Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1712 , . , RESOLUTION NO. 1712 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP ~10 & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. ADR 03-035 TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 11,800 SQUARE FOOT PRESCHOOL FACILITY THAT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING AT 2125 S. BALDWIN AVENUE WHEREAS, on June 9, 2004, an application was filed by Mike Ho to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool facility that would also provide after school tutoring; Development Services Department Case Nos. CUP ~1 0 & ADR 03-035, at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, more particularly described as follows: The easterly 270 feet of the northerly 132 feet of lot 4 in Block 0 of the Santa Anita Land Company Tract, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Map Book 6, Page 137 in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. WHEREAS, a publiC hearing was held on August 10, 2004, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report dated August 10, 2004 is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: A. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit would. be detrimental to the public health and welfare and injurious to the property and improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed uses include a preschool for 156 children and after school Moring which are too intense for the R-1 zoned site and are not compatible with surrounding land uses. B. That although the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized, the Planning Commission determined that based on the information presented the project is too intense for this site. , . e C. That the site for the proposed use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, because considering the size of the proposed building and the number of children to be enrolled at the proposed preschool, the proposed use would be too intense for the project site as it is located in a residential zone. D. That the site abuts a street that is adequate in width to carry the kind of traffic that would be generated by the proposed use, however, the proposed use would generate a level of traffic not typically associated with residential uses and the Planning Commission found that the project as proposed has inadequate off-street par1dng for such an intense use. E. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because although the project is permitted in a residential zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit, the proposed land use is not compatible with surrounding land uses, as the surrounding land uses are single family residential in nature. F. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study is appropriate and that the project could have less than a significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, but the project was not approved, and therefore, a Negative Declaration could not be approved. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool facility that would also provide after schoollutoring at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of August 10, 2004 to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Olson and Wen NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hsu ... 4'7"'" . . e SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall ceuse a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No. 1712 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on September 14, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Olson and Wen None None APPROVED AS TO FORM: . ~().~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia ~, hainnan, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ., -t7~" . e . . , STAFF REPORT Development Services Department August 10,2004 TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Joseph Lambert, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Application Nos. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 SUMMARY The Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review applications were submitted by Mike Ho to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool facility located at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue. The applicant proposes to accommodate a maximum of 156 children and 14 staff. Another component of the proposal is to offer after school tutoring for a maximum of 45 children. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mike Ho (project architect) lOCATION: 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool facility that would also provide after school tutoring at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue. SITE AREA: 34,055 square feet (.78 acres) FRONTAGE: 132 feet along S. Baldwin Avenue CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10, 2004 Page 1 I. e . . , EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The project site is a 34,055 square foot parcel on the east side of Baldwin Avenue between Longden Avenue and Las Tunas Drive. The site is currently developed with six residences, which will be removed subsequent to approval of this project. The entire site is zoned R-1: Single-Family Residential. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Single Family Residential- zoned R-1 South: Single Family Residential - zoned R-1 (some residential properties to the south are within Temple City) East: Single Family Residential - zoned R-1 West: Single Family Residential - zoned R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential (0-6 du/ac) BACKGROUND Design Review application No. ADR 03-035 was conceptually approved on May 6, 2004. The proposed preschool use is considered a "Nursery School", which is a conditionally permitted use within the R-1 zone. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit application must be approved concurrently with the Architectural Design Review. PROPOSAL The proposed development is to construct a two-story building totaling 11,862 square feet. The first floor will consist of 7,100 square feet and the second floor will consist of 4,762 square feet. The applicant intends to use the building primarily as a preschool for a maximum of 156 children with a maximum of 14 staff. The preschool would operate from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The applicant is also proposing an after-school tutoring program accommodating a maximum of 45 children and 10 staff members from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. Zonina and General Plan The proposed project is within the R-1 zone and the Single Family Residential (0-6 du/ac) land use designation of the General Plan. Section 9275.3.6 of the AMC states that "Nursery Schools" are conditionally permitted in any zone except CPD-1, CoM, M-1, and M-2. Tutoring is also a conditionally permitted use within the R-1 zone. The proposed project is subject to the development standards of the R-1 zone and the land use is subject to the review and approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit process. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and land use designation of the project site. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 2 , e . . Desion The project has been designed in accordance with the development standards ot-the R-1 zone. The proposed building conforms with the required setbacks, height limitations, and allowable lot coverage ratio of the R-1 zone. The building is setback approximately 102 feet from the front property line and most of the building is setback 90 feet from the rear property line. The northwest portion of the first floor extends to within 25-feet of the rear property line. The configuration of the proposed facility has been designed to optimize off-street parking and include a drop-off area, the required outdoor playground area, and provide adequate buffers between adjacent residences. The site plan allows the applicant to retain several mature trees, including an oak tree. Decorative pavers are featured at the driveways and in the interior of the parking lot. A 10-20 foot landscaped buffer will separate the parking lot from the sidewalk. Staff has proposed a condition of approval to require a six-foot tall decorative block wall aro~nd the perimeter of the project, with the exception of the front property line. All elevations of the proposed building feature stucco walls with multiple colors to maximize architectural interest in the building. A fieldstone veneer base treatment is featured on the south, west, and east elevations. The roofing material proposed is a Mediterranean style red tile. The building incorporates a typical "high-end" residential design, but at a larger scale. Staff has worked with the applicant throughout the design review process to further enhance the site plan and elevations. The project was also reviewed by the City's architectural consultant, Roger Cantrell, as part of the design review process. Staff incorporated his comments into the required plan revisions. Although the proposed use is for a preschool and tutoring center, the project is designed to be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Parkino The proposed project has 30 grade-level parking spaces located adjacent to Baldwin Avenue with two one-way driveways. Approximately 32% of the parking area will be landscaped, in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations. Also, a landscaped buffer ranging from 10 to 20 feet in width is provided between the sidewalk and the parking lot. The Municipal Code requires one space per employee plus one space for every 10 children for a preschool with an adequate drop-off area. If a project does not have an adequate drop-off area, one space shall be provided for every five children. The applicant is providing a drop-off area in front of the building; therefore, the 30 parking spaces provided are adequate for 156 children with a maximum of 14 staff. If the applicant chooses to have more staff, the number of children would have to be reduced to comply with the Parking Regulations. CUP 04.010 & ADR 03-035 August 10, 2004 Page 3 , , e Tree Preservation There are several mature trees on the project site, including a 24" diameter Coast- Live Oak located adjacent to Baldwin Avenue. The applicant intends to preserve the Oak tree and also intends to preserve a large Deodar tree adjacent to Baldwin Avenue as well as a large Pecan tree located at the rear of the property. The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report that recommends preserving these three trees and provides guidelines for preservation during the construction process. Staff has proposed a condition of approval to ensure the preservation of these trees as recommended by the Arborist Report. In staffs opinion, the applicant should also plant trees around the perimeter of the property to provide a visual screen and sound barrier between the development and residential properties to the north, west, and south. Therefore, staff has proposed a condition of approval to require a landscape plan incorporating the additional trees as part of the plan check process. Monument Siqn I Sec. 9275.3.9 of the AMC (Nursery Schools) allows for one unlighted sign containing a maximum of four square feet of sign area. The applicant has proposed a 4'-4" tall by 5'-4" wide unlighted monument sign located directly adjacent to Baldwin Avenue. However, the actual sign area is approximately six square feet. The monument sign incorporates stone veneer and a decorative precast concrete cap to match the design of the main building (see enclosed site plan). In staffs opinion, the proposed monument sign is appropriate for identification purposes when considering the scale of the project, and because the traffic volume on Baldwin Avenue is greater than most residential streets. Safety The Arcadia Police, Fire, Engineering, and Public Works Services reviewed this application. The Fire Department was instrumental in the site planning process, as consideration was given to provide adequate fire lane and emergency engine access adjacent to the southerly property Iin'e. Several neighbors and concerned parties have raised the issue of child safety, especially since the project site is located on a busy street, such as Baldwin Avenue. It is staffs opinion that the proposed parking lot and site layout maximizes the safety of children. The building is set back over 100 feet from the front property line, and the outdoor play area is situated at the rear of the property. The outdoor play area will be secured with six-foot tall decorative walls. . CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10, 2004 Page 4 e . . Code Reauirements All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, building safety, fire prevention, detection, and suppression, and site design will be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall, and Community Development Administrator. Compliance is to be determined by having fully detailed tenant improvement plans submitted for plan check review and approval. In addition, the proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable State requirements regarding preschools as stated in AMC Sec. 9275.3.1. Miscellaneous The Califomia State Department of Social Services regulates and administers licenses for preschools. The State regulations determine the number of staff required for a preschool based on the age and number of students. The applicant is proposing a maximum of 156 children. however, based on the amount of staff necessary, they may not be able to accommodate that many children. The proposed parking lot has 30 spaces, and one space is required for each staff member, and one additional space for every 10 children. Therefore, the combined number of staff and children cannot exceed the amount that can be accommodated by 30 parking spaces. For instance, if 20 staff are required by the State to accommodate 100 children, this requires 30 parking spaces per City code. In this instance, no additional staff or children could legally be accommodated based on the 30 onsite parking spaces provided. ANALYSIS There are several preschools in residential areas throughout the City. Hours of operation are generally 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Preschools are generally considered to be compatible in residential areas because they are intended to provide child care for working parents within the neighborhood and community. Preschools are typically dispersed throughout residential areas to provide a necessary service to the community. The applicant has proposed preschool hours from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and after school tutoring from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. Due to the residential nature of the project site and surrounding properties, it is staffs opinion that the proposed after school tutoring use is not an appropriate use at the project site. A tutoring use is typically belter suited within commercial districts, as the traffic associated with tutoring is more intense than that associated with a preschool. At this time, there are no tutoring centers within residential zones in Arcadia. In staffs opinion, the proposed after school tutoring use conflicts with the residential zoning and will result in a significant negative impact on the neighborhood. CUP 04.010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 5 , e . . The project site is an exceptionally large lot (34,055 square feet) within the R-1 zone. It should be noted that the Jot is significantly larger than the minimum lot size within the R-1 zone (7,500 square feet). In order to subdivide the lot, a modification would be required for substandard lot widths. The proposed project will result in a 20% lot coverage ratio, considerably less than the 35% lot coverage ratio allowed by code. Although the proposed use is not residential, it is staff's opinion that the location is appropriate because the lot is unusually large for a residential zone and is located on a major arterial. If the lot were of typical size within the R-1 zone (7,500-10,000 square feet) it would be difficult to accommodate a preschool building while providing the required onsite parking and outdoor play areas. In staff's opinion, the addition of this preschool would not detrimentally affect the residential character of the surrounding ,neighborhood. Preschools are not a typical commercial use, and are often located in residential zones. The applicant shall be required to submit a landscape plan incorporating significant vertical plantings to mitigate potential noise and visual impacts on surrounding properties. A decorative, six-foot block wall shall be required around the perimeter of the project, providing a, physical and aesthetic boundary between the site and surrounding residences. The proposed project conforms with all provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code except for the minor sign modification issue discussed in this report. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed project as conditioned In this report will be a significant upgrade to the project site. FINDINGS Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 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 properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, 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 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. '- CUP 04.010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 6 e . . CEQA Pursuant to the provIsions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial 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 that could not be made less than significant with mitigation incorporation. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. The mitigation measures are those conditions of approval that address the potential noise, parking, and police service impacts. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 04-010 '& ADR 03-035 subject to the following conditions: 1. Noncompliance with the plans. provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 shall be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals. 2. Approval of CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 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 awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 3. That the preschool facility granted by this application shall have a maximum enrollment of 156 children at anyone time or any combination of children and staff that can be accommodated with 30 onsite parking spaces. For instance, if additional staff are required to comply with State regulations, the number of students shall be reduced in order to comply with City Parking Regulations. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Community Development Administrator with a business plan indicating the exact number of staff and the number of children to be enrolled. The Community Development Administrator shall review the plan to ensure that the combination of staff and children approved by the State does not exceed the ratio limits set forth by City Parking Regulations. 5. After school tutoring is not permitted. 6. That the hours of operation for the preschool shall not exceed 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 7 e I . 7. That a modification is granted for an unlighted monument sign that shall not exceed 4'-4" tall and 5'-4" wide, as indicated on the approved site plan. All signage shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Services and shall require appropriate permits from the Building Services. 8. That a 6'-0" decorative block wall shall be constructed around the perimeter of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator. 9. The proposed preschool shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements set forth by the State of Califomia Department of Social Services and shall be in conformance with Sec. 9275.3 - 9275.3.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code prior to issuance of a City business license. 10. That the applicant submit a landscape plan prepared by a certified Landscape Architect as part of the plan check process. Said plans shall include significant vertical plantings adjacent to the west, south, and north property line to provide a visual screen and sound barrier between the project site and the residential properties to the north. Said plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Administrator. 11. That the three trees identified in the attached Arborist Report are preserved and protected during the construction process as outlined in the Arborist Report. 12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia conceming this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration, approve Application Nos. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, and CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 8 . e . . , direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. 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 incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the August 10th, 2004 public hearing, please contact Joe Lambert at (626) 574-5444. ./ Appr9ved by: , / / / ' ",I - -.-,,,, ./1 I I' /,/"'~ I -' -. _ - COnn L. Butler Community Development Administrator , Attachments: Aerial Photo & Zoning Map Land Use Map Project Plans Photographs Tree Preservation Report Negative Declaration & Initial Study Environmental Information Correspondence CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 August 10,2004 Page 9 ~ N D ~ 2125 S Baldwin Ave D Arcadia I!!] Zone 1lis 21255 Baldwin Avenue CUP 04-010 ADR 03-035 velopment Services Department Engineering Division (2121) (2126) (2130) , (689) (631) (2141) WALNUT A VE ?J 0 (2201) (640) ~ 03 (2200) ):> r- Z ~ 0 (2209) (2208) ):> Z ~ (2215) ):> < (2212) m. lls Ipment Sen.ices Deparlment Engineering Division ~by:RSGonzsIez.Ju/y.2004 2125 S Baldwin A venue CUP 04-010 ADR 03-035 . _4' I " - - I - - -- I 'I 1 ~-~ ,~' SITE PLAN 5CAl.:.E.I'0I0' {[[-~=iJ!;-- @-"" - ... lSj :.~ M -.-ll vICINITY HAP PROJECT SlJ-?1ART, --- ~'N 1!I.lIlOvG~%E", li5T"I,.O(lIOtMll!!.l,1-'CCl1o::l1'T. NDF\.OOIIl4Rl!.Ii. 4.?61&Q 19" 111'""""" T07ALt.~UIEA, r.,.veofQ.I't,.,,,, LD'I$lZl!.' '''_DCl..I'T """"" "" =-"'"' ),,~')l:l~.Il.~llQ "l AU~ '''''KlFt.~ ~~I"t.."lI.LQlII!O TCI'AllLoC)OGlllP'\.A"'U!:EAl'II:l!Qpll/8:l, !I.&Ul;&Q!'T-'~Of1l.OtIIS'olX_6"_f'l!ACl4'LCI TOTAlI:N:::lO::N""l,..4..Uil:....P'l""'.DU~' 6~!lO..IIT. ~-"'" rcr.s,op4l'lIlcu"TT''''. TtI'fooU;elfT.(:oI;~_ tn.. .~"'UO-llI6J 0---- 0-- MOUNMENT 516N 1" - ~'-.' -,- '.r " . @ " @ @ @ "- )BI\,N'$"Ec:u.'€t> AT~T!o"<ot?-1WI!~_" ll<oIAU.ee~,>>'~ ~'~I"IUI:Vi-lO _~,~""""7A""""- 6IJlll!:"" ~..c;.t.~ mt...u,.c_ ;'A><,62fo.a:!1.1O>> TOTIll.~I"LAT.AEA~ ....,..l!dn_(lM'QoIlUl~)(~,JIl"ERo.m..c, TQTAl~"","AT AREA~, 1t"J8~", . - ill > <l. z '3 n -' ~ III N -+ . ........ ~ I Iii ' ~ " ~\t D. ~ II " !I % !'d 3 IS ~ .. S~ ~~~ g:i:S in IlAm..1O-O'I -- - -- "" A-I . ...... ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - a_ :" "1 iIL____:lli FIRST FLOOR FLAN &cALE, 1If.s.'.,'.e' AREA 1JH sa FT - - ~~ - - - ~ ~ . "'CT SECOND FLOOR FLAN &CAL..E. l/e'~I'-0' AREA 4.1f:>2 $Q FT - r--- -- -- --------- --1 , , , , , , , , I : , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , 1 i , , : I I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , i , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , - -- - -$-N ~... ~ I ~ ' ill, 01. ill II Iii I' " . u II ~ il ih =C :g ~ ~~ gl~ BOlj ~~~ _....Z1-O< - & - A-2 . - - ~~ EAST ELEVATION ec~E, 11'8'"".",. 5OUT~ ELEvATION 5CAL.E,1/8'.I'-I!)' NORTH ELEvATION KAl..e.II&'.I'-,," WEST ELEVATION KALE,lf!o'o,'-IO' . - - ......... ~ I i5 . d! ii, ::1.1 ~ j ~ !j == ill " ~~ ~~.~ 8;j:s a;~ ~c;!l! o.fr,.. ":l-ClO - ~ ~ "'" A-3 =- IIIDIlU O1lI8IolllD8D1I1m. I50N.wn""I:IrTA._SUIT1i6f5'''R.CIJ)L\.CA..91~ Td:I~:!lIIIDI~rG:(61li,S1I.lI)JS Pre-Sd",,12121 BAlDWIN. Arcadia. I'mpcctive.pImi e 111.' - L - - JUL302004 - ~ - - - -- . - ~ Baldwin Avenue Frontage I --. 1 . .--.--- --- - ,--7"~ . -,- . :.:.. - ----=-- - JUL 30 2004 . - . - - Baldwin Avenue Frontage e , . i- ,.~- ;;!i.-:~~ ~ ~~ -<:1~~~ .~. "',' ~~ .~:~- ....-~ I _~_..h'~ ~QAU~ . . I "~I View Along Northerly Property Line e I . ~ -~ .' -"- ". .....it y. Existing Rentals Onsite . e . . View Looking From Project Site Toward Homes Ad'.acent to Pepperglen Dr. 'r . _ "'.'-'.4 "':;" .-""--'1. . .. .(::,d .... . :...-..c:'..... h-\!~.~~~.~~fii~:~~~~?f;ti.:?~~::.,~~;~~~ _-e.e"_ Southerly Property Line of Project Site Viewed From Adjacent Property to the West . e I . ~_.- -- ;..- "- .._~~, -f'" Pecan Tree at the Rear Portion of the Project Site Viewed From Adjacent Property to the West . e EVALUATION OF TREES AT 2125 BALDWIN AVENUE IN ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SUBMITIED To MIKE Ho PRESIDENT/ARCHITECT HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT 150 NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE 645 ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 I PREPARED BY CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTINOARBORlST 387 NORTH BALDWIN AVENUE SIERRA MADRE, CALIFORNIA 91024 ASCA REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST # 405 lNTERNA TIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICUL TURE CERTIFIED ARBORlST # WE 575A (626) 355-0271 (T) (626) 355.0284 (F) OAKGIRLIalDSLEXTREME.COM MAy }O, 2004 .. . e Contents Executive Summary 1 Background and Assignment 1 Observations and Discussion 1 Conclusion and Recommendations 3 Captioned Photos 4 Appendix 'A' - Tree Protection Plan 6 General Recommendations 7 I Certificate of Performance 10 Arborist Disclosure Statement 11 Resume 12 Oak Trees: Care and Maintenance Back Cover . e c y C A R L B E R G REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST ~ , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . If construction precautions are carefully observed, proposed construction occurring adjacent to one coast live oak, a deodar cedar, and a pecan tree at 2125 Baldwin Avenue in Arcadia is expected to have a negligible effect on their health and future vitality. No significant above-ground pruning or significant root loss is foreseen. The design appropriately considers the trees' locations and future growth and branch development. BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT Huntec Development is in the design phase of a preschool at 2125 Baldwin Avenue in Arcadia, California A nwnber of residential structures at 2125 as well as at 2131 Baldwin Avenue wil1 be demolished as part of the project. I was retained to evaluate the trees that pertain to construction and to prepare an oak tree report in accordance with the City of Arcadia's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. There is one coast live oak (Quercus agnfolia) and a number of exotic mature trees on the properties, including two deodar cedars (Cedrns deodara), a pecan tree (Carya illinoensis), and two California peppers (Schinus moUe). Mike Ho, president and architect at Huntec Development and his assistant Hsiaoyu Lin revised the parking lot design to include one of the deodar cedars and agreed to incorporate the pecan tree into their playground scheme. I used the site plan prepared by Huntec to confirm the trees' locations relative to the proposed building and parking lot and numbered them I, 2, and 3 on the enclosed Tree Protection Plan (Appendix' A'). I conducted the inspections from the ground and did not climb into the canopies of the trees or perform any invasive testing for internal decay. Photographs accompanying this report illustrate site context, branch architecture, and tree vigor. OBSERVATIONS AND 'DISCUSSION Data on the protected oak tree is included as part of the City of Arcadia'.s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements. Omission of data on the other mature trees is by design and by no means lessens the significance of construction activities adjacent to them. 387.NORTH BALDWIN AVBNUE, SIERRA MADRE, CAUFORN\A 91024 . 626.3SS-0271 PHONE' 626. 3SS-0284 FAX ASCA REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST# 40S I.S.A. CERTIFIED ARBOR1ST# WE S75A e , . HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REpORT 2 TREE # 1 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia LOCATION: Front yard of2125 Baldwin, adjacent to the street DIAMETER (measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade): 24 inches HEIGHT (approximated): 35 feet SPREAD (paced-from center of trunk): North: 18 feet; East: 15 feet; South: 20 feet; West: 10 feet AGE CLASS: Mature CONDmON (HEALTH): Very good STRUCTURE: Fair (due to previous topping) CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION: Demolition of the existing driveway must be accomplished with great care so as not to harm the tree's trunk or surface roots. Compaction for the parking lot base is the most important impact and the amount of soil within the Root Protection Zone! to be compacted should be discussed with a qualified professional arborist. Trenching for the planter footing should be done using hand tools only. The tree was excessively pruned in the past but is young and vigorous and should recover well. It should be restoratively pruned this summer. Minimal pruning will be required for vehicular clearance and should only be performed by a qualified professional tree trimmer. TREE # 2 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara LoCATION: Front yard of2125 Baldwin adjacent to the street; north of tree #1. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION: Compaction for the parking lot base is the most important impact and the amount of soil within the Root Protection Zone to be compacted should be discussed with a qualified professional arborist. Trenching for the planter footing should be done using hand tools only. Two branches growing to the south will need to be removed for vehicular clearance and should only be performed by a qua1ified professional tree trimmer. TREE # 3 Pecan Carya illinoensis LoCATION: Backyard of2123 Baldwin Avenue CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION: Plans for the playground have not been developed and should be reviewed by a qualified professional arborist prior to the beginning of construction. No root loss is anticipated. Pruning will be required should only be performed by a qualified professional tree trimmer. I The Protected Zone is a specifically defined area totally encompassing an oak tree within which work activities are strictly controlled. When depicted on a map, the outermost edge of the protected zone will appear as an irregular shaped circle that follows the contour of the dripline of the oak tree. CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST MAy 30, 2004 e I . HlMrEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REPORT 3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 entourage both Huntec Development and its contractor to read the enclosed publication "Oak Trees, Care and Maintenance." General Recommendations are included as part of this document. In my professional opinion, the project may proceed if the following conditions are met: . Five-foot high chain link fencing is secured around Trees # 1,2, and 3 as defined on the attached Tree Protection Plan. Fences are to be mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2 feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. An access gate is permitted. This note must appear on grading and demolition plans. Fencing must be in place before demolition begins and remain in place until landscape work commences. . Demolition of the curb and driveway surrounding tree # 1 must be executed with great care so as not to harm the trunk or surface roots. . Activities such as excavation, grading, trenching, canopy or root pruning, and any other activities which might affect the protection zones of trees to remain are monitored by a qualified professional arborist. . Any roots two inches or larger which might be severed are cleanly cut behind tom ends to enhance the efficient natural "compartmentalization" of the damage by the roots. There is no need to apply any type of "pruning seal" compound when roots are cleanly cut, since the root will form its own internal barriers to decay. . Only appropriate landscaping and irrigation are installed within Tree Protection Zones. Existing grade should only be modified to "level" the slopes in the back and front yards. This grading should be performed by hand tools. . The Tree Protection Plan is part of the set of plans given to the contractor. There are specific instructions and responsibilities pertaining to oak trees that the contractor should be familiar with. A qualified professional arb.orist should meet with the contractor and his personnel prior to commencement of the project. . A 'Warning' sign is prominently displayed on each protective fence. The sign will be a minimum of 8.5 inches x 11 inches and clearly state the following: WARNING TREE PROTECTION ZONE THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST MAy 30, 2004 e . . HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REPORT 4 . ._ 1/~ i" ''"~'"- IJ. " I!~ '~I ~t.;.~~~~, Photograph A: Facing northwest, showing deodar cedar to be preserved at 2125 Baldwin Avenue. Photograph B: Facing west, showing coast live oak to be preserved at 2125 Baldwin Avenue. Photograph C: Facing southeast, showing proximity of existing driveway to oak tree. Demolition of the driveway must be accomplished with great care so as not to harm the tree'stnmk. CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST MAY 30, 2004 e , . HUNTEt DEVELOPMENT TREE REpORT Photograph D: Facing west showing the deodar cedar at 2131 Baldwin A venue. It is proposed to be removed. Photograph E:Facing west, showing the pecan tree in th. backyard of 2131 Baldwin A venue. It will b. preserved. CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST 5 MAY 30, 2004 .. Q () ~ t; trI P ~ i I 0; I m c I () , 0 Z CO> ~ Z Cl ~ 0 ~ 1); .., '"C ~ ~ :> ~ -< w 5=' ... o ~ . ~t.\te @@@ .' :.,:: ;;'1. t.;:, "':1";" ; ~!~i :; '; . l . : "_ ,." .' .' "'I"'" 1~t. :;',: ~':'.;:~:! trr '. .,;,; ;:::::i... .!. ":;.;.-.: :'::::,..;; .. . ~';;'!;~::::;':'i::;i;:::;::j;,,~:tt,:r:! ! @,@,@ .,-,' .-,'-'--.. .::.: -~ _.~ ..........". 51TE PLAN ~ ?,ru>,d//V ;O~ _ _ ~' H/&,p M.it'/N h"-u,e;<"'SVc..w6 ~ 7?/P-/PHWP !lCAl-!:.I"I(lI' - . Vlr...n.nTYMAP ~C:iJlJ;r:-u.OIT, p- !e UtilT& R=~O ~-- AT LeAST 5"" Of ne p~ AIeA lSj..tM.l,. es.l.ANo!~Ch '7!lo'~~D TatA.i. L.~FED AJCA. 16,-41:> ea.1'T..ce..2.!l raTAI. QJT~ P.l-6,. AR:!!A ~G:UlIEP, n,'00 sa.. FT. (!Sf> ~~ X 15 51'. FE::t 04L0' TOTAL~I"LA'l'".e.I'EA~' Ii,AY5Q..FT. TOTAt. lNDOQf;! R..AT .AREA ~QlIieD. 5,,q,,, 6G. n (&6 ~ILPREH X"~. PER ~J TOtAL,~ PLAT AA!OA~' 5.A&4 !a..FT. - zcte:.R.j eulLOING auf. t!'IoT A..OOR-AR!!Al 1JD.S !Q, Ft. 1NP Ft.-OOR ~ A.1b1 6Q. FT. LCi 5lEI ~~ 5Q, FT. t'tAxhl'1 LOT eovc-JUiGa:. '-'.lJS6 X ","~n.~~ sQ.n.AUQtEP ;J~ EC,'FT. PRO?C$!OD 11.~e.a.i'T.AL.L~ l' ~ tF2- =..- 1)IeE' 1J!:./ ~ r ""'_ \) E Z I> < m -$- , ~llECT, ~ t'l"IllC.SHIO l!:6 N. ~ANTA ~4.e.YE. 5UlTE6.<lilo ~ADI~. eA~" TEL, 6~b-81I.~ FAX> ,,",S'I.lQJ1So CUtER. AJ+lE ~ W63!> 5PAFiI<1-ETT ~T. iEt1PLE CITT, CA ~U) TEL. 6;6.....e.19'" -- ~ I III lit ~!I % ., =1: !! si ~I~ ~m{ ia~ ~..~~ -~ A-I /I'21?F: )~Dl:" ~~7?PN G#/P6Z.'~ Ma' JlfE1!f//~~ tUJV /}t: rot/AlP /AI 7if!6lS' JIl."9"1fJ/2T ;ZU"/, &:1/ 1';f-tY :] 0/ ~~ ::0 2 ~ o ~ '" 5 ." ;:: !2 .., o-j G1 i:i' ." o ~ '" e . . HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REPORT 7 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING "Tree Protection Zones" will be delineated by use of temporary fences consisting of a five (5) foot high barrier composed of chain link fencing material, enclosing the trees at locations depicted on the site plan. Fencing will be installed priorto demolition and remain in place until landscape work commences. Parking or storing of vehicles, trailers, equipment, machinery or construction materials will not be pennitted within areas delineated by protective fences, nor will dumping of oils or chemicals. REMOVAL OF EXCAVATED EARTH As previously described, protective fences will beset up to prevent spoils from compacting the soil beneath adjacent tree canopies. Excavated spoils will not be placed within Tree Protection Zones, and shall only be temporarily placed under existing drip lines within the access corridor. Spoils will be continuously removed off.site as excavation proceeds. UTILITY TRENCHING There is no need to sever major roots during utility trenching. Utility access can be accomplished by careful incremental machine excavation supplemented by hand digging when necessary to preserve significant roots. If necessary, strong water pressure can be used to "tunnel" beneath roots. Several. utilities will use the same pathways to eliminate needless soil disruption. Exact placement of utilities must be marked and coordinated with individual contractors so that they do not just choose the shortest and easiest routes. In the event roots are encountered, roots above 2 (two) inches in diameter will be retained. Any exceptions to this guideline would require the approval of the supervising arborist, and only if tree health would not be significantly compromised. Any roots 2 (two) inches or larger which might be severed will.be cleanly cut behind tom ends to enhance the efficient natura1 "compartmentalization" of the damage by the roots. There is no need to apply any type of "pruning seal" compound when roots are cleanly cut, since the root will form its own internal barriers to decay. SITE DRAINAGE Oaks are particularly susceptible to root infections resulting from chronically saturated soil conditions. Two root diseases that commonly occur in this area of California are Phytophthora and Armillaria. Both of these fungal diseases can progressively weaken a root system, resulting in. dead branches in the canopy of the tree, loss of stability of the entire tree due to decaying roots, and premature death of the tree. CY CARLBERG,. REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST MAY 30, 2004 e I . HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REpORT 8 Trees form roots in accordance with existing soil composition and water availability. Minor drainage changes in the winter and spring months would be insignificant to the health of the trees. Construction procedures on this project will integrate proper drainage to ensure that large quantities of water do not create saturated conditions beneath adjacent oaks. Rainfall from roof and hardscape areas will be collected and piped to street curbside or to detention and dispersal areas that are not within sensitive tree driplines and root zones. MONITORING OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Fencing should be in place and approved by the supervising Arborist prior to commencing demolition. All work performed which will directly impact oak trees should be monitored by the supervising Arborist. This includes demolition, grading, root pruning, limb removal, trenching, and any other activity which could directly impact the oaks. The removal of the asphalt hardscape surrounding the tree will be especially sensitive. Landscape plans should be approved by the supervising Arborist prior to installation. No tree limbs shall be removed except with the approval of the Arborist and only under his or her direct supervision. The arborist, or qualified representative, will be on.site during excavation of the building footprint in order to minimize the possibility of tree damage. The arborist will retain authority to restrict construction equipment to designated areas, and to stop work practices that could lead to injury of trees. Exterior scaffolding shall not be anchored to trees. Scrap or debris will not be allowed to accumulate on the ground within tree driplines. APPROPRIATE UNDERSTORY LANDSCAPING ~ND HARDSCAPING Compatible plantings can complement and enhance the natural beauty of the site. If compatible plants are not incorporated into development plans, then a subsequently over- inigated landscape could subvert preservation measures undertaken during the construction process. An excellent reference booklet is Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks, published by the California Oak Foundation. PRUNING Pruning of oaks should be limited to the removal of dead wood and the correction of potentially hazardous conditions, as evaluated by a qualified arborist. Pruning oaks excessively is harmful. Removal or reduction of major structural limbs should be done only as required for actual building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed, cuts should be made perpendicular to the branch, to limit the size of the cut face. The branch Cy CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST MAy 30, 2004 e I . HUNTECDEVELOPMENT TREE REpORT 9 bark collar should be preserved (e.g., no "flush cuts"), and cuts should be made in such a way as to prevent the tearing of the bark from the tree. All pruning should be done in accordance with accepted pruning standards (e.g., ISA, ANSI). No pruning wound treannent should be applied. ' IRRIGATION The trees to remain should be in the best health possible in order to remain vigorous during construction. Supplemental irrigation, especially to supplement winter rains, is recommended until a pennanent system is installed. To avoid the introduction of root- rotting fungi, at no time should water be allowed to collect or stand near the trunks of oaks. CY'CARlBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBoRlST MAy 30.2004 e . . HUNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REPoRT 10 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I. Cy Car/berg, certify: . That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Terms of Assignment; . That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; · That the" analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my"own; · That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; . That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the "report; · That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist through the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept, and.adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. r am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, and have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over twenty-five years. Signed: o/~ Date: ~ 5&>) uPtf ~ Cv CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORlST MAv30,2004 e I . HllNTEC DEVELOPMENT TREE REPORT 11 ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Nborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Nborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy'or safe under all circumstances, orfor a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Cy CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTINGARBORlST MAy 30, 2004. e I . HUNTEC DEVI!LOPMENT TREE REpORT 12 Education CY CARLBERG 387 North Baldwin A venue, Siena Madre, California 91024 (626) 355.0271 (P) a (626)355-0284 (F) oakgir1@dslextreme.com B.S., Landscape Architecture, California Stale Polytechnic University, Pomona, 1985 Gmduate, Arboricultural Consulting Academy, American Society of Consulting Arborists, Chicago, Illinois, February 2002 Consulting Arboris~ 1998.present Manager of Grounds Services, California Institute of Technology, Pasadeila, 1992-1998 Director of Grounds, Scripps College, CIll1emont, 1988-1992 Certified Arborist (#WE.0575A), International Society of Arboriculture, 1990 Registered Consulting Arborist (#405), American Society of Consulting Arborists, 2002 Exoerience Certificates Areas of Expertise Ms. Carlberg is experienced in the following.areas of tree management and preservation: . Tree inventory and risk assessment o Evaluation of trees.for preservation o Tree protection on construction sites o Pest and disease identification o Guidelines for oak preservation o Selection of appropriate tree species o Planting, pruning, and maintenance specifications o Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and Microsoft Access database customization Previous Consulting Experience Ms. Carlberg has overseen residential and commercial construction projects to prevent damage to protected and specimen trees. She bas twenty-five years of experience in arboriculture and horticulture, and has performed tree health evaluation and risk assessment for governmentligencies, cities, school districts, and colleges. Representative clients include: o The Los Angeles Zoo o The City of Beverly HilIs o The City of Claremont o The City of Pasadena o Occidental College, Los Angeles o Pitzer College, Claremont o Scripps College, Claremont o Claremont McKenna College o Pomona College, Claremont o HllIVey Mudd College, Claremont o The Claremont Unified School District o The Los Angeles Depamnent of Water and Power o The Long Beach Unified School District (over 20,000 trees) Ms. Carlberg. serves with the following national, state, and community professional organizations: o California Urban Forest Council, Board Member, 1995.present o Tree Advisory Commission, City of Siena Madre, Chair, 1999~2003 o American Society of Consulting Arborists Academy, Faculty Member, 2003-2004 o Pasadena Urban Forestry Advisory Commission, Member, 1994-1996 CY CARLBERG, REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST MAy 30, 2004 e . . NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) 1. Name, if any, and a brief description of project: Application Nos. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035: A Conditional Use Pennit end Architectural Design Review Application to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The applicant is also proposing an after school tutoring program within the proposed building. 2. Location: 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, 'City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3. Entity or person undertaking project: Mike Ho 150 N. Santa Anita Ave. Suite 645 Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 821.0295 The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the publiC meeting of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Planning Commission/City Council's findings are as follows: The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site and will not have a significant effect upon the environment. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, 91007 (626) 574-5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, 91007 (626) 574-5423 C Jce. l..JIM~ Staff Date Received for Filing Neg Dee 7/02 \ e . . File No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Application No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 2. Project Address (Location) 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: Mike Ho 150 N. Santa Anita Ave. Suite 645 Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 821-0295 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia - Development Services Department Community Development Division - Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (0-6 d.u./acre) 7. Zoning Classification: R.1 8. Description of Project: -1- CECA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 . e I . File No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03.035 Conditional Use Permit Application No. 04-010 & ADR 03-035: A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review Application to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The applicant is also proposing an after school tutoring program within the proposed building. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned R-1, and are developed with residential/and uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): N/A 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 [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Geology/Soils [ ] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Recreation [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [ ] Air Quality [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] land Use & Planning [ ] Noise [ ] Public Services [ ] Transportation / Circulation DETERMINATION (To be compieted by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] 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 the -2- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1,7/02 , e . . File No. CUP 04.010 & ADR 03-035 mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirqnment,. but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. By: For: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator The City of Arcadia - Development SelVices Department ~#4= Signatur Joseoh M. Lambert Printed Name June 28. 2004 Date Donna L. Butler For 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 ag\lncy cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impacf' 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 Impacf' 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- CEQA Env. Checklist Part 1. 7/02 . e I I , File No. CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more, "Potentially Significantlmpacf' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless M~igation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impacf' 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 Anaiyses" 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 17 at the end of the checklist. a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) lmpacls 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 that 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussIon. 8. 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 significant. -4- CEOA Env. Checklist Part 1, 7/02 , e . . File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03.035 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact 1. AESTHETICS - Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 [gJ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 0 0 0 [gJ to. trees, rock outcroppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? o 18J o o d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? o [gJ o o The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an approximate 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The project site is zoned Residential and the proposed building shall conform to the development standards of the R-1 zone including building setbacks and height limitations. The proposed building will not be any larger or taller than permitted by code. As such, no adverse impact on aesthetics is anticipated. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Caiifomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non.agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? o [gJ o o b) Confiict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ,contract? o [gJ o o c) o [gJ o o Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? CECA Checklist 5 7/02 e . . File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mlllgation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact The proposal is consistent with the Residential/and use designation of the General Plan and with the zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The project site is surrounded by urban uses and no agricultural resources currently exist at the project site or in the surrounding areas. As such, the proposel will have no impacts on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY . Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following . determinations. Would the project: a) Confiict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) VioJate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non.attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qual~ standard (inclUding releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? o o o [gJ o o o [gJ o o [gJ o o o o [gJ o o o [gJ The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 square fOot preschool building at the subject location. The project site is surrounded by residential land uses and the proposed building will be no larger than a potential residence that could conceivably be constructed at the subject site. The continued use of the site will be in eccordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact. either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? o o o [gJ CEQA Checklist 6 7/02 File No.: CUP 04.010 & ADR 03-035 e Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigaflon Impact Impact Incorporation b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other 0 0 0 [gJ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policiet, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect' on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastai, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or 0 0 0 [gJ migratory fish or wildlife speciet or with established resident or migratpry wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Confllct with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 0 0 0 [gJ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I f) Conflie:t with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 0 0 0 [gJ Pian, Natural Conservation Commun~y Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The project site is currently developed with four residential units, which would ba razed for the subsequent construction of the preschool. As such, the proposal will have no impacts on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 0 0 [gJ historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 0 [gJ archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 0 0 0 18I site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 0 0 0 [gJ formal cemeteries? . CEQA Checklist 7 7/02 , e . . FileNo.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Slgnlftcant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design riMew to construct an 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The project site Is currently developed with four residentiel units, which would be razed for the subsequent construction of the preschool. As such, no adverse impacts on cultural resources are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the a~a or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? v) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soli as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .0 o o o o 181 181 181 181 181 181 f8I 12I 12I CEQA Checklist 8 7102 e File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation less Than Significant Impact No tmpact Whl/e 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 geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposed project com;ists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 square foot preschool building at the subject location. The project site is already developed with residential buildings that will be razed and replecad with the proposed preschool project. All new construction shall be required to comply with all applicable building and safety codes. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: . c) . h) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions inVOlving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or death Involving wildland fires, including where wildiands are o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l:8I 12I 12I 12I l:8I 12I l:8I o 181 CEQA Checklist 9 7/02 e I I File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than S.ignlficant With Mitigation IncorporaUon Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 square foot praschool building at the subject location. The project site is already developed with residential buildings that will be razed and replaced with the proposed preschool projact. All new construct/on shall be required to comply with all applicable building and safety codes. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and f1ra safety regulations. In fact, the site plan has been developed considering preliminary Fira Department comments. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficlt I" aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area. including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, In a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the exlsling drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff ina manner which would result in flooding on- or off.site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 12I IZI 12I IZI IZI IZI IZI CEQA Checklist 10 7102 File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 e Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation impact Impact Inccrporatioo h) Place within a 1 DO-year floodplain structures which would impede 0 0 0 12I or redirect flood fiows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or 0 0 0 IZI death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 0 0 0 IZI k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? 0 0 0 12I I) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm 0 0 0 IZI water runoff? I m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material .0 0 0 18I storage. vehicle or equipment maintenance (Including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm 0 0 0 IZI on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? 0) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial 0 0 0 IZI uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of 0 0 0 IZI storm water runoff that can use environmental harm? q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or 0 0 0 181 surrounding areas? The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 square foot praschool building at the subject location. The project site is alraady developed with residentiel buildings that will be razed and replaced with the proposed preschool project. All new construction shall be raquired to comply with all applicable building and safety codes, and e grading plen shall be submitted with any future . building plan check submittal. As the site is currently developed, there will be no significent change to the existing drainage and runoff generated by the project site. As such, no adverse Impacts are anticipated. CEQA Checklist 11 7/02 e . . c) File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (Including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o Less Than Significant impact o o o No Impact 181 181 IZI The proposal is consistent with the Residentia/ land use designation of the General Plan and with the regulations of the R-1 zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. The proposed project consists of a conditional use permit and design review to construct an 11,800 squara foot praschool building at the subject location. The project site is already developed with residential buildings that will be razed and replaced with the proposed praschool project. This project is consistent with zoning and General Plan land use designation of the project site with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? o o o o o o No mineral resources are known to exist at the site. As such, no adverse impacts. are anticipated. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels In excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegroundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o o o o o o 181 181 f8I IZI 12I o o o CEQA Checklist 12 7102 e . . File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing wfihout the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact o o 12I o o o 181' o o o o IZJ There will be a short-term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construct/on is completed, it is anticipated that a/though the noise factor would increase with the use of the property changing from housing to a praschool, however this noise wlJl be the type of noise associated with rasidentia/ neighborhoods and should not significantly adversely impact any of the neighboring properties. As such, the impact shall be less than significant. POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? o o o 12I o o o IZJ o o o 181 This project will actually result ina loss of four residential units. The project will not create any significant impact upon popUlation or housing. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental faciiities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: CEOA Checklist 13 7/02 File No.: CUP 04-010& ADR 03-035 e Less Than Potantlally Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact InCorporation Fire protection? 0 0 19j 0 Police protection? 0 0 19j 0 Schools? 0 0 0 12I Parks? 0 0 12I 0 Other public facilities? 0 0 181 0 The proposed project is consistent with the Residentia/ land use designation of the General Plan and the zoning of the site which allows preschools at the project site with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This project will actually result in a loss of four residential units. The project will not create any significant impact upon pUblic services and will actually reduce the impact upon some seNices. As such, the impacts shall be less than significant. 14. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? . b) Does the projecl include recreational facilities or require the construction or expanSion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? o o 181 o o o 19j o The proposad project is consistent with the Residential land use designation of fhe General Plan and the zoning of the site whiCh allows preschools at the project site with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This project will actually result in a loss of.four residential units. The project will not create any significant impact upon recraation seNices and will actually reduce the impact upon some services. As such, the impacts if any, shall be less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levElls or a change in iocation that results in substantial safety risks? . o o o 181 o o f8I o o o o 181 CEQA Checklist 14 7/02 e . . File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 d) SUbstantially Increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? PotanUally Significant Impact o o o o Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation o o o o Less Than Significant Impact o o o o No Impacl 12I 181 12I 181 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is consistent with the Residential land use designation of the General Plan and the Zoning which allows preschool uses at the project site with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The proposed development plans include adequate parking for the uses proposed, and also include adequate drop off/pick up area. The proposed onsite parking conforms with the parking regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Therefore, the project will not create any significant adverse impact upon transportation or traffic. Also, part of the conditional use permit process will include an analysis of the parking situetion and a determination by staff on the adequacy of parking and an analysis of any traffic safety issues. As such, the impacis if any, are less than significant. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the cOnstruction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from eXisting entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). o o o o o o o o o o o 181 12I 12I o IZI CEQA Checklist 15 7102 e _ a) . File No.: CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 0 0 0 12I which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 0 0 0 181 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations 0 0 0 I8l related to solid waste? ' The proposed project is consistent with the Residential/and use designation of the General Plan and the zoning of the site which allows preschools at the project site with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This project will actually result in a loss of four residential units. A/so, the proposed project shall be subject to a/l applicable wastewater and NPDES requirements. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? o I8l o o b Does the project have Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? o 181 o o c) o 12I o o Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposed project is consistent with the Residential land use designation of the General Plan and the zoning of the site which allows preschools at the with an approved Conditional Use Permit. This project will actually result in a loss of four residential units. The conditional use permit shall not result in cumulative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood or limit the future development of the neighborhood. As such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. CEQA Checklist 16 7/02 File No.CUPOL/ -0/0 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574-5400 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: (p /'1 /0 tf I { General Information . 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: A"iNIe. rl4,ur \t>"~.!> Gr~~I'-l$'f'\ ~rJl2ee.f I ""eMr~e CI't'( , CA "'11160 2. Address of project (Location): 2-1 z.~ ~..t:>WIN .A"~l(& I ,6.teCAl:>\..... I cA "'1,1007 I. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: MIl's. \to It;'c NP~ SI-Il1i/'l ANITA )WE:N"1E I 5/.l1T.E ~$' I ,A~ I CA"!ID"0 ( b'2-&.) ezl - p;z..4 C; 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city. regional, state and federal agencies: 1;lAIt..C:"N~ Fi>/(t-1IT'S" AfPF:OVAL- "1" ~~C5GT' [3.1 ~r,6.lZTHp"'T of. SDc.tAo<L- WD 12jc:... 5. Zoning: ~ I 6, General Plan Designation: CON,DI\'" DNA-I- LA.se; Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): prz.e S?tl'OP L.- . Site Size: ~4-, Clli15" Sq. Ft.1 O.1f> Acre(s) e 9. Square footage per building: 'f1"z~;..\;:uoe. . 1,loll$.f. ~tJ\J fUolZ,.. "l';Tb'Z.'3.'f. IoTA-I-' \ \,~"zS.'f. 1 D. Number of floors of construction: z C,-""Il/ 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: '\b!M- of ''?o 1'J>."Il,.\6r<Q.i.d-\.\..s- (z. ~~l&\"'e. I " C"MI'Al..,.., 2Z $"F'"NC>AflCt>J 12. Proposed scheduling of project: ON~ y~ "fo 'RHtl:H ,.~ CPr-{~'tI0N 13. Associated projects: MoN.e. 14. Anticipated incremental development: I "'DN~ 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: N/A 16. If commercial, indicate the type, I.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/~ 19. . 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: f'lte.~b L- ~ 14- SrAl"F~ I 17"b C4ttl..C>iIaN I ~ltt'f'T ~leS ~t-\ qA'-1- '3 pt-I . AFT~ 5e~"L. ~T,.zIN~ fI2 ot.rIZ4M - I D ~",6.'fl'"S .. .04-1:> f1l?s , c:lll'PT ~e~ ~'" 1. pM -4 r"" . If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: tJ/A Envlron'nfoForm -2- 4101 10. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO D ~ 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Discuss below all items D l:2l 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? D D 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmental Settlna D 8' D EI D 13 D EI D ~ D ~ ~ ra D~ DEl D ~ D ~ 35. . EnviranlnfoForm 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of10 percent or more? 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, Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) -3- 4101 _. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification 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. Date G h /0 If ~79' (Signature) . For . . EnvlronlnfoForm -4- 4/01 II - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP , .. I I- I I I I I I I I I~ .1 s I I I ,LJ , , ~~- ~ -....e.:.......---~_ --~-- - _ ~_~.... , -~r-----rE---=---':-=~-=::"::-'<' =-------w-;;;---- \;:::_--;--~! - __ _ ..........,..._ 0 I / ...._ ... I I . _ ___ 1'-4/ ..-: .... .... .._---.... : {... "0 D ',-..... -- \1 \ / I..... c:" -- ,..... , ../-.. I ~- ...... .: @ 0">~- ~-{ ~... /__, @ .._-------~- '"r'- ... "',,' ,..... ~-------.-r- ....,,______-/- -,.....{@- } J S----------r:< - .- \ ~ / I. ~..... __n__~_'i:.::)_L_ , .__ I .... .- ...... .- I -6;:,"" / .- - ~,.,.... ......._:~=---;:---~----r-_.:.~-~ ---~~~.:: ~, -------- /.........-.. /' l .......---...---..- ..'.-..... ...---- / ----".,.. , I ,,- -- I / S I I . iMP /;1 III I , ........"""'" - I" I -r-l- --------t---sG I I --I IS I . , , ........... <D1:!t\IF~. <>>enms.va ....... "'~"'"'=-- _QIIOl.NI_ -......-- A::!=::'= ~-- (;iJ-r...-.- ra_~ ff- ...=- - ---- --ii- :);= ~- -- -.........- ---- "'-- 111I_"''''__ G=~ ..... ..... -- - - -- ------ ---,"- ..TIlITBaI ASSOCU."'" III" .:''':'''''''BlC IW' ~SI.IIiID'DCllUllllllilCIDlGII-Il~- ....___ .IBltIloUDWlR...... __mllmt CI. _00It_ GIlT . or I ..... .......... r.FI,.Jg.i.Ntj-- ;"~',,.c:.,~.,.. -~ ..,...., I~-'Q' -- !l! .. ~ - I ' I I I .,?IW-l i " I' I I I ' -,I 1 , ~ I : I' I I II' 1,1: I I I I, I H-i II I , I I' I 'I I , I ~ ~ - - -" It . . EXISTING SITE -, ----~ . <"'Ii't,'f{~ .. '~',.v.-.-j"to..~,~ ':"l,,'~"".L ;;*~ ' ~,.f;' '~"'4'.\ ~:,~_ :,~'",,~",\'~ ' . .-.: -~ ,- ~,f,:,;, ''I':;.~( ,,-,I' ,"0\ , . .. ,'\' '-~~.; j,:" '. ',: "-. /,', ;1"11:" '" .' ,/Jr" :.".,.... "I}" .", -y '1'ij~\'~~-;~'!f,J' ~~ \. )0 " ... ... '-\'.,J '\ '.l::'I!f......( . ,', "\~r' -,.'~_I't.A.ft".~..~ . '''~ ') l.J ' ';':~lW.'''3..F. ;'f-:" .~..\ ",~l .....:.'l..~.j~" ' " r~"'::.. ~I_'~ ",'5M ',\'. '"j~ :.,' ;.:~). r U~' 4': . ; 1',('; '~;l"tf.;~"'",':ai< ~'\LiA,' ,. ,'t. lO., *;;'~-~'t.'-;'i;.'-"-:"~~':'Y' ~ ';::~': i ~.\ " :,; ["," " II :; b"',"\ "<;i..._ . '."., -/ j It.~ ~"'.1'-:<'t': ~lf;}'~.:_~~. ~ ,,::::-~.,~ r ,,,,' !!-;\. i.' ,-:t'::.",:'. '-r",-,:'., .~ "~':~'.'I; ", . '~.....r ~-ft'" ..~. 'I' IT.... ..." 7'" """ 0?'f:'~ ' ">~~~:: - ; I,. ',~":' 'L". i' . . I/~' . :.~ " .,11...1_.... ....),,: \. . ...., ,_.~. - '-,...".., . ~. ~~41.<OoJ -'. ~k'.";'".;~Q"C" .- . .. ""1fIl -3. ,- ",. :'sl' :. ~.... ~ "":'~~ ._i' \. .~ _'~,., :~>.t.~ . ~:"'''~:'.. "1.:',...;~l'l~ . ."'.' . . ....~' EXISTING SITE & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES e I . ,- L_________ <-" - :"-- ~,~.~_. ~. ' -'~ -- ,..~ _..-.j~ tlr,.,_'~:~' --. . ,.. -< . . -'<II ...,'~ ~. ~ _ '~'.~i.,..~,f- .,.~~ -=......... L ~ ~ _...:-.-._: "." I~'. .=c'.:J~-,~i~ __T~' SURROUNDING PROPERTIES .Joe Lambert ,m: t: Subject: RealtorOnWeb@webtv.net Friday, July 09, 2004 12:38 AM jlambert@cLarcadia.ca.us Preschool at2125 S.Baldwin Dear Mr. Lambert, One of my neighbors received a Notice of Public Hearing before the Arcadia Planning Commission to be held on July 27, 2004. Although my property at 6234 N Rowland Ave. abuts the property to be discussed and is only separated by a fence that my husband built many years ago, I did not receive a similar notice nor did my neighbors on the south or west of me. We are all well within the 300 ft. radius, and should have been notified. Are these mailings just going out to those that you think will not Object? My home is in a lovely, residential area of well cared for homes. Many of us have lived here for many years. This has been my home for 47 years and many of my neighbors have been here even longer. We intended to live here for the rest of our lives or until we need to be housed in an assisted living facility, or move someone in to care for lin our own home. That is something we ALL have to face eventually if are fortunate enough to live a long life. Besides not wanting to hear children playing, yelling, crying, arguing all day and possibly climbing over the fence and into my yard creating an insurance problem, I feel that the value of my property as well as my neighbors properties will immediately decline. The equity on our homes is what we planned to use to take care of us in our old age. Who is going to make up the difference to each and every property owner? The City of Arcadia? Besides the personal objections, there are other consequences that I foresee taking place in the event this property does become a school. Baldwin Avenue will become a traffic mess with teachers, parents, and other personnel going in and out of the driveway every day that school is in session. I feel that there will be more injuries and possibly even deaths. due to the heavy traffic on Baldwin Avenue than one can imagine. Does your city want to accept the responsibility for this possibility? I will be at the meeting on the 27th, if I am physically able, and you may be surprised at the number of people that object to this proposal, 'and who may also attend. III you please advise me when it is time involve rny attomey? I have already spoken with him and he suggests we wait until after the Public Hearing. Do you 1 agree with his suggestion? J am looking forward to seeing you at the meeting. ....erely yours, W;;ta B. Troncale 6234 N. Rowland Ave. Temple City, Ca. 91780 (626) 287-9362 I . 2 Page I of2 Joe Lambert e From: Joe Chou [joejlchou@yahoo.comJ Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11 :47 AM To: jlambert@cLarcadia.ca.us Cc: mcole@templecity.us; RealtorOnWeb@webtv.net Sublec:t: RE: Preschool at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia Dear Mr. Lambert, Yesterday we received a Notice of A Public Hearing of a proposal to build. a preschool near our house. My wife and I probably will not be able to attend this hearing due to our busy work schedules; however, we would like to voice our fervent objections to the applicant's request, and ask that our email to be read out loud during the hearing in the event that we are unable to attend the hearing. First of all, when we purchased our house ten years ago, this house and neighborhood were exactly what we looked for. It is in a small, quiet,. peaceful, and happy community. The proposed project of a preschool with three playground immediately next to ourneightbor's and our residences will create many unwanted noises, which our good neighbor Mrs. Oweta Troncale, has pointed out in her email addressed to you dated July 9, 2004. ..secondIY, the proposed after school program will acerbate the situation by creating more noise after school hours. Thirdly, the proposed preschool will create traffic on Baldwin A venue during morning rush hours and afternoon. . The rush of many eager and anxious parents to deliver and pick up their children on time from the school will very likely to create a long line of slow moving, or stopped cars along the Big Street. The cars will become obstacles for southbound traffic along Baldwin Avenue. And the possibility of small children running onto the path of on coming traffic is just unbearable. Finally, the close proximity of a Noisy Commercial Business to our neighborhood will ultimately drive down the house values in our community. In all, the proposed preschool is unwelcome, noisy, dangerous, and unsafe. We sincerely ask the Arcadia City Planning Commission to deny the applicant's request to build a preschool on location, 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia. And suggest the applicant to look for an alternative location elsewhere. We intend to protect our community, to upgrade not degrade, and keep it the way it is for a long time, If I necess~, my wife and I will join our neighbors to protect our small, quiet, peaceful, and happy community. Yours lIuly, 7/13/2004 Page 2 0[2 , . Joe Chou 9887 Wendon Avenue .. Temple City, CA 91780 .Tel: (626) 285-7988 Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete- You start. We finish. I . 7/13/2004 e I . . , July 29, 2004 Mr. Joe Lambert, Associate Planner Planning Services City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 Subject: Notice of Public Hearing-Application Nos. CUP04-o10 and ADR 03-035 In regards to a proposal to build a 11,800 square foot preschool building at 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue, I am very concerned on the negative impact this project will have to traffic flow and potential accidents at the intersections of Baldwin and Longden and especially Baldwin and Walnut. Automobiles leaving this proposed project and attempting to go North on Baldwin will be forced to make a U-tum at the intersection of Baldwin and Walnut (due to the fact there is a center divider on Baldwin forcing cars to go Southbound on Baldwin). Cars going Northbound on Baldwin travel at an excessive speed through Walnut and Longden. Making a left turn while going Westbound on Walnut to Southbound Baldwin is very dangerous now and this project will significantly increase this danger as cars will dart out trying to make this left turn getting tired of waiting for the traffic to clear from c.':Irs going Northbound and Southoound past Walnut. In addition, cars wanting to make a U- turn to go Northbound on Baldwin will also get tired of waiting (especially as Northbound Baldwin traffic backs up beyond Walnut) and make a left turn travelling Eastbound on Walnut. This in turn will significantly increase traffic flow along Walnut Avenue, which is lined with single-family homes with lots of children in the neighborhood. Unless there are plans to install a signal light at Walnut and Baldwin (which I doubt very much), the dangers created by approving this project will significantly decrease the traffic safety in this neighborhood. Traffic flow is bad enough with tl1e commercia! t!".lcks driving along Baldwin Avenue especially since Baldwin is a Freeway exit on Interstate 10 and 210. Has any traffic studies been performed? I have not seen any sensors counting the number of automobiles travelling around this area. If this project was to be approved, I would believe the City should require the Applicant to pay the cost to significantly mitigate the traffic and safety concerns expressed above. '.... . .. ... ". .... .,..,... . .... . " ,.., I would serious request the City to request the Applicant to consider other sites that are not located in a residential neighborhood. We are trying to protect the safety of the same children the Applicant is trying to teach. For the benefit of our children, this project should not be approved. Please consider and address my legitimate concerns prior to any approvals to this project. . - "I- "' Isl A very concerned Arcadian Resident of Walnut Avenue .' e . . July 30, 2004 Joe Lambert, Associate Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 Re: 2125 S. Baldwin Avenue - Proposed Preschool/After School Care Center Dear Mr. Lambert, After being married in 1955, we moved to Alhambra, California to start a family. After living several years there, we decided to move to a family oriented city. Mrs. Parker had grown up in Arcadia and we decided that is where we would buy our family home.. In December of 1959, we purchased our home at 9895 Wendon Avenue. We raised three children in a safe neighborhood. As we all know, Arcadia has changed. The traffic on our main streets has doubled and children have to be extra careful when crossing the street. If a large scale preschoollafter school care like the one proposed is approved and built, the children attending are at risk. Baldwin A venue is utilized as an interstate freeway. When Interstate 210 or 10 is blocked by an accident or construction, visitors to the area drive at high speeds down or up Baldwin Avenue. Drivers often drive 15 or more miles per hour over the speed llinit and do not stop at the red light at Longden A venue. In the past year our family has heard at least 5 accidents resulting from negligent drivers. Does the City of Arcadia want to take this risk and liability? Can you live with yourself if a child dies or is maimed for life? If the proposed preschool/after school care center is approved and built my house value will decrease. Is the City of Arcadia willing to compensate the neighbors of2125 S. Baldwin for any potential losses? Arcadia has always prided its self as a city of homes. The Baldwin Avenue residents, Wendon Avenue and Ro:wland Avenue are a community of homes. Many families have moved here to raise their children. A commercial business should not be built in a community of homes. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Eugene J. Parker ~~ f} 6'~ Eugene J. Parker ~" "'/u' .< /~"'~J Carole L. Parker <j~e Lambert Subject: dnecoll@YAHOO.COM Friday, July 09, 2004 9:34 AM jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us 2125 Baldwin 1m: t: We live at 6230 N Rowalnd and understand there is some action being taken for a hearing on property at2125 Baldwin. We are within 120 feet of this property and have not received an offical notice of this hearing. We are not in favor of this property being used for anyt;hing other then residential use. Please see that we are informed of any meetings that we may attend and give our views. Donald and Elaine Collins 6230 N Rowland Ave Temple City Ca 91780 6262871327 . . 1 ..Joe Lambert Subject; gramsvena@Weblv.net Friday, July 30, 2004 8:40 AM ]Iambert@cl.arcadia.ca.us Proposed day care center .: Mr. Lambert, I reside on Wendon Ave. which is . I believe well within hearing distance of the proposed day care center. I have lived here for 51 years and this is a quiet well kept area. As you know, sound travels. In fact I can hear the noise from the speedway out in Irwindale. I understand there will be activities at night also. There will be cars coming and going at all hours. The people living closer than I will have no quiet time in the evenings. Therefore I believe that a day care center at this location is inappropriate. Thank you Vena L. Adams . I 1 e I . . CU~J/T- ( 2-<-'-1:- Lj- .. {<;~ j o-e-/cv~ ~ >>0-a /iA,vJ ~ ?iAAL ~ /, Crt. 72-0 ~. . )J111-' wk~ .4.- ,~M dci{: IA~ ~;.., .-io ~dc& t0~ . jj- ~ .MtH-( ft-e,'~1 Ci\A w-L 'to tJ>4 (.It-t.--f3aec;~~? . ;0~~~_~ aJ1 ~V; V! . va /u",<--u -k. :~1 ~ 014 1.{,Ul.. k 'vu4- ib ~ 1~vCJL.' ttI-L;- 00vr ,<J&. r'~ b.i C4-w14 I Uv~.M .'1~ a~d4e. ~ C/w-~~' '~N-Ul U/Vt/V1. -/ /."-P.c-eL " " , e , . Harry T. Moy 2118 South Baldwin Avenue Arcadia, California 91007-8157 CITY OF ARCADIA Joe Lambert, Associate Planner Development Services Department Community Development Division I Planning Services Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, California 91066-6021 July 5, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE #CUP 04-010 & ADR 03-035 Dear Mr. Lambert: I recently received the above notice and would like to obtain additional information to better evaluate the request for a "Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review" to construct a preschool building in my neighborhood. Please promptly mail to me at the above address a copy of the city's "Environmental Impact Report" and any other document(s) that may have a positive/negative effect on our neighborhood's living condition, property value, traffic volume, safety issues, etc. Thank you in advance for your kind and timely attention to my request. Page 1 ofl . . Joe Lambert e From: OberGlad@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, July 07,2004 2:31 PM To: jlambert@ci.arcadia.ca.us Subject: PUblic hearing CUP 04,010 ADR 03~035 As a resident within 300 feet of the proposed project, I should have received an invite to the hearing. We are: Mr. & Mrs. Michael Oberholtz 9891 E. Wendon Avenue Temple City, CA 91780 (626)286-7668 I have left two phone messages. As it stands, I am concerned about the size of the project based on what I am hearing from my neighbors. Other Temple City neighbors have also not received notices. Was that your intent? Sound travels in all directions without regard to city borders. I will await your reply. . G. Oberholtz . 71712004 e . . . . ---- Izf:V~;"'~ ~ .J . ltwl4 [;..NLM- -i. ~vIu ~-CfVL- 72(} W (Ll141v:,~~41. J . .J a-rVV C,---, /.J.>>W~ ,MrVC~ Acj-L '13.Ex..cL {Vv.-VVNu?.. ~i'Y\- J~ ~:dv.- ~~ T3 ~Z(t., 1 h..f.--,~ c~ I f~ f3GUt 194 I~ r1~"-4 VZ~7 ~~-t-ir~ Co.~ ~ ~~,~ ~ J502d~ \ . "