'.~~' '. l
, _~~ '. ,'.... _~. .. _~A~ ">~..... _.'. __;....,t
,.-.; :...~.tr.,tilll1l!i _.,._-..,.~~. ;. '-_:f<.~ - ~~:<(__':':. !'J1!:.
,. = - r-' --- """"._~,~~'... ~. ",,--. ;~
~~.~,~1'~' 'w.. ~ ~ ~"".. .. -i;~:~':"::'.lr.:~~~ ~ ,:' 1:~~~ : ~'I'
..~-,T'~~_L ~~~;x:::..~' h> --~ ~ "~""'f~'
~.- :~~.. ....7t,J'r"'":;,c:> .. v .. .
-.... _ ..:~ ...~Lt-.:.~_
~ ~~--~-:";~:~~:"~-~.:I"'~ -::,<:_-=..;=~::::.:
_--..:.-=-_- I .....r'...L;;::::' ;:;-.e:-:;:~ ~._
"_- ....... ...,n...._ .. --.,. . :-t-
,_ .~.~....... t... . ';l.~'.;':;::' :r:~ ~ 'J ,q..r- :.r~"
--+ -~ -:~~~-~.~-~~:~-~~~.. :.~-;
. -.:-:.:.... ~':
::--- ~ -;-:------
'-~ ~.
-- -
. .....~ .'"-
=
~
llel'lm1wireless
AFTER
Project: Longdon Park Address: 5449 Peck Road
.
Ii
UNZONED
S ANGELES COUNTY'
Land Use and Zqning Map
5449 Peck Rd.
CUP 01-025
tNORTH .
Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet
.
e
.
.
FileNo.:
CUP 01-025
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. Title and Description of Project:
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP 01-025) for a 416 sq.ft. unmanned wireless communications
facility with a 42'-0" monopole.
B. Location of Project:
5449 Peck Road
In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles
C. Name of Applicant, Sponsor or Person Undertaking Project:
John Beke
Tetra Tech Wireless
357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150,
Torrance, CA 90501
(310) 612-3703
The City Council 0 Planning Commission 0, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project
and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the City Council,
including the recommendaiton of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project
will not have a siginificant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the City
Council's findings are as foliows:
The City Council 0 Planning Commission 0, hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its
independent judgement. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at:
Community Development Division
City 01 Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574-5423
The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constiture the record 01
proceedings upon which the City based its decisi.on to adopt this Negative Declartion are as loliows:
Community Deveiopment Division
City 01 Arcadia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 574,5423
Date:
Date Posted:
Staff
4/01
e
.
.
(i)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit No. 01-025
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of. Arcadia
Development Services Department
Community Development Division I Planning Services
240 W. Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
ThomasLi (626) 574-5447
4. Project Location: 5449 N. Peck Road
5. Project.sponsor's Name and Address: John Beke
Tetra Tech Wireless
357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150
Torrance, CA 90501
6. General Plan Desigmttion:
Industrial
7. Zoning: M-I- Planned Industrial District
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited tli later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attllch additional sheet(s) if necessary.):
A Conditional Use. Permit to place and maintain an unmanned wireless communications facility with
a 42-foot high monopole antennae at 5449 Peck Road.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings,)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Light Industrial; zbned M-l
Light Industrial; zoned M-I
Light Industrial; zoned M-I
Flood Control; unzoned
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
City Engineering Division I City Maintenance Department I City Water Division I Los Angeles
County Engineer
CEQAFORMS/CHECKL~T
10/03/0 I
Page I of 4
e
.
.
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.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology I Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology I Water Quality Land Use / Planning
Materials
Noise Population / Housing
Mineral Resources
Recreation Transportation / Traffic
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find. that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable'legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~Ao;; t4' 9-26-01
fSignature Date
Thomas Li CITY OF ARCADIA
Printed Name For
CITY /R VPUB/2000200 1/546265
FORM
'~J"
Page 2 of 4
e
.
.
EVALUATION OF ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced infonnation
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside 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 as.well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or'less than significant. "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 EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentililly 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to .the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlierEIR or. negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
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.
CITYIRVPUB/2001l313785 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 4
e
I
e
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, .and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is.selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
.- -
ClTY/RVPUB/2001l313785 FORM "J"
Page 4.of 4
e
.
.
Would the propo$al result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designations or
zoning?
[ ]
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
[ ]
c) Be compatible with existing land uses in
the vicinity?
[ ]
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(c.g.. impacts to soils or farmlands. or
impacts from incompatible land uses)?
[ ]
e) Disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established community
(including a low-income or minority
community)?
[ ]
FileNo.: CUPOI-025
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
The proposed remedial tutoring center is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the
area, and will ~omplement surrounding uses. The construction of any tenant improvements, and the
operation of the proposed service will be subject to aU other environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over this area. There are no agricultural resources or operations in the vicinity.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections?
[ ]
b) Induce substantial growth'in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
[ ]
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
[ ]
[ I
[X]
[X]
[X]
The proposed service Is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations for the area .and will not
impact the population or housing.
--
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS . Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
[ ]
[ ]
b) Seismic ground shaking?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
[X]
[X]
e
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction?
[ ]
[ ]
d) Landslides or mudflows?
e) Erosion changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading,
or fill?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
l) Subsidence of the land?
g) ExpanSive soils?
h) Unique geologic or physical features?
File No.: CUP 01-025
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
[ ]
l]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been
determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geologic problems.
4. WATER - Would the proposal result.in:
a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage
patterns, or the rate. and amount of surface
runoff!
[ ]
b) Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
[ ]
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature. dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity)?
[ ]
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body?
[ ]
e) Changes in currents. or the course or
direction of water movements?
[ ]
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of
any aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of ground water
recbarge capability?
l]
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ground
water?
[ ]
[ ]
h) Impacts to ground water quality?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ 1
[ 1
[ 1
[ ]
[ ]
[ I
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[X]
[X]
[X]
e
.
.
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
ground water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
[ ]
The proposed site alterations would not result in any of the above impacts.
S. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
[ ]
[ ]
b) Expose sensiti ve receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air
temperature
climate?
movement. moisture, or
or cause any change in
[ ]
[ ]
d) Create objectionable odors?
File No.: CUP 01-025
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ J
[ ]
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ J
No
Impact
[X]
[X]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
The propo$ed wireless' communications facility will be subject. to local air quality regulations as
administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which should prevent any impacts
relative to items (a) andlor (b) above. There are no exterior improvements proposed that wonld result in
alterations to air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause a change in climate. No objectionable
odors have been associated with the proposed use.
6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic
congestion?
[. ]
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
[ ]
c) Inadequate emergency accesses or access
to nearby uses?
[ ]
d) Insufficient parking capacity' on-site or
off-site?
[ ]
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or _
bicyclists?
[ ]
l) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
[X]
[X]
[X]
(X]
[ ]
[X]
(X]
e
I
e
File No.: CUP 01-025
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The proposed wireless communication facility would not generate traffic other than the occasional
maintenance access. The proposed project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or
parking ",Iated impacts arise.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
meir habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish. insects. animals and birds)? [ ] [ ]
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
trees)? [ ] l ]
c) Locally designated natural commUnities
(e,g.. oak forest, coastal habitat,etc.)? [ ] [ ]
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
vernal poo!)? [ ] [ ]
0) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ]
[ ] [X]
[ ] [X]
[ ] [X]
[ ] [Xl
[ ] [X]
The proposed service will be behind an industrial building in an industrial area. None of the above
circumstances exist.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
[ ]
( ]
b) Use non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner?
[ ]
[ ]
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?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[XI
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[X]
The proposed project will be required to comply with adopted energy conservation requirements. None of
the above impacts have been associated with the proposed type of use.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosinn or release --.
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
[ ]
[ ]
b) possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[X]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
FileNo.: CUPOI-025
e
Would the proposal result in
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
No
Impact
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
d) Exposure or people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [XI
will review the plans for the wireless
No existing sources of potential health
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass or trees?
The City Building Services and the City Fire Department
communications facility to prevent any of the above impac~.
hazards have been identified at the subject property.
10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[X]
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
,
The site of the proposed use is in an existing industrial building iD an industrial area and neither of the
above impacts is associated with this locatioD or the proposed use. Should any problems arise however,
compliance with noise regulations wiD prevent any unreasonable noise levels.
1.1. 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? [ J [X]
b) Polioeprotection? [ ] [X]
c) Schools? [ ] [X]
d) Mainlenance of public facilities. including
roads? [ [ ] [X]
e) Other governmental services? [ ] [X]
The proposed use is consistent with the planned uses for the area and will not result In any of the above
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? [ ] [ ] [X]
b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
. c) Local or regional waler trealment or
distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
FileNo.: CUP 01-025
Potentially
Significant
e Potentially Unless Less Than
Would lhe proposal result in Significanl Mitigalion Significanl No
pOlential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact hnpacl
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e) Stom, waler drainage? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ J [X]
Its is not anticipated that any of the above utilities or service systems will be signilic.anUy impacted.
Nevertheless, the proposed improvements will be reviewed for, and the developer will be required to
provide, if necessary ~ any new systems or supplies necessary to mitigate any such impacts.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
aJ Affecl a scenic vista or scenic highway?
[ ]
[ ]
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics
effec!?
[ ]
[ ]
c) Create light or glare?
[ ]
[X]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
.
The proposed use will be located by an existing industrial building, .and any exterior improvements will be
required to comply with local architectural standards and illumination limits and wiU not result in any of
the above impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
( ]
[ ]
[ ]
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect hiSlorical resOurces?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change. which would affect unique ethnic
cullural values?
[ ]
[ ]
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
( ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
( ]
( ]
(X]
[X]
[X]
(X]
[X]
The proposed use will be in an existing. industrial building. None of the above resources have been
identified at the. subject area, and none of the impacts have been associated with the proposed use.
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
e
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational
facilities?
( J
( J
[ ]
CEQA Checklist
7/99
[X]
e
e
e
Would the proposal result in.
potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Affect existing recreational opponunities?
[ ]
File No.: CUP 01-025
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[ ]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[ ]
No
Impact
[Xl
The proposed nse will be in an existing industrial building, and tbe. proposed project wiD. not result in any
of the above impacts.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantiaily reduce the habitat of a !'ish 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 imponaot
examples of the major periods of
Califumia history or prehistory?
[ ]
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve shon-ierm, to the disadvantage of
long-term. environmental goals?
[ ]
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effeclS of probable future
project.)
[ ]
d) Does the project have environmental
effects. which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings. either
directly or indirectly?
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[Xl
[Xl
[X]
IX]
The proposed use will be in an existing industrial building, and the proposed project will not result in any
of the above impacts.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
-- .
No additional documents were referenced
pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA processes to analyze any noted
effect(s) resulting from the proposal.
CEQA Checklist
7/99