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~ \ .
"