mitigated negative declaration and initial study biola youth campus

Transcription

CITY OF LA MIRADA ● CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 930-294
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ● BIOLA YOUTH CAMPUS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
INITIAL STUDY
BIOLA YOUTH CAMPUS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 930-294
14540 SAN CRISTOBAL DRIVE
LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF LA MIRADA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
13700 LA MIRADA BOULEVARD
LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA 90638
NOVEMBER 22, 2011
LAMR 006
Page 1
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME:
Biola Youth Campus Project
PROJECT ADDRESS: 14540 San Cristobal Drive
CITY AND COUNTY:
La Mirada, Los Angeles County
PROJECT:
The City of La Mirada (referred to hereinafter as the Lead Agency) is
considering the approval of a proposed conditional use permit (CUP)
application that calls for the existing Rancho Elementary School campus to be
reused by Biola University as the Biola Youth Campus. The proposed Biola
Youth Campus would occupy the existing facilities located at 14540 San
Cristobal Drive. No new buildings would be constructed and the new
construction would be limited to tenant and ADA improvements. The proposed
Biola Youth Campus is considered to be a project pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the proposed project’s
environmental review, the City of La Mirada has authorized the preparation of
the attached initial study. The initial study has been prepared pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines that provide local governments with guidance regarding the
manner in which the environmental review process is to be implemented at the
local level.
FINDINGS:
The environmental analysis provided in the attached initial study indicates that
the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse unmitigable
impacts. For this reason, the City of La Mirada has determined that a mitigated
negative declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed
project. The following findings may be made based on the analysis contained in
the attached initial study:
¾
The adoption and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.
¾
not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals.
¾
not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the
city.
¾
not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either
directly or indirectly.
The environmental analysis is provided in the attached initial study prepared
for the proposed project. The project is also described in greater detail in the
attached initial study.
Signature
Date
City of La Mirada Community Development Department
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0
Page
Introduction...................................................................................... 4
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
Project Description .......................................................................... 13
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
Aesthetic...............................................................................................................................25
Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................26
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................29
Biological Resources ............................................................................................................33
Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................37
Geology................................................................................................................................ 40
Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................45
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................47
Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................50
Land Use ..............................................................................................................................53
Mineral Resources ...............................................................................................................58
Noise.....................................................................................................................................59
Population and Housing ......................................................................................................64
Public Services .....................................................................................................................65
Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 68
Transportation and Circulation ..........................................................................................69
Utilities.................................................................................................................................74
Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................... 77
Conclusions......................................................................................79
4.1
4.2
5.0
Location of the Project Area ................................................................................................ 13
Environmental Setting......................................................................................................... 13
Project Description ............................................................................................................. 19
Objectives of the Project and Discretionary Actions...........................................................23
Environmental Analysis ...................................................................24
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
4.0
Purpose of Initial Study .........................................................................................................4
Initial Study’s Organization...................................................................................................4
Initial Study Checklist............................................................................................................5
Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................79
Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................79
References ....................................................................................... 81
5.1
5.2
Prepares ............................................................................................................................... 81
References ............................................................................................................................ 81
Page 3
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY
This initial study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the approval and subsequent
implementation of the Biola Youth Campus project (also referred to herein as the “proposed project”).
Biola University, the project applicant, is proposing to use the existing Rancho School facilities to house
various University programs. No new buildings or classrooms will be constructed. New construction will
be limited to tenant and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) improvements. The proposed CUP is
considered a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).1 As part of the
proposed project’s environmental review, the City of La Mirada has authorized the preparation of this
initial study. The approval of the conditional use permit (CUP 930-294) is the primary discretionary
action the City of La Mirada is considering for this project. The primary purpose of CEQA is to ensure that
decision-makers and the public understand the environmental implications of an action or project. An
additional purpose of this initial study is to ascertain whether the proposed project will have the potential
for significant adverse impacts on the environment once it is occupied. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines,
additional purposes of this initial study include the following:
¾
To provide the City of La Mirada with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), a mitigated negative declaration, or a negative
declaration for a project;
¾
To facilitate the proposed project’s environmental assessment early in the planning phases;
¾
To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,
¾
To determine the nature and extent of any new impacts associated the proposed project.2
1.2 INITIAL STUDY’S ORGANIZATION
The overall format and structure of this document generally reflects that of the initial study checklist,
provided on the following pages. The following annotated outline summarizes the format and content of
this initial study:
¾
Section 1 Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this initial study's
preparation and insight into its composition.
¾
Section 2 Project Description, provides an overview of the affected area along with the proposed
project.
¾
Section 3 Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed project.
1 California, State of, Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act as Amended 2000. (CEQA Guidelines) § 15050.
2
Ibid.
SECTION 1 ● INTRODUCTION
PAGE 4
¾
Section 4 Conclusions, identifies the mitigation measures that will be effective in reducing
potential environmental impacts.
¾
Section 5 References, identifies the sources used in the preparation of this initial study.
1.3 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The environmental analysis provided in Section 3 of this initial study indicates that the implementation of
the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse unmitigable impacts on the environment.
For this reason, the City of La Mirada has determined that a mitigated negative declaration is the
appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project’s environmental review. The following findings may
be made based on the analysis completed as part of this initial study’s preparation:
¾
The Biola Youth Campus project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment.
¾
The Biola Youth Campus project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
¾
The Biola Youth Campus project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable.
¾
The Biola Youth Campus project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
humans, either directly or indirectly.
The findings of this Initial Study are summarized in Table 1-1 provided below and on the following pages.
Table 1-1
Summary (Initial Study Checklist)
Environmental Issues Area Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Section 3.1 Aesthetic Impacts. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
Section 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
PAGE 5
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
§4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by
Government Code §51104(g))?
X
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the
conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to
their location or nature, may result in conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use?
X
Section 3.3 Air Quality Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Section 3.4 Biological Resources Impacts.
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect:
a) 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?
X
b) On any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c) On federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
PAGE 6
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In interfering substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) In conflicting with any local policies or ordinances, protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) By conflicting with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Section 3.5 Cultural Resources Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
X
Section 3.6 Geology Impacts.
Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving 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 area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault), ground –shaking,
liquefaction, or landslides?
X
b) Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Location on a geologic unit or a 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?
X
d) Location on expansive soil, as defined in California Building
Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
X
Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.
a) Result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Would the project
X
PAGE 7
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
b) Increase the potential for conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment or
result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous
material 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?
X
e) Be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wild lands fire, including where wild lands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wild lands?
X
Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge in such a way that would
cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., 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)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including 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?
X
PAGE 8
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in
a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site?
X
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?
X
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding
because of dam or levee failure?
X
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community, or otherwise result
in an incompatible land use?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plan?
X
Section 3.11 Mineral Resources Impacts.
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?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site 0delineated on a local general plan,
proposed project, or other land use plan?
X
Section 3.12 Noise Impacts.
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?
X
b) Exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground-borne
noise levels?
X
PAGE 9
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above noise levels existing without the project?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
e) For a project located with 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?
X
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?
X
Section 3.13 Population and Housing Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Section 3.14 Public Services Impacts.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection services?
X
b) Police protection services?
X
X
c) School services?
X
d) Other governmental services?
Section 3.15 Recreation Impacts.
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?
X
b) Affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
PAGE 10
Table 1-1
Section 3.16 Transportation Impacts.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to,
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit)?
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the County congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c) A change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in the location that results in substantial
safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)
X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X
Section 3.17 Utilities Impacts.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
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
impacts?
X
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?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
PAGE 11
Table 1-1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
h) Result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in
power or natural gas facilities?
X
i) Result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in
communication systems?
X
Section 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance.
The approval and subsequent implementation of the
proposed project:
a) Will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, with the implementation of the recommended
standard conditions and mitigation measures included herein.
X
b) Will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the
implementation of the recommended standard conditions and
mitigation measures referenced herein.
X
c) Will not have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation
of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures
contained herein.
X
d) Will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of
the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures
contained herein.
X
PAGE 12
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The Rancho School campus that is the subject of this CUP is located within the City of La Mirada. The City
of La Mirada is located in the easternmost portion of Los Angeles County and is centrally located within
the larger Los Angeles urban region. La Mirada is located approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown
Los Angeles and 12 miles northwest of Santa Ana. La Mirada is bounded by unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County on the north, La Habra and Fullerton on the east, Buena Park and Cerritos on the south,
and Santa Fe Springs on the west.3 The city’s location in a regional context is illustrated in Exhibit 2-1. The
city’s location in relation to the surrounding communities is illustrated in Exhibit 2-2. The 8.5-acre project
site is the existing Rancho School campus that has been closed for a number of years. The legal address for
the Rancho School campus is 14540 San Cristobal Drive. The Orange County Tax Assessor’s parcel
number (APN) is 8061-035-900.4 The location of the Biola Youth Campus within the city is indicated in
Exhibit 2-3. Finally, a vicinity map is provided in Exhibit 2-4.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
La Mirada is fully urbanized with very few remaining vacant and underutilized properties in the city. La
Mirada is suburban community with approximately 50,000 residents living within the city’s 7.78 square
mile land area. The great majority of the city is currently devoted to residential land uses. Of the city’s
3,841 acres, residential uses account for 2,264 acres or approximately 60% of the city’s total land area. The
remainder of the land area found within the city’s corporate boundaries include commercial uses,
industrial uses, parks, schools, and other nonresidential development.5 La Mirada’s land use and
development patterns largely reflect its suburban character. The project site is located in the midst of a
residential area. The existing Rancho School campus is bounded on the north by San Cristobal Drive, on
the west by Neff Park, on the south San Bruno Drive, and on the east by Los Fuentes Road. Single-family
homes are located to the north (north of San Cristobal Drive), on the east (east of the Los Fuentes Road),
and on the south (south of San Bruno Drive). An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding
area are shown in Exhibit 2-5.
The Rancho Elementary School campus is owned by the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
(NLMUSD). The school facility is located on an 8.5 acre site and contains approximately 30,000 gross
square feet of floor area. The public school was closed in the early 1980s and since that time portions of
the campus have been leased to various entities that operate daycare facilities and private schools. The
Rancho School campus was used for many years by the Barbara Dawson organization to provide education
for developmentally challenged students. A portion of the campus is currently being leased and houses a
“Head Start” program which will remain. When the campus was in use as a public school, the campus had
a maximum enrollment of 780 students.6
3
United States Geological Survey. TerraServer USA. The National Map – La Mirada, California. July 1, 1979
4
Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Parcel Viewer. http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp
5
City of La Mirada. City if La Mirada General Plan, Land Use Element. March 25, 2003.
6
City of La Mirada. Request for Comments, Conditional Use Permit No. 930-294. November 10, 2011.
SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PAGE 13
City of La Mirada
EXHIBIT 2-1
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Source: Delorme Street Atlas USA. 2005
PAGE 14
City of La Mirada
Rancho School
EXHIBIT 2-2
CITY MAP OF LA MIRADA
PAGE 15
Rancho School
EXHIBIT 2-3
LOCAL AREA
PAGE 16
Rancho School
EXHIBIT 2-4
VICINITY MAP
PAGE 17
San Cristobal Dr.
Neff Park
Rancho School
Biola Ave.
EXHIBIT 2-5
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Source: United States Geological Survey (Terraserver USA)
PAGE 18
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.3.1 PROGRAMMATIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of La Mirada is considering a Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 930-294) that is a request by Biola
University to utilize the former Rancho Elementary School for home schooling classroom instruction
(officially operated as the Biola Youth Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola University has
obtained a 10 year lease to utilize the majority of the existing school campus. The exception is those
facilities being used by the Head Start program that currently operates at the school.
The BYA program will offer educational programs to home schooled students two days per week for Grades
7-12. Course instructions will be offered from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. The school facilities will also be used
for music and theatre rehearsals by the Biola Youth Theatre (BYT) program for K-12 students consisting of
approximately 50 students. The home school operation is timed to grow over a phased 6 year time line and
at its optimum operation, will offer course instruction for 349 students by 2017.7 The individual program
elements are summarized below.
¾
Biola Youth Academics (BYA). The primary user of the Rancho School campus will be the BYA
program. This program offers educational programs to elementary school students, primarily to
those being home schooled. The programs are offered two days per week and parents are able to
select among a variety of classes for their home-schooled students. As a result, students do not
attend all of the classes that are offered on the two days. Students in the grades 7-12 currently
meet on Wednesdays and Fridays while K through 6 students will meet on Tuesdays and
Thursdays. Future growth in enrollments could potentially increase to approximately 300
students along with an attendant increase in staff. The resulting peak enrollment and staffing
associated with the BYA would be 318 students and staff. BYA students would share Building B
with other programs while the staff will be housed in Building H. Initially, classes will be held in
Building F and could potentially expand into Building E. Students will also use playgrounds
during certain periods of the day. Class instruction will be offered from 8:20 AM until 4:00 PM,
with attendance peaking at 1:00 PM. Students will begin to leave the campus at 1:30 PM and
enrollment after 2:30 PM will be low.8
¾
Biola Youth Theater (BYT). The next user of the Rancho School campus will be the BYT program.
This program offers musical theater to home school students as well as to students enrolled in both
public and private schools (grades K through 12). Two shows per year are performed with the
performances held within the main Biola University campus. Administrative staff of eight
individuals will be housed in Building G and some of the rehearsals for the aforementioned
performances will be held in Buildings B and G. The administrative staff will operate during
normal business hours and some rehearsals will occur during the afternoons in Building G.
Rehearsals will occur once a week in Buildings B and G for about 50 students along with 4 staff
and 10 parent volunteers.9
7
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
PAGE 19
¾
Advancement/Donor Relations (A/DR). The A/DR function will occupy approximately 4,000
square feet of floor area in Buildings G and H. These operations support general University fundraising and donor relations, including support for the BYA and the BYT. Staff consists of 23
persons, mostly working during normal business hours though some evening work for a "call
center" type of operation (consisting of 7 persons) will occur. The evening operations would be
from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM.10
¾
University students will use playground space for intramural sports on Friday afternoons and
during the Saturday daytime. Sports that are being considered include soccer and ultimate
Frisbee. Building D is projected to house storage for the BYT, the BYA, and general university
programs.11
2.3.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Biola University has concluded a lease agreement with the NLMUSD that includes the majority of the
existing buildings within the Rancho School campus. The buildings that are being leased and their
proposed functions are summarized below.
¾
Building A. This building contains 2,975 square feet and will be occupied by BYA staff. Building A
will also serve as the BYA administration building.
¾
Building B. This building’s floor area is 4,067 square feet. Some of the rehearsals for the BYT
performances will be held in Building B. In addition, a portion of this building will serve BYA
functions.
¾
Building C. This building will continue to be leased by the NLMUSD to the “Grow and Learn
Preschool.”
¾
Building D. This 4,877 square foot building will contain storage for the BYT, the BYA, and other
general university programs
¾
Building E. This building contains 4,862 square feet of floor area and its classrooms will be used
by the BYA.
¾
Building F. This building contains 5,012 square feet of floor area and its classrooms will also be
used by the BYA.
¾
Building G. This 5,070 square foot building will house Advancement/Donor Relations. An
administrative staff of 8 individuals and some of the rehearsals for the BYT performances will be
held in Building G.
¾
Building H. This 4,800 square foot building will also house Advancement/Donor Relations.
10
11
Ibid.
PAGE 20
No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those
buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. An existing asphalt surface area located in the
northwestern portion of the campus will also be repaved and restriped to accommodate additional
parking.12
2.3.3 PROJECTED CAMPUS POPULATION
The potential onsite campus population would be limited initially (December 2011 to March 2012) due to
the transition of students, staff, and other personnel to the Rancho School campus. The maximum onsite
campus population would then begin gradually increase over time beginning in September 2012. In
September 2013, the campus population would be 243 on Wednesdays growing to a maximum population
of 349 on Thursdays in September 2017. Table 2-1 summarizes the onsite campus population beginning in
September 2012 continuing to September 2017 when the Rancho School’s population will be at maximum
levels. The existing campus and its proposed utilization are illustrated in Exhibit 2-6.
Table 2-1
Projected Campus Population
Department/Function
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Projected Campus Population in Place in September 2012
Biola Youth Theater
8
8
8
8
8
Advancement
23
23
23
23
23
BYA Staff
34
16
18
18
17
Site Administration Staff
0
0
4
0
4
Instructors
0
0
18
0
14
Students
0
0
137
0
95
Parent Participants
0
0
26
0
14
Total
65
47
234
49
175
Student Enrollments September 2013 to September 2017 and Total Campus Population
September 2013 (add 100 k-6 students)
65
147
234
149
175
65
197
234
199
175
65
247
234
249
175
65
297
234
299
175
65
347
234
349
175
Source: City of La Mirada. Request for Comments, Conditional Use Permit No. 930-294. November 10, 2011.
12 The microwave antennae will permit wireless communication between the Rancho School campus and the main Biola University
campus.
PAGE 21
EXHIBIT 2-6
RANCHO SCHOOL CAMPUS UTILIZATION
Source: Gensler/Biola University 2011
PAGE 22
2.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT & DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The City of La Mirada seeks to accomplish the following objectives with the proposed project:
¾ To mitigate any potential environmental effects that may arise as part of the proposed project’s
implementation;
¾ To facilitate the creation of new educational and cultural facilities in the city;
¾ To promote the more efficient use of underutilized properties in the city; and,
¾ To ensure that the project is in conformance with the City of La Mirada General Plan.
A discretionary decision is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government
agency is the City of La Mirada) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a
project. The City of La Mirada will be required to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the CUP 930-294.
PAGE 23
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section of the initial study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the
proposed project’s implementation. The issue areas evaluated in this initial study include:
¾ Aesthetics (Section 3.1);
¾ Agricultural & Forestry Resources (Section
3.2);
¾ Air Quality (Section 3.3);
¾ Biological Resources (Section 3.4);
¾ Cultural Resources (Section 3.5);
¾ Geology & Soils (Section 3.6);
¾ Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (Section 3.7);
¾ Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Section
3.8);
¾ Hydrology & Water Quality (Section 3.9);
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Land Use & Planning (Section 3.10);
Mineral Resources (Section 3.11);
Noise (Section 3.12);
Population & Housing (Section 3.13);
Public Services (Section 3.14);
Recreation (Section 3.15);
Transportation (Section 3.16);
Utilities (Section 3.17); and,
Mandatory Findings of Significance
(Section 3.18)
The environmental analysis contained in this section reflects the initial study checklist format used by the
City of La Mirada Community Development Department in its environmental review process pursuant to
the CEQA Guidelines as amended. Under each issue area, an assessment of impacts is provided in the
form of questions and answers. The analysis contained herein serves as a response to the individual
questions. For the evaluation of potential impacts, questions are stated and an answer is provided
according to the analysis undertaken as part of this initial study's preparation. To each question, there are
four possible responses:
¾
No Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have
any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
¾
Less Than Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed
project may have the potential for affecting the environment, although these impacts will be below
levels or thresholds that the City of La Mirada or other responsible agencies consider to be
significant.
¾
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The approval and subsequent implementation of
the proposed project may have the potential to generate impacts that will have a significant impact
on the environment. However, the level of impact may be reduced to levels that are less than
significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
¾
Potentially Significant Impact. The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed
project may result in environmental impacts that are significant.
SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PAGE 24
3.1 AESTHETIC IMPACTS
3.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse aesthetic impact
if it results in any of the following:
¾
An adverse effect on a scenic vista;
¾
Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway; or,
¾
A new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or night-time views in
the area.
3.1.2 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project affect a scenic vista? No Impact.
The proposed project site is located in the midst of a residential area. The existing Rancho School campus
is bounded on the north by San Cristobal Drive, on the west by Neff Park, on the south San Bruno Drive,
and on the east by Los Fuentes Road. Single-family homes are located to the north (north of San Cristobal
Drive), on the east (east of the Los Fuentes Road), and on the south (south of San Bruno Drive).13 There
are no designated scenic corridors in the city.14 No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and
ADA improvements will be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. An existing
asphalt surface area located in the northwestern portion of the campus will also be repaved and restriped.15
It is expected that the occupancy of the vacant campus buildings will elevate and improve the appearance
of the on-site improvements. As a result, the proposed project’s implementation will not result in any
significant adverse impacts with respect to scenic vistas.
B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact.
No natural undeveloped areas remain within the project site or the adjacent properties. No historic or
unique structures or sites are found within the existing Rancho School campus.16 No new buildings will be
constructed as part of the proposed project’s implementation. In addition, the historic buildings in Neff
Park, located adjacent to the campus on the west side (the Neff Home, the George House, and the Neff
Barn), will not be affected by the proposed campus reuse. As a result, the proposed project will not result
in any significant adverse impacts on scenic resources.
13
14
City of La Mirada. City of La Mirada General Plan. Adopted by Resolution No. 03-18. March 25, 2003.
15
16
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov. 2010
PAGE 25
C. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? No Impact.
northwestern portion of the campus will also be repaved and restriped.17 Light sensitive land uses (singlefamily homes) are located to the north, east, and south of the campus. No new campus lighting will be
installed other than the replacement of malfunctioning fixtures. Furthermore, the majority of the onsite
campus activities will occur between the hours of 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM. The only scheduled evening
activities will be the BYT rehearsals. No activities will occur after 10:00 PM. No new game court or
athletic field lighting will be installed. Title 21 of the City of La Mirada Municipal Code (Zoning) contains
the following performance standards that govern light and glare.
“Outdoor Lighting Standards for Other than Residential Property. Parking lots, driveways, pedestrian
walkways, and building entrances/exits shall be illuminated for security and safety purposes during
business hours of operation. Except as otherwise exempt, outdoor lighting shall be provided with
shielding so that the light emitted from an outdoor light fixture is projected below an imaginary
horizontal plane passing through the fixture. Where the light source from an outdoor light fixture is
visible beyond the property line, shielding shall be required to reduce glare so that the light source is
not visible from within any residential dwelling unit.”
Conformance to the aforementioned Zoning requirements will further mitigate potential light and glare
impacts. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
3.1.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site specific.
Furthermore, the analysis determined that proposed project would not result in any significant adverse
aesthetic impacts. As a result, no cumulative aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
3.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse aesthetic or
light and glare impacts. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on agriculture
resources if it results in any of the following:
17
¾
The conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
¾
A conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;
PAGE 26
¾
A conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code §4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g));
¾
The loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use; or
¾
Changes to the existing environment that due to their location or nature may result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
A. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance,
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact.
There are no soils in the city designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Soils of Statewide
Importance.18 The soils that underlie the existing campus have been identified by the United States Soil
Conservation Service as belonging to the Perkins-Rincon soils associations. This soil association is not
considered to be “Prime Farmland Soils.” This soil association is a result of alluvial deposition that
occurred prior to the area’s urbanization. Since the Rancho School campus is presently developed and no
agricultural activities are being conducted within the property, no significant impacts on prime farmland
soils will occur with the implementation of the proposed project.
B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No
Impact.
No agricultural activities are presently located within the city nor are any such uses found within the
Rancho School campus.19 The city’s applicable general plan and zoning designations for the project site do
not contemplate agricultural land uses. Land uses and land cover in the area are shown in Exhibit 3-1. In
addition, the campus property is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. As a result, no impacts on
existing or future Williamson Act contracts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.
C. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 4526), or zoned timberland production (as defined by Government
Code § 51104(g))? No Impact.
The City of La Mirada is located in the midst of a larger urban area and no forest lands are located within
the city or in the surrounding area.20 The City of La Mirada General Plan does not specifically provide for
any forest land protection since it is not required. As a result, no impacts on forest land or timber
resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project.
18
State of. Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. July 13, 1995.
19
Blodgett/Baylosis Associates. Site Survey. November 22, 2011
20
PAGE 27
Rancho School
EXHIBIT 3-1
LAND USES AND LAND COVER AROUND THE RANCHO SCHOOL
Source: United States Geological Survey
PAGE 28
D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?
No Impact.
The project area (the existing Rancho School campus) is located in the midst of an urban area. No forest
land is located within the city nor does the City of La Mirada General Plan provide for any forest land
protection.21 As a result, no loss or conversion of forest lands will result from the implementation of the
proposed project.
E. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or
nature, may result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? No Impact.
No agricultural activities or farmland uses are located within the Rancho School campus.22 As indicated
previously, the site is currently developed as an elementary school and no agricultural activities are located
within the campus property or in the surrounding area. As a result, the implementation of the proposed
project will not involve the conversion of any existing farmland area to urban uses.
The analysis determined that there is no remaining agricultural or forestry resources in the city.
Furthermore, the analysis determined that future use of the campus by Biola University would not result in
any significant adverse impacts. As a result, no cumulative impacts on agricultural or farmland resources
will occur.
The analysis of agriculture and forestry resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would
result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally be deemed to have a significant adverse
environmental impact on air quality, if it results in any of the following:
¾
A conflict with the obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
¾
A violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
¾
A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
21 Blodgett/Baylosis Associates surveyed the sites on November 2011. Also refer to the United States Geological Survey.
TerraServer USA. The National Map – La Mirada, California. July 1, 1979
22
Ibid.
PAGE 29
¾
The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
¾
The creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for
short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for criteria pollutants. These
criteria pollutants include the following:
¾
Ozone (O2) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, damages materials, and vegetation. O2
is formed by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight).
¾
Carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to
the brain, is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels emitted as vehicle
exhaust.
¾
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a yellowish-brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing
difficulties. NO2 is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with
oxygen.
¾
PM10 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter. PM10 causes a greater health
risk than larger-sized particles, since fine particles can more easily cause irritation.
¾
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Though SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below State
and Federal standards, further reductions in SO2 emissions are desirable since SO2 is a precursor
to sulfate and PM10.
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No
Impact.
The City of La Mirada is located within the South Coast Air Basin which covers a 6,600-square-mile area
within Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San
Bernardino County. Air quality in the basin is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations located throughout the area.23 Measures to improve
regional air quality are outlined in the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).24 The 2007
AQMP replaced the 2003 AQMP and is designed to meet both state and federal Clear Air Act planning
requirements for all of the geographic areas that are under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, including the
South Coast Air Basin. The most recent 2007 AQMP focused on the control of ozone and smaller
particulates and their precursors. The AQMP also incorporated significant new scientific data, emission
inventories, ambient measurements, control strategies, and air quality modeling. The Final 2007 AQMP
23
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Plan, Adopted June 2007.
24
Ibid.
PAGE 30
was jointly prepared with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG).25
The South Coast Air Basin has experienced poor air quality due in large part due to the area’s topography
as well as metrological influences that often lead to the creation of inversion layers that prevent the
dispersal of pollutants. During the mid-20th century, the South Coast Air Basin experienced the worst air
pollution in the nation which gave rise to various strategies to improve air quality. The region’s air quality
has shown a steady and gradual improvement since the 1970’s. This improvement in air quality has been
largely due to the elimination of many stationary emission sources, more stringent vehicle emissions
controls, and new regulations governing activities that contribute to air pollution (such as open-air fires).
The primary criteria pollutants that remain non-attainment in the local area include PM2.5 and Ozone.
Two consistency criteria that may be referred to in determining a project’s conformity with the AQMP is
defined in Chapter 12 of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s
CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Consistency Criteria 1 refers to a project’s potential for resulting in an
increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or a contribution to the
continuation of an existing air quality violation. Criteria 2 refers to the project’s potential for exceeding the
assumptions included in the AQMP or other regional growth projections relevant to the AQMP’s
implementation.26 The proposed use is consistent with both criteria since no new buildings will be
constructed and no general plan amendment is required. No new buildings will be constructed though
tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. The
proposed use is consistent with the City of La Mirada General Plan. As a result, the proposed project will
not result in any significant adverse impact related to the implementation of the AQMP.
B. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact.
As indicated previously, no new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will
be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. As a result, limited short-term,
construction-related emissions will be associated with the proposed project’s implementation. Table 3-1
summarizes the long-term operational emissions from the proposed use. The operational emissions
sources will include mobile sources (vehicles traveling to and from the campus) and area-wide stationary
sources associated with off-site power generation.
The project emissions were calculated using a computer model developed for the SCAQMD. This model,
Urbemis 9.2.4, uses various emissions factors and independent variables to calculate emissions. For this
project, the emissions calculations used gross floor area as the independent variable. As indicated in Table
3-1, the potential increase in daily stationary and mobile emissions will be approximately 35.58 pounds of
carbon monoxide (CO), 2.96 pounds of reactive organic gasses (ROG), 7.24 pounds of particulates (PM10),
4.04 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.04 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2). As indicated in Table 3-1,
the long-term emissions will be below the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds. As a result, the potential impacts
are considered to be less than significant.
25
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Plan, Adopted June 2007.
26
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993 [as amended 2009]. Table 11-4.
PAGE 31
Table 3-1
Long-Term Emissions (lbs/day)
Criteria Pollutants (lbs./day)
Emissions Type
Future Mobile Emissions2.
Future Stationary Emissions2.
Total Future Emissions2.
Thresholds
CO
ROG
PM10
NOX
SO2
33.79
2.64
7.23
3.73
0.04
1.79
0.32
0.01
0.31
0.00
35.58
2.96
7.24
4.04
0.04
550
55
150
100
150
Source: California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS 9.2.4
C. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? Less than Significant Impact.
As indicated in the previous section, the future uses contemplated as part of the proposed project’s
implementation will result in long-term mobile emissions (refer to Table 3-1) though these emissions will
be well below the SCAQMD’s daily level of significance. As a result, the cumulative air quality impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
D. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact.
Sensitive receptors refer to land uses and/or activities that are especially sensitive to poor air quality and
typically include homes, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, convalescent homes, and other facilities where
children or the elderly may congregate.27 These population groups are generally more sensitive to poor air
quality. The residential uses that surround the campus and the school itself are considered to be sensitive
receptors. Based on the analysis cited previously, the proposed project will not exceed the SCAQMD’s long
term emissions thresholds.28
Most vehicles generate carbon monoxide (CO) as part of the tail-pipe emissions and high concentrations of
CO along busy roadways and congested intersections are a concern. The areas surrounding the most
congested intersections are often found to contain high levels of CO that exceed applicable standards.
These areas of high CO concentration are referred to as hot spots. Two variables typically influence the
creation of a hot-spot and these variables include traffic volumes and traffic congestion. Typically, a hotspot may occur near an intersection that is experiencing severe congestion (a LOS E or LOS F). However,
within the last decade, decreasing background levels and more effective vehicle emission controls have
dramatically reduced the potential for the creation of hot spots.
27
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Appendix 9. 2004 (as amended).
28
Ibid.
PAGE 32
The SCAQMD determined in its CEQA Handbook that a CO hotspot would not likely develop at an
intersection operating at LOS C or better. Since the Handbook was written, there have been new CO
emissions controls added to vehicles and reformulated fuels sold in the SCAB. These new automobile
emissions controls, along with the reformulated fuels, have resulted in a lowering of both ambient CO
concentrations and vehicle emissions.
The proposed use will generate approximately 50 trip ends during the busiest morning (AM) peak hour
traffic period. The evening peak hour traffic will be negligible. This additional AM peak hour traffic will
not be great enough to lead to a significant net increase in traffic congestion that would result in a
significant decline in an intersection’s level of service (LOS E or F). As a result, no significant adverse
impacts on sensitive receptors are anticipated to result from the proposed project’s implementation.
E. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact.
The SCAQMD has identified land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. These uses
include activities involving livestock, rendering facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants,
composting activities, refineries, landfills, and businesses involved in fiberglass molding.29 No odor
emissions are anticipated given the nature of the proposed use of the campus. As a result, the proposed
project will not result in any significant adverse odor impacts.
The proposed project’s implementation would not result in any new exceedance of air pollution standards
nor contribute significantly to an existing air quality violation. Furthermore, the analysis determined that
the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse air quality impacts.
As a result, no significant adverse cumulative impacts will occur.
The analysis of potential air quality impacts indicated that no significant unmitigable adverse impacts
would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are
required.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on
biological resources if it results in any of the following:
¾
29
A substantial adverse effect, 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service;
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Appendix 9. 2004 (as amended).
PAGE 33
¾
A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural plant community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
¾
A substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
¾
A substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites;
¾
A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance; or,
¾
A conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, 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? No Impact.
As indicated in the preceding sections, the city and the Rancho School campus are located in an urbanized
area. There are no sensitive or unique biological resources located within these areas.30 As a result, no
impacts on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species will result from the adoption and subsequent
implementation of the proposed project.
B. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact.
There are no native or natural riparian plant habitats located within project site which is occupied by the
Rancho School campus.31 The proposed project’s implementation will not affect any wetland or riparian
habitat. La Mirada Creek is located approximately 1,500 feet to the east though this stream channel has
been modified. The stream channel will continue to be designated as Open Space and will not be affected
by the proposed use. Mature trees are located throughout the campus and along the perimeter. These
trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Land cover is shown in Exhibit 3-2. As a result, no
significant adverse impacts on natural or riparian habitats will result from the proposed project’s
implementation.
30
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database, 2010.
31
PAGE 34
La Canada/Verde Creek
La Mirada Creek
EXHIBIT 3-2
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AROUND THE RANCHO SCHOOL
PAGE 35
C. Would the project 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, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact.
The city does not contain any natural wetland habitat. No natural blue line streams are located in the city.
No other natural surface water bodies are located near the Rancho School campus.32 The La Mirada Creek
channel is located approximately 1,500 feet to the east of the campus. The proposed project’s
implementation will not affect this stream channel which has been modified. As a result, the
implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impact on any protected
wetland area or designated blue-line stream.
D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact.
As indicated in the preceding section, the city is developed with no natural or native vegetation remaining.
No natural open space areas are located in the city that functions as animal migration corridors.33 In
addition, the Rancho School campus is surrounded by urban development. As a result, no significant
adverse impacts are anticipated.
E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact.
The reuse of the existing Rancho School campus will not result in the removal of any existing natural or
protected vegetation. The proposed project will not affect the adjacent Neff Park nor will any existing trees
be removed. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? No Impact.
As indicated previously, the city is located within an urbanized setting, and no natural habitat is located
within the existing Rancho School campus. The city is not located within an area governed by a habitat
conservation or community conservation plan. As a result, no adverse impacts on local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plans will result from the implementation of the proposed project.
The impacts on biological resources are typically site specific. The proposed use would not involve any loss
of protected habitat since no new development will occur and that no impacts on biological resources
would occur. As a result, no cumulative impacts on biological resources will be associated with the
proposed project’s implementation.
32
United States Geological Survey. TerraServer USA. The National Map – La Mirada, California. July 1, 1979.
33
Ibid.
PAGE 36
The analysis indicated that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant
adverse impacts on biological resources. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on cultural
resources if it results in any of the following:
¾
A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of
the State CEQA Guidelines;
¾
A substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
¾
The destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature; or
¾
The disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? No Impact.
Historic structures and sites are defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or structure may be
historically significant if it is locally protected through a local general plan or historic preservation
ordinance. In addition, a site or structure may be historically significant according to State or Federal
criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. The State, through the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains an inventory of those sites and structures that are considered to be
historically significant. Finally, the U. S. Department of Interior has established specific guidelines and
criteria that indicates the manner in which a site, structure, or district is to be defined as having historic
significance and in the determination of its eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no historic structures or significant sites located within the Rancho School campus.34 In
addition, the historic buildings in Neff Park, located adjacent to the campus on the west side (the Neff
Home, the George House, and the Neff Barn) will not be affected by the proposed campus reuse. Thus, the
implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts on any historic
site or other historic structures. The historic structures located in Neff Park and their geographic context
with the Rancho School campus are shown in Exhibit 3-3.
34 California Dept. of Conservation. State Office of Historic Preservation. 2006; and the City of La Mirada. [Final] General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. Section 4.12, Page 4.12-1.
PAGE 37
George House
Neff Barn
Neff Park
Rancho School
Neff House
EXHIBIT 3-3
HISTORIC RESOURCES AROUND THE RANCHO SCHOOL
Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Associates and the United States Geological Survey
PAGE 38
B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? No Impact.
The campus was previously disturbed as part of the construction of the existing Rancho School campus.
northwestern portion of the campus will also be repaved and restriped. No archaeological resources were
reported during previous grading and excavation activities in the area.35 No known sites are known or
suspected to be present in the campus area.36 In addition, no grading and/or excavation is planned as part
of the site’s reuse by Biola University. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated to result
from the implementation of the proposed project.
C. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? No Impact.
The entire city is completely urbanized. The potential for paleontological resources in the area is
considered low due to the character of subsurface soils (recent alluvium) and the amount of disturbance
associated with the past development.37 In addition, no grading or excavation would occur as part of the
proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
D. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact.
There are no cemeteries located in the immediate area of the Rancho School campus that would be affected
by the proposed project. The nearest cemetery to the planning areas is the Olive Lawn Memorial Park.
This cemetery is located at 13925 La Mirada Boulevard approximately 3,750 feet northeast of the project
site.38 As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources are site specific. Furthermore, the
analysis herein also determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
impacts on cultural resources. As a result, no cumulative impacts will occur as part of the implementation
of the proposed project.
The analysis of potential cultural resources impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would
result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
35
36
California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. www.parks.ca.gov. 2010
37
Ibid.
38
Google Maps. 2011
PAGE 39
3.6 GEOLOGY
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment if it results in the following:
¾
The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving 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 area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground-shaking, liquefaction, or landslides;
¾
Substantial soil erosion resulting in the loss of topsoil;
¾
The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including location on
a geologic unit or a 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;
¾
Locating a project on an expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code (2010), creating
substantial risks to life or property; or
¾
Locating a project in, or exposing people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
A. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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 area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault), ground –shaking, liquefaction, or landslides?
Less than Significant Impact.
There are no designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City of La Mirada though there
are a number of known faults within close proximity to the city. These nearby faults include the NewportInglewood Fault Zone, the Whittier-Elsinore Fault, the Norwalk Fault, and the Elysian Park Fault.39 The
major faults in the region are illustrated in Exhibit 3-4.
The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone consists of a series of northwesterly trending folded hills and echelon
faults extending over 40 miles from the Santa Monica Mountains to the offshore area near Newport Beach.
The fault segments include the Charnook Fault, the Overland Avenue Fault, the Inglewood Fault; the
Portrero Fault; the Avalon-Compton Fault, the Cherry Hill Fault, and the Seal Beach Fault.
39 United States Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective
(USGS Professional Paper 1360), 1981.
PAGE 40
La Mirada
EXHIBIT 3-4
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
PAGE 41
The Whittier fault extends over 20 miles from the Whittier Narrows area continuing southeasterly to the
Santa Ana River where it merges with the southeasterly trending Elsinore fault. These two faults combined
with smaller faults, form the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone. The Norwalk fault is approximately 16 miles
long and is located approximately one mile to the north of La Mirada. This fault is also considered to be
active. The Elysian Park Fault is located approximately 15 miles north of La Mirada, in the Montebello and
Monterey Park areas. This fault produced the 5.9 magnitude Whittier Narrows earthquake. This fault is a
blind thrust fault that extends from the Puente Hills into downtown Los Angeles. The San Andreas Fault is
50 miles to the northeast of La Mirada. ‘The fault extends more than 600 miles. An earthquake along the
San Andreas Fault zone could affect most of Southern California.40
Surface rupture involving an actual break in the ground surface along a fault trace is unlikely to occur since
no active faults have been identified within the city boundaries.41 The nearest fault, the Norwalk fault, is
located approximately 3 miles south of La Mirada. Since the city is not located within an area designated
as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, there are no fault rupture hazards that are anticipated to impact
the Rancho School campus. Recent studies have been completed by the CGS Seismic Hazard Zones
Mapping Program. According to the Seismic Hazard Evaluations of the Whittier and Fullerton 7.5 Minute
Quadrangle (March 1999) prepared by the CGS, the campus is located outside of a potential liquefaction
hazard zone (refer to Exhibit 3-5).
The school campus will continue to be exposed to potential ground shaking in the event of an earthquake.
The degree of ground shaking is dependent on the location of the earthquake epicenter, the earthquake’s
intensity, and a number of other variables. For the project site, the degree of impact will not be
significantly different from that anticipated for the surrounding areas. As a result, the potential adverse
impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of the proposed project.
B. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact
The city’s topography is generally level.42 The proposed use will not result in any significant soil erosion or
loss of topsoil. No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will be made
to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. An existing asphalt surface area located in the
northwestern portion of the campus will also be repaved and restriped. The proposed use will retain the
existing impervious on-site improvements. The quantity of storm water runoff and the attendant potential
erosion impact will not change. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
40
United States Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective
(USGS Professional Paper 1360), 1981.
41 Fault rupture refers to the actual “tearing” of the ground surface along the trace of a fault. The potential displacement could
include lateral (sideways) movement or horizontal (up or down) movement. Both forms of displacement would result in significant
structural damage if the structure straddled the fault. For this reason, the State of California has included those fault traces that have
exhibited movement in recent geologic times within Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones. The corresponding requirements call for
structures to be set back from the fault trace.
42
PAGE 42
Rancho School
Potential Liquefaction Risk
EXHIBIT 3-5
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Source: California Geological Survey
PAGE 43
C. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
location on a geologic unit or a 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? ● No Impact.
The entire existing Rancho School campus is developed and/or landscaped.43 The soils that underlie the
existing campus have been identified by the United States Soil Conservation Service as belonging to the
Perkins-Rincon soils associations. The proposed use will not result in any significant soil erosion or loss of
topsoil. No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those
buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. The proposed use will retain the existing impervious onsite improvements. Based on the topography and that no grading or excavation is planned, no impacts are
anticipated.44
D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including location on expansive
soil, as defined in Uniform Building Code (2010) creating substantial risks to life or property? No
Impact.
The proposed use will be located within the existing Rancho School campus. The topography of the school
site and the surrounding area is level.45 According to the CGS, the campus will not be subject to potential
landslide hazards. As a result, no significant adverse impacts related to landslides and lateral spreading
are anticipated.
E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts, including soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact.
No septic tanks will be used as part of the future campus reuse. The Rancho School will continue to be
connected to the sanitary sewer system.46 As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks
will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.
The potential cumulative impacts related to earth and geology are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis
herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse
impacts related to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform
or feature. As a result, no cumulative earth and geology impacts will occur as part of the proposed project’s
implementation.
43
Oxbridge Development, Inc. and Blodgett Baylosis Associates. Site Surveys. August and September 2011.
44 Group Delta Consultants, Inc. Geologic Seismic Hazard Report, 1526 E. Romneya Drive, City of Anaheim, Orange, County CA.
August 18, 2011
45
46
United States Geological Survey, Anaheim 7½ Minute Quadrangle, Photo revised July 1, 1979.
PAGE 44
The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts
related to earth and geology. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
greenhouse gas emissions if it results in any of the following:
¾
The generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; and,
¾
The potential for conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.
3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A.
Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact.
The State of California requires CEQA documents include an evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions or gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. GHG are emitted by both natural processes and
human activities. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). The accumulation of GHG in the
atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without these natural GHG, the Earth's surface would be
about 61°F cooler.47 However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion by humans have elevated the
concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere to above natural levels.
The California Natural Resources Agency is presently developing the State's Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Currently, there are no federal standards for GHG emissions and federal regulations have not yet been
promulgated. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the effects associated with climate change are
serious and the EPA must regulate GHG as pollutants including the development of regulations for GHG
emissions from new motor vehicles. A number of states, including California, have set statewide GHG
emission targets. The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, established the California target to achieve reductions in GHG to 1990 GHG emission levels by the
year 2020.48
buildings Biola University is proposing to lease.49 Therefore, this analysis focuses on direct forms of GHG
47 California, State of. OPR Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008.
48
Ibid.
49
PAGE 45
emissions that include emissions from area sources and mobile sources. The URBEMIS 2007 version 9.2.4
computer model was used to calculate CO2 emissions and relies upon default trip data and project specific
land use data to calculate emissions. Estimates are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage as
well as automobile emissions. GHGs associated with area sources and mobile sources would be 351
pounds of CO2 per day and 4,297 pounds of CO2, respectively. Total project-related direct operational CO2
emissions would result in 4,648 pounds per day. The potential emissions impacts are less than significant
compared to the impacts associated with the elementary school’s operations.
B. Would the project conflict an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses? No Impact.
buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. The proposed project permits the reuse of an existing
under utilized school campus that has been closed (as a public elementary school) for nearly three decades.
The leasing of the existing Rancho School campus would represent a more efficient use of resources that
would have attendant benefits related to GHG reductions. These benefits are outlined below:
¾
Resources will be saved by using the existing Rancho School facility as opposed to the construction
an entirely new facility.
¾
Since no new buildings will be constructed, no construction emissions (including GHG precursors)
will be generated.
¾
The Rancho School campus is located in close proximity to those persons that will use the facilities
that are proposed for the Biola Youth Campus. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions will
be an additional benefit associated with GHG reductions.
The proposed project would not introduce any conflicts with initiatives designed to control GHG emissions
in the coming years. The project will involve the reuse of an existing urban property and “infill
development” is seen as an important strategy in reducing regional GHG emissions. As a result, the
proposed project is not expected to result in any significant impacts related to a conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.
The analysis herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
significant adverse impacts related to the emissions of greenhouse gasses. As a result, no significant
adverse cumulative impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.
The analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions indicated that no significant adverse
impacts would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are
required.
PAGE 46
3.8 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on risk of
upset and human health if it results in any of the following:
¾
The creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials;
¾
The creation of 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;
¾
The generation of hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
¾
Locating the project on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the
environment;
¾
Locating the project within an area governed by an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport;
¾
Locating the project in the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area;
¾
The impairment of the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or,
¾
The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land
fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands.
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact.
The hazardous materials that may potentially be used the future development will be limited to those used
for routine maintenance and cleaning. The operation of the proposed Biola Youth Campus will not involve
the use, manufacture, or storage of hazardous materials other than those that are commonly used for
routine maintenance and landscaping. The activities anticipated as part of the school’s continued
PAGE 47
operation will not result in the emissions of hazardous substances.50 As a result, no significant impacts
related to the emissions of hazardous materials are anticipated.
B. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, or result in
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? No Impact.
The use of any hazardous materials will be limited to those that are commercially available and typically
used in a household setting. As a result, no significant adverse impacts concerning a release of hazardous
materials are anticipated.
C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact.
As indicated previously, the use of any hazardous materials on-site will be limited to those that are
commercially available and typically used in a household setting. Because of the nature of the potential
uses, no hazardous or acutely hazardous materials will be emitted that may affect a school site. As a result,
no significant impacts on area schools are anticipated as part of the proposed improvements.
D. Would the project be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous material 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? No Impact.
The Rancho School campus is not included on a hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5. No Cortese sites are found in the City of La Mirada.51 As a result, no impacts will
occur with respect to locating a potential development on a site included on a hazardous list pursuant to
the Government Code.
E. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact.
The City of La Mirada is not located within two miles of an operational public airport. The Los Alamitos
Airfield is located approximately 8½ miles southwest of the planning area. Fullerton Airport is located
approximately 3½ miles to the southeast. The Long Beach Airport is located approximately 10½ miles to
the southwest. Finally, the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located approximately 22½ miles to
the west.52 As a result, the proposed project’s implementation will not present a safety hazard to aircraft
and/or airport operations at a public use airport.
50
51 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup
(Cortese List), 2009.
52
PAGE 48
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? No Impact.
The City of La Mirada is not located within two miles of an operational private airport or airstrip. The Los
Alamitos Airfield is located approximately 8½ miles southwest of the planning area. Fullerton Airport is
located approximately 3½ miles to the southeast. The Long Beach Airport is located approximately 10½
miles to the southwest. Finally, the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located approximately 22½
miles to the west.53 As a result, the proposed use will not present a safety hazard related to aircraft and/or
airport operations at a private use airstrip.
G. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact.
The proposed project involves the reuse of the existing Rancho School by Biola University. At no time will
any designated emergency evacuation routes be closed to vehicular traffic as a result of the proposed
project’s implementation (no building construction will occur). Thus, no impacts on emergency response
or evacuation plans will result from the project’s construction.
H. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wild lands fire, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands? No Impact.
The entire city is urbanized and the parcels found within the affected area are developed.54 There are no
areas of native vegetation found within or adjacent to the Rancho School campus or in the surrounding
properties. As a result, there is no wildfire risk from off-site locations.
The potential impact related to hazardous materials is site specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein also
determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant
unmitigable impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials. As a result, no significant adverse
cumulative impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.
The analysis of potential impacts with respect to hazardous materials indicated that no significant adverse
impacts would result and no mitigation is required.
53
Google Maps. 2011
54
Ibid.
PAGE 49
3.9 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse environmental
impact on water resources or water quality if it results in any of the following:
¾
A violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
¾
A substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level;
¾
A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site;
¾
A substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site;
¾
The creation or contribution of water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or the generation of substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff;
¾
The substantial degradation of water quality;
¾
The placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map;
¾
The placement of structures within 100-year flood hazard areas that would impede or redirect
flood flows;
¾
The exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or levee
failure;
¾
The exposure of a project to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact.
buildings Biola University is proposing to lease. The location and extent of impervious surfaces will not
change. In addition, the quantity and quality of surface water runoff (including storm water runoff) will
not change from the existing levels. No new construction, other than interior tenant improvements will
PAGE 50
occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.55 The future use will still be required to comply
with any pertinent storm water pollution control measures that may be required. The existing storm drain
system is anticipated to accommodate any potential runoff since no increase in the amount of impervious
surfaces will occur from the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
B. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge in such a way that would cause a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of a pre-existing nearby well would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? No Impact.
The city receives approximately 99 percent of its water from Suburban Water Systems. Only 1 percent of
the city’s residents are served by Golden State Water Company. Approximately 10 percent of the water
supplied by Suburban is obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Suburban Water’s anticipates
meeting the city’s future growth potential. The proposed project’s implementation will not involve any
excavation that would affect a local aquifer. In addition, the school reuse as the Biola Youth Campus will
not affect any existing water well. Finally, the existing turf areas located to the rear of the campus will be
retained, thus allowing for continued groundwater recharge. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
C. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including 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? No Impact.
The project will not affect or alter any existing drainage patter of a stream or river, such as the La Mirada
Creek Channel.56 No changes to the current stream bed will occur as a result of the use of the existing
Rancho School campus. The creek currently is part of the La Mirada Creek Park system and is zoned for
Open Space, which prohibits any building development along the creek channel. As a result, no significant
adverse impacts are anticipated.
D. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or offsite? No Impact.
The proposed project’s implementation will not impact any designated blue-line stream, drainage course,
or the aforementioned La Mirada Creek as indicated in the previous section. No other natural stream
channels remain within the affected area.57 As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
55
56
57
Ibid.
PAGE 51
E. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact.
not change from the existing levels. No new construction, other than interior tenant improvements will
occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.58 As a result, no significant adverse impacts are
anticipated.
F. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact.
not change from the existing levels.59 As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
G. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact.
The Rancho School campus is located outside of a designated 100-year flood zone. The La Mirada General
Plan indicates the nearest designated flood zone as being an area located along La Mirada Creek which is
located within a 100 year Flood A-3 Zone.60 Therefore, no flood-related impacts with respect to housing
are associated with the proposed project’s implementation.
H. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows? No Impact.
The Rancho School property is not located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area as defined by
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).61 As a result, the future development contemplated as
part of the proposed project’s implementation will not impede or redirect the flows of potential floodwater,
since the campus is not located within a flood hazard area. Therefore, no flood-related impacts
anticipated.
I.
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of flooding as a result of dam or
levee failure? No Impact.
The Rancho School campus is not located within an area that would be subject to flows from a potential
dam or levee failure. No major flood control facilities are located within the city. As a result, no
inundation hazards will impact the project site and no impacts are anticipated.
58
59
Ibid.
60
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 2010 (as amended).
61
Ibid.
PAGE 52
J. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact.
The City of La Mirada is located inland approximately 15 miles from the Pacific Ocean and the project area
would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami. No dams, reservoirs or volcanoes are located near the
city that would present seiche or volcanic hazards. In addition, there are no surface water bodies in the
immediate area of the Rancho School campus that would result in a potential seiche hazards. As a result,
no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows will result from the implementation of the proposed
project.
The potential impacts related to hydrology and storm water runoff are typically site specific. The
implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts related to
hydrology. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
The analysis indicated that no significant adverse impacts related to hydrology and water would result
from the proposed project’s implementation.
3.10 LAND USE
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on land use and
development if it results in any of the following:
¾
The disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an established community;
¾
A conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of the agency with jurisdiction over
the project; or
¾
A conflict with any applicable conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
A. Would the project physically divide or disrupt an established community or otherwise result in an
incompatible land use? No Impact.
The area surrounding the Rancho School campus is completely urbanized and the campus is located in the
midst of a residential area. The existing Rancho School campus is bounded on the north by San Cristobal
Drive, on the west by Neff Park, on the south San Bruno Drive, and on the east by Los Fuentes Road.
Single-family homes are located to the north (north of San Cristobal Drive), on the east (east of the Los
Fuentes Road), and on the south (south of San Bruno Drive).62 The public school was closed in the early
62
Blodgett/Baylosis Associates. Field Survey (the field survey was completed on November 22, 2011).
PAGE 53
1980s and since that time portions of the campus have been leased to various entities that operate daycare
facilities and private schools. When the campus was in use as a public school, the campus had a maximum
enrollment of 780 students.63 Land uses around the Rancho School campus are shown in Exhibit 3-6.
The City of La Mirada is considering a Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 930-294) that is a request by
Biola University to utilize the former Rancho Elementary School site for home schooling classroom
instruction (officially operated as the Biola Youth Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola
University has obtained a 10 year lease to utilize the majority of the existing school campus. The exception
is those facilities being used by the Head Start program that currently operates at the school. No new
buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those buildings Biola
University is proposing to lease.64 The proposed project will be confined to the existing Rancho School
campus. No additional land area will be required to accommodate the proposed use and no division of an
existing residential neighborhood will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation. As a result,
no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
B. Would the project conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to, a general plan, proposed project, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? No Impact.
The Rancho Elementary School campus is currently designated as Public/Institutional in the City of La
Mirada General Plan. The General Plan designations that are applicable to the site and the surrounding
area are shown in Exhibit 3-7. The zoning that is applicable to the Rancho School Campus is Open Space
(refer Exhibit 3-8). Private elementary schools are conditionally permitted within this zone district. The
potential operational impacts associated with the proposed Biola Youth Campus will be less than that
impacts associated with the site’s use as a public elementary school. No new buildings will be constructed
though tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to
lease.65 The proposed use will not require a general plan amendment or a zone change. As a result, no
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
C. Will the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? No Impact
No natural open space areas are located within the proposed project site or in the surrounding area. Neff
Park, located adjacent to the site on the west side, will not be affected by the proposed use. The project site
and the surrounding parcels are not included within areas that are subject to a habitat conservation plan or
a local coastal plan (LCP). Finally, there are no designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) located
within one mile of the city. As a result, the proposed project will not result in any impact on a habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
63
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
PAGE 54
Rancho School
EXHIBIT 3-6
EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA
Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Associates
PAGE 55
Rancho School
Low Density
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
High Density
Residential
Open Space
Public/Institutional
EXHIBIT 3-7
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Source: City of La Mirada
PAGE 56
Rancho School
R-1 Single-family
M-2 Industrial
C-4 General
Commercial
R-4 High Density
Residential
OS Open Space
PUD Planned Unit
Development
EXHIBIT 3-8
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Source: City of La Mirada
PAGE 57
The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse land use
impacts. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative land use impacts will occur.
The analysis of land use and development impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts on land
use and development would result from the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no
mitigation measures are required.
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
energy and mineral resources if it results in any of the following:
¾
The loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state; or
¾
The loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, proposed project, or other land use plan.
A. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents or the state? No Impact.
There are no oil wells located within or near the Rancho School campus.66 Furthermore, the affected area
is not located within a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) nor is it located in an area
with active mineral extraction activities. As a result, no impacts on existing mineral resources will result
from the proposed project’s implementation.
B. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, proposed project or other land use plan? No Impact.
There are no mineral, oil or energy extraction and/or generation activities located within the Rancho
School campus. Review of maps provided by the State Department of Conservation indicated that there
are no oil wells located within the campus or in the vicinity.67 No new building construction is proposed.
As a result, the project’s implementation will not include any materials that are considered rare or unique.
66
State of California Department of Conservation. Regional Wildcat Map. October 2011.
67
Ibid.
PAGE 58
Thus, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse effects on mineral resources in the
region.
The potential impacts on mineral resources are site specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that
the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts on mineral resources and no
cumulative impacts will occur.
The analysis of potential impacts related to mineral resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts
would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are
required.
3.12 NOISE
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on the
environment if it results in any of the following:
¾
The exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;
¾
The exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne noise levels;
¾
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project above levels
existing without the project;
¾
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
¾
Locating within an area governed by an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private use airport, where the project would expose
people to excessive noise levels; or,
¾
Locating within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would result in the exposure of people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
PAGE 59
A. Would the project result in 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
Noise levels may be described using a number of methods designed to evaluate the “loudness” of a
particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero
on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. The eardrum may
rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of 3 dB in the ambient noise level is considered to represent the
threshold for human sensitivity. In other words, increases in ambient noise levels of 3.0 dB or less are not
generally perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities. Noise levels associated with common
everyday activities are outlined in Exhibit 3-9.
Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line
source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Because the area of the sound wave increases as the
sound gets further and further from the source, less energy strikes any given point over the surface area of
the wave. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” Due to spreading loss, noise attenuates
(decreases) with distance. Objects that block the line-of-sight from the noise source, attenuate the noise
source if the receptor is located within the “shadow” of the blockage (such as behind a sound wall). If a
receptor is located behind the wall, but has a view of the source, the wall will do little to attenuate the
noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an
increase in the perceived noise level as the wall can reflect noise back to the receptor thus compounding
the noise.68
The maximum onsite campus population will gradually increase over time beginning in September 2012.
In September 2013, the campus population would be 243 persons on Wednesdays growing to a maximum
population of 349 persons on Thursdays in September 2017. When the campus was in use as a public
school, the campus had a maximum enrollment of 780 students.69 The majority of the educational
activities will occur two days a week and the campus will be generally unoccupied after 5:00 PM. No
weekend activities are schedules. The game fields may also be used on Fridays and Saturdays though these
activities will also occur during the daytime period.70 The Zoning Code makes it unlawful to produce for
any person to make or continue to cause to be made or continued, within the city, any loud or unnecessary
noise or any noise which may reasonably be anticipated to annoy, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort,
repose, peace, health or safety of others.
The cumulative traffic will not be great enough to result in a measurable or perceptible increase in traffic
noise (it typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to increase the ambient noise levels to 3.0 dBA or
greater). As a result, the traffic noise impacts resulting from the proposed project’s implementation are
deemed to be less than significant.
68
Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975.
69
70
Ibid.
PAGE 60
Noise Levels in dBA
Serious Injury
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
Pain
Discomfort
Range of Typical Noise
Levels
sonic boom
jet take off at 200 ft.
115
110
105
100
95
90
music in night club interior
motorcycle at 20 ft.
power mower
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
electric mixer, light rail train horn
freight train at 50 ft.
food blender
portable fan, roadway traffic at 50 ft.
dishwasher, air conditioner
normal conversation
refrigerator, light traffic at 100 ft.
library interior (quiet study area)
25
20
Threshold of
Hearing
15
10
rustling leaves
5
0
EXHIBIT 3-9
TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES AND LOUDNESS SCALE
Source: Blodgett/Baylosis Associates
PAGE 61
CITY OF LA MIRADA CITY OF LA MIRADA ● CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 930-294
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ● BIOLA YOUTH CAMPUS PROJECT
No campus activities will occur during the night-time periods. The following measures will further ensure
that on-site campus activities do not adversely impact noise sensitive land uses in the area.
¾
Campus activities and uses must conform to those identified in CUP 930-294. All of the activities
identified for the campus must conclude by 9:00 PM. Use of the playfields must be limited to
those hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday.
¾
The campus must be secured so that vehicles cannot access or park within the campus after hours.
Signage must be provided indicating that parking within the campus after hours is prohibited.
¾
No exterior public address systems or audible alarms will be permitted. The noise levels from
machinery or mechanical equipment must conform to the city’s noise control standards.
The aforementioned mitigation measures are identified in Section 3.12.4. These measures will reduce the
potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.
B. Would the project result in exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground-borne noise
levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
No new construction is associated with the proposed use.71 Mitigation measures have been identified in
the previous section (3.12.2.A) as a means to reduce potential operational noise impacts. These mitigation
measures are identified in Section 3.12.4. These measures will reduce the potential impacts to levels that
are less than significant.
C. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
Traffic noise generated by future development will not result in a measurable or discernable increase in the
ambient noise levels. The additional traffic on area roadways will result in noise level increases of less than
3.0 dBA, as indicated previously. Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3.12.2.A as a means
to reduce potential operational noise impacts. These mitigation measures are identified in Section 3.12.4.
These measures will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.
D. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact.
No new exterior construction is being proposed as part of the reuse of the Rancho School by Biola
University. As a result, no construction noise impacts will result.72 Mitigation measures have been
identified in Section 3.12.2.A as a means to reduce potential operational noise impacts.
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? No Impact.
71
72
Ibid.
Page 62
The city is not located within two miles of an operational public airport. The Los Alamitos Airfield is
located approximately 8½ miles southwest of the planning area. Fullerton Airport is located
the west.73 As a result, no significant adverse impacts related to the exposure of persons to aircraft noise
from a public use airport are anticipated.
F. Within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact.
The city is not located within two miles of an operational private airport. The Los Alamitos Airfield is
located approximately 8½ miles southwest of the planning area. Fullerton Airport is located
the west. As a result, no impacts related to the exposure of persons to aircraft noise from a private airstrip
will result from the proposed project.
The analysis indicated the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant
unmitigable adverse cumulative noise impacts. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative noise
impacts will occur.
The following measures will ensure that on-site campus activities do not adversely impact noise sensitive
land uses in the area.
Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Noise Impacts). Campus activities and uses must conform to those
identified in CUP 930-294. All of the activities identified for the campus must conclude by 7:00 PM.
Use of the playfields must be limited to those hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through
Saturday.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Noise Impacts). The campus must be secured so that vehicles cannot
access or park within the campus after hours. Signage must be provided indicating that parking within
the campus after hours is prohibited.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Noise Impacts). No exterior public address systems or audible alarms will
be permitted. The noise levels from machinery or mechanical equipment must conform to the city’s
noise control standards.
73
Google Maps, 2011.
Page 63
3.13 POPULATION & HOUSING
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on housing and
population if it results in any of the following:
¾
A substantial growth in the population within an area, either directly or indirectly related to a
project;
¾
The displacement of a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing; or,
¾
The displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing.
A. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact.
The City of La Mirada is considering CUP No. 930-294 that is a request by Biola University to utilize the
former Rancho Elementary School site for home schooling classroom instruction (officially operated as the
Biola Youth Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola University has obtained a 10 year lease
to utilize the majority of the existing school campus. The exception is those facilities being used by the
Head Start program that currently operates at the school. No new buildings will be constructed though
tenant and ADA improvements will be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease.
When the campus was in use as a public school, the campus had a maximum enrollment of 780 students.74
The Rancho Elementary School campus is owned by the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
(NLMUSD). The public school was closed in the early 1980s and since that time portions of the campus
have been leased to various entities that operate daycare facilities and private schools. No homes are
located within the campus boundaries no would any homes be physically dislocated.75 As a result, no
impacts will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.
B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact.
No residential units will be displaced as part of the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no
significant adverse impacts related to displaced persons will result since no existing housing will be
displaced.
74
75
Blodgett/Baylosis Associates. Field Survey (the field survey was completed on November 22, 2011).
Page 64
C. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact.
No housing units will be removed as part of the project’s implementation. The project site is currently
developed as an elementary school and the existing buildings will remain. As a result, no population
displacement impacts will occur with the proposed project’s implementation.
The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts
would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no significant adverse cumulative
housing and population impacts will occur.
The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts
would result from the proposed project’s implementation.
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on public
services if it results in any of the following:
¾
A substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impact in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
relative to fire protection services;
¾
relative to police protection services;
¾
relative to school services; or,
¾
relative to other government services.
Page 65
A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives relative to fire protection services? Less than Significant Impact.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department provides fire protection services in the City of La Mirada. The
headquarters station is Station No. 49 located at 13890 La Mirada Boulevard. Fire Resources from the
additional stations in the city, as well as others operated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
would be made available if needed.76 Biola University is proposing to use the Rancho Elementary School
for home schooling classroom instruction (officially operated as the Biola Youth Academics (BYA)
program) and other activities. Biola University has obtained a 10 year lease to utilize the majority of the
existing school campus. The exception is those facilities being used by the Head Start program that
currently operates at the school. No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA
improvements will be made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease.
The potential campus population will be less than half of this peak enrollment capacity. The proposed
use’s service demand is not anticipated to require any modifications to any existing fire department
facilities or result in the need for any new facilities. As a result, the impacts are less than significant.
B. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
performance objectives relative to police protection? Less than Significant Impact.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, under contract with the City of La Mirada, provides law
enforcement services in the city. The city is served by the La Mirada Station, located at 13716 La Mirada
Boulevard within the La Mirada Civic Center. Emergency response times throughout the city averages
approximately 8.7 minutes. General Law and traffic law enforcement is provided 24-hours per day. Public
Safety funding provides for 1 Service Area Lieutenant, 4 Detectives, 4 Special Assignment Officers, 2 school
deputies, two motor officers, 4 sergeants, and other deputy sheriff personnel.78
The potential campus population will be less than half of this peak enrollment capacity. The increased
service demands may be offset by department review or development plans, the use of security control
measures in new development and the continued implementation of ongoing programs that are effective in
crime prevention. In addition, mitigation identified in Section 3.12.4 will also address potential after hour
security impacts. The incremental increase in demand is not anticipated to require any modifications to
any existing law enforcement facilities or involve the need for any new facilities. As a result, the impacts
are less than significant.
76
County of Los Angeles. http://fire.lacounty.gov/HometownFireStations/HometownFireStations.asp.
77
78
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. http://sheriff.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/lasd
79
Page 66
C. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives relative to school services? No Impact.
The project site is located within the service area of the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District
(NLMUSD). The city is considering CUP No. 930-294 that is a request by Biola University to utilize the
former Rancho Elementary School site for home schooling classroom instruction (officially operated as the
Biola Youth Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola University has obtained a 10 year lease
to utilize the majority of the existing school campus which has been closed as a public elementary school
since the 1980s. The exception is those facilities being used by the Head Start program that currently
operates at the school. No new buildings will be constructed though tenant and ADA improvements will be
made to those buildings Biola University is proposing to lease.80
The BYA program will offer educational programs to students primarily to those being home schooled two
days per week for Grades 7-12. Course instructions will be offered from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. The school
facilities will also be used for music and theatre rehearsals by the Biola Youth Theatre (BYT) program for
K-12 students consisting of approximately 50 students. The home school operation is timed to grow over a
phased 6 year time line and at its optimum operation, will offer course instruction for 349 students by
2017. The potential onsite campus population would be limited initially (December 2011 to March 2012)
due to the transition of students, staff, and other personnel to the Rancho School campus. The maximum
onsite campus population would then begin to gradually increase over time beginning in September 2012.
In September 2013, the campus population would be 243 persons on Wednesdays growing to a maximum
population of 349 persons on Thursdays in September 2017.
The Rancho Elementary School campus is owned by the NLMUSD. The school facility is located on an 8.5
acre site and contains approximately 30,000 gross square feet of floor area. The public school was closed
in the early 1980s and since that time portions of the campus have been leased to various entities that
operate daycare facilities and private schools. A portion of the campus is currently being leased and
houses a “Head Start” program.81 The proposed project will augment educational resources within La
Mirada and will not represent a growth-inducing impact. As a result, no impacts on educational facilities
will occur.
D. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
performance objectives relative to other governmental services? No Impact.
The proposed project’s implementation is not expected to have any impact on existing governmental
services other than those identified in the preceding sections. As a result, no significant impacts associated
with the proposed project’s implementation are anticipated.
80
81
Ibid.
Page 67
The proposed project’s implementation will result in an incremental increase in the demand for police and
fire service calls. However, no new facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed use. As a
result, no accumulative impacts are anticipated.
The analysis of public service impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the
proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation with respect to public services is required.
3.15 RECREATION IMPACTS
According to the City of La Mirada, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on the
environment if it results in any of the following:
¾
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; or,
¾
The construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
A. Would the project 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?
No Impact.
Public parks in the city are maintained and operated by the City of La Mirada Community Services
Department. Neff Park is located adjacent to the project site on the west side. Neff Park’s total land area is
approximately 10-acres and includes three historic buildings, a gazebo, a basketball court, a tennis court,
horseshoes pits, a playground, and picnic areas. The historic buildings include the Neff Home, the George
House, and the Neff Barn. The Neff Barn, which displays an extensive collection of historic memorabilia, is
used for group reservations, meetings, summer and holiday day camps, and special events. The gazebo can
also be reserved for special ceremonies, and the sport facilities are open play.82 The proposed use will not
affect the adjacent Neff Park.
All of the activities envisioned with the approval of the CUP will be confined to the Rancho School
campus.83 As a result no impacts on park facilities will result from the implementation of the proposed
project.
82
City of La Mirada. http://www.cityoflamirada.org/index.aspx?page=58
83
Page 68
B. Would the project affect existing recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact.
The implementation of the proposed project will not physically affect any existing parks and recreational
facilities in the city. The proposed use will not affect the adjacent Neff Park. All of the activities envisioned
with the approval of the CUP will be confined to the Rancho School campus.84 As a result, the proposed
project’s adoption and subsequent implementation will not result in any significant adverse impacts.
The analysis determined the proposed project would not result in any potential impact on recreational
facilities and services. As a result, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would result from the
proposed project’s implementation.
The analysis of potential impacts related to parks and recreation indicated that no significant adverse
impacts would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are
required.
3.16 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION
According to the City of La Mirada, a project will normally have a significant adverse impact on traffic and
circulation if it results in any of the following:
84
¾
A conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit;
¾
A conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;
¾
Results in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in the location that result in substantial safety risks;
¾
Substantially increases hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
¾
Results in Inadequate emergency access;
Page 69
¾
A conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
A. Would the project cause a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components
of the circulation system, including but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.
The city is considering CUP No. 930-294 that is a request by Biola University to utilize the former Rancho
Elementary School site for home schooling classroom instruction (officially operated as the Biola Youth
Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola University has obtained a 10 year lease to utilize the
majority of the existing school campus which has been closed as a public elementary school since the
1980s. When the campus was in use as a public school, the campus had a maximum enrollment of 780
students.85
The potential onsite campus population would be limited initially (December 2011 to March 2012) due to
the transition of students, staff, and other personnel to the Rancho School campus. The maximum onsite
campus population would then begin gradually increase over time beginning in September 2012. In
September 2013, the campus population would be 234 on Wednesdays growing to a maximum population
of 349 on Thursdays in September 2017. Table 3-2 summarizes the onsite campus population beginning in
September 2012 continuing to September 2017 when the Rancho School’s population will be at maximum
levels. The table then indicates the total daily traffic generation that is anticipated based on the projected
campus population. Two trip ends (one round trip) are assumed for every student, staff person, and parent
volunteer located on campus.
Table 3-2
Projected Daily Traffic Generation (Trip Ends)
Daily Campus Population/Trip Ends
Period
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
September 2012
65/130 trips
47/94 trips
234/468 trips
49/98 trips
175/350 trips
September 2013
65/130 trips
147/294 trips
234/468 trips
149/298 trips
175/350 trips
September 2014
65/130 trips
197/394 trips
234/468 trips
199/398 trips
175/350 trips
September 2015
65/130 trips
247/494 trips
234/468 trips
249/498 trips
175/350 trips
September 2016
65/130 trips
297/594 trips
234/468 trips
299/598 trips
175/350 trips
September 2017
65/130 trips
347/694 trips
234/468 trips
349/698 trips
175/350 trips
Source: City of La Mirada. Request for Comments, Conditional Use Permit No. 930-294. November 10, 2011.
85
Page 70
The daily traffic volumes identified in Table 3-2 are substantially less than the volumes that occurred when
the public school was operational. However, no effort was made to discount any trip generation from the
public elementary school since the public school has been closed since the early 1980s. The most
significant difference between the elementary school’s trip generation and that anticipated for the proposed
use is that the latter’s traffic will be staggered over both the weekdays and the hours of instruction. Unlike
a public school, there will not be large traffic volumes associated with the morning drop off and evening
pick up times. A home schooled student may attend a single class during the two peak days where such
course offerings occur.
The peak instructional periods will occur on Wednesdays and Fridays over a six hour period. These periods
represent the times when traffic to and from the campus will be the greatest. As indicated in the table, the
hourly traffic will rarely exceed 50 trips during the busiest periods. It should also be pointed out that the
busiest traffic periods will take place two days a week (Wednesday and Fridays).86
Table 3-3
Projected Peak Hour Traffic
Peak Activity Periods
Period
8:00-9:20 AM
9:25-10:25 AM
10:50-1150 AM
12:30-1:30 PM
1:55-2:55 PM
3:00-4:00 PM
Wednesday Traffic and Parking Demand
Arrivals
49
36
15
23
10
4
Departures
5
10
11
49
34
23
Parked Vehicles
18
36
26
20
26
11
Friday Traffic and Parking Demand
Arrivals
43
29
10
9
11
2
Departures
4
10
11
34
23
22
Parked Vehicles
23
24
16
18
26
20
Source: City of La Mirada. Rancho Traffic (e-mail from Monica Mercado, October 31, 2011).
The proposed use will result in additional traffic on those local streets (San Cristobal Drive and Los Fuentes
Road) and arterials (Rosecrans Avenue) that provide access to the Rancho School Campus. However the
traffic volumes will be staggered over the daytime periods and the greatest traffic volumes will take on
Wednesdays and Fridays. In addition, the campus will not experience traffic congestion associated with
student drop-offs and pick–ups that arise from typical school operations. Finally, the level of service
impacts at area intersections will be minimal since the school’s peak traffic period will occur outside of the
morning (6:00AM to 8:00AM peak) peak hour period and the evening (5:00 PM to 7:00 PM) peak hour
period.
86
City of La Mirada. Rancho Traffic (e-mail from Monica Mercado, October 31, 2011).
Page 71
The proposed use will not result in significant traffic impacts though the following mitigation is required to
ensure that traffic operations during the normal hours of operation will not impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
¾
No student drop offs or pick-ups will be permitted along San Cristobal Drive. All such activities
must occur on-site within the existing parking area. The applicant will be required to provide the
appropriate signage and/or curb striping.
¾
All campus employees must use the parking provided on-site. No on-street parking will be
permitted at any time. At such time the enrollments require additional on-site parking, the
applicant will be required to provide an additional curb cut on San Cristobal Drive to provide
access to the new parking area within the paved area located in the northwest portion of the
campus. This new parking area will be reserved for the staff.
¾
All campus events must be limited to those identified in the CUP approved for the project (CUP
No.930-294). Any special events must first be approved by the Community Development
Department to ensure that sufficient parking is available and any potential traffic impacts are
mitigated.
The aforementioned mitigation will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.
B. Would the project result in a conflict with an applicable congestions management program,
including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways? No Impact.
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a state-mandated program that was enacted by the State
Legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The program is intended to address the impact of
local growth on the regional transportation system. The city is considering CUP No. 930-294 that is a
request by Biola University to utilize the former Rancho School site for home schooling classroom
instruction (officially operated as the Biola Youth Academics (BYA) program) and other activities. Biola
University has obtained a 10 year lease to utilize the majority of the existing school campus which has been
closed as a public elementary school since the 1980s. When the campus was in use as a public school, the
campus had a maximum enrollment of 780 students.87
The CMP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines require that intersection-monitoring locations be
examined if the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak
periods at a CMP monitored intersection. The CMP TIA guidelines also require that freeway-monitoring
locations be examined if the proposed project will add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either
the AM or PM weekday peak hours. The only CMP intersection in the city is the La Mirada
Boulevard/Imperial Boulevard intersection.88 The peak instructional periods will occur on Wednesdays
and Fridays over a six hour period. These periods represent the times when traffic to and from the campus
will be the greatest. The hourly traffic will rarely exceed 50 trips during the busiest periods. It should also
be pointed out that the busiest traffic periods will take place two days a week (Wednesday and Fridays).
87
88
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Draft 2010 Congestion Management Program.
Page 72
The proposed use will not affect the city’s general plan which was used to develop the growth projections
that served as the basis for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). As a result, the proposed project is
consistent with that contemplated under the RTP. Finally the projected peak hour traffic will not increase
the peak hour traffic volumes at the La Mirada Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection by more than 50
peak hour trips. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
C. Would the project results in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in the location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact.
The proposed school expansion and modernization project will not result in any impacts on air traffic or
local airports. The proposed use will not impact any FFA air traffic height restrictions. Finally, the campus
is not located within an approach or take-off aircraft safety zone. As a result, no significant adverse
D. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact.
The proposed project would not alter the local circulation system. The existing public streets would
remain unchanged. The addition of a new driveway connection with San Cristobal Drive would not result
in any circulation impact. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
E. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact.
At no time will any designated emergency evacuation route be closed to traffic due to the proposed
project’s implementation. No new construction is associated with the proposed project’s implementation.
As a result, the project will not result in any significant adverse impacts.
F. Would the project result in a conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities? No Impact.
The following transit services are available in the city: the Norwalk Transit Service Bus Line, the
Montebello Bus Line, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs Metrolink Station, located on Imperial Highway, west of the Bloomfield Avenue/Imperial Highway
intersection is located approximately two miles west of the City of La Mirada city limits. The Buena Park
Metrolink Station is located on Dale Street approximately 1 mile southeast of the City of La Mirada (south
of the Dale Street/Malvern Avenue intersection in Buena Park). No existing bus stops that serve the area
around the Rancho School will be removed as part of the proposed project’s implementation. The
proposed use will not adversely impact existing crosswalks in the area. As a result, the proposed project’s
implementation will not result in any significant adverse impacts.
The proposed project’s implementation will result in an incremental increase in city wide traffic. This
additional traffic will not significantly impact the peak hour levels of service of any area intersections. As a
result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.
Page 73
The following mitigation measures were identified as a means to address potential traffic impacts:
Mitigation Measure 4 (Traffic and Circulation). No student drop offs or pick-ups will be permitted
along San Cristobal Drive. All such activities must occur on-site within the existing parking area. The
applicant will be required to provide the appropriate signage and/or curb striping.
Mitigation Measure 5 (Traffic and Circulation). All campus employees must use the parking provided
on-site. No on-street parking will be permitted at any time. At such time the enrollments require
additional on-site parking, the applicant will be required to provide an additional curb cut on San
Cristobal Drive to provide access to the new parking area within the paved area located in the
northwest portion of the campus. This new parking area will be reserved for the staff.
Mitigation Measure 6 (Traffic and Circulation). All campus events must be limited to those identified
in the CUP approved for the project (CUP No.930-294). Any special events must first be approved by
the Community Development Department to ensure that sufficient parking is available and any
potential traffic impacts are mitigated.
3.17 UTILITIES
utilities if it results in any of the following:
¾
An exceedance of the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board;
¾
The construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts;
¾
The construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
¾
An overcapacity of the storm drain system causing area flooding;
¾
A determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it
has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand;
¾
The project will be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs;
¾
Non-compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relative to solid waste;
¾
A need for new systems, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas facilities; or,
Page 74
¾
A need for new systems, or substantial alterations in communications systems.
A. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board? No Impact.
Wastewater generated within the city is treated at the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located
in Cerritos. The Los Coyotes WRP has a design capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and
currently processed an average flow of 35.4 mgd. The design capacities of the Districts’ wastewater
treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of
Government’s (SCAG) 2006 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). All expansions of the
Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manger that will be consistent with the Growth
Management Element of the RCPG. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will be
limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG.
The projected maximum campus population of 349 on any given day results in an effluent generation rate
of 5,235 gallons per day.89 The actual increase in effluent generation will likely be less since older obsolete
plumbing fixtures will be replaced by those designed to conserve water. This effluent generation is
substantially less than that generated when the Rancho Elementary School was in operation. The
elementary school’s maximum enrollment was 780 students when it was open. As a result, no new
treatment facilities or expanded entitlements will be required. In addition, no upgrades to the existing offsite sewer lines would be required to accommodate the proposed use. As a result, no significant adverse
B. Would the project 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 impacts? No Impact.
This effluent generation associated with the proposed use is substantially less than that generated when
the Rancho Elementary School was in operation. The elementary school’s maximum enrollment was 780
students when it was open. As a result, no new treatment facilities or expanded entitlements will be
required. In addition, no upgrades to the existing off-site sewer lines would be required to accommodate
the proposed use. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
C. Would the project 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? No Impact.
The County of Los Angeles, acting as the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), has the
regional, county-wide flood control responsibility. LACFCD responsibilities include planning for
developing, and maintaining flood control facilities of regional significance which serve large drainage
areas. Regional drainage facilities within the city controlled by LACFCD include Coyote Creek Channel
and La Mirada Creek. The Coyote Creek Channel straddles the Orange County/Los Angeles County
89
This effluent generation rate assumes 15 gallons per day per student.
Page 75
boundary. The two counties have assumed operations and maintenance responsibility for portions of the
channel by agreement. The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is responsible for operations
and maintenance of portions of the Coyote Creek Channel within La Mirada even through portions lie
within Los Angeles County.
The location and extent of impervious surfaces will not change. In addition, the quantity and quality of
surface water runoff (including storm water runoff) will not change from the existing levels. No new
construction, other than interior tenant improvements will occur as part of the proposed project’s
implementation.90 As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated.
D. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact.
Suburban Water Systems is responsible for providing domestic water service to 95 percent of the city.
Suburban water mains are located within the rights-of-way of the roadways. Assuming the maximum daily
enrollment of 349 students at the Rancho School, the projected water consumption will be 8,725 gallons
per day. 91 The water consumption associated with the proposed use is less than that generated when the
Rancho Elementary School was in operation. The elementary school’s maximum enrollment was 780
students when it was open. No new construction, other than interior tenant improvements will occur as
part of the proposed project’s implementation.92 As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated.
E. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact.
The projected maximum campus population of 349 results in an effluent generation rate of 5,235 gallons
per day.93 The actual increase in effluent generation will likely be less since older obsolete plumbing
fixtures will be replaced by those designed to conserve water. This effluent generation is substantially less
than that generated when the Rancho Elementary School was in operation. The elementary school’s
maximum enrollment was 780 students when it was open. As a result, no new treatment facilities or
expanded entitlements will be required. As a result, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
F. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs? No Impact.
Trash collection is provided by EDCO for disposal into the nearby landfills, primarily Puente Hills Landfill
and Brea Olinda landfill. The Puente Hills Landfill is located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles
County near Whittier and it is owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The
role of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County is to construct, operate, and maintain facilities to
collect, treat and dispose of wastewater, and to provide for disposal and management of solid wastes. The
90
91
This consumption rate assumes 25 gallons per day per student.
92
93
This effluent generation rate assumes 15 gallons per day per student.
Page 76
landfill is currently limited to a maximum of 13,000 tons of solid waste per day, an amount that is usually
received before noon. It also receives over 3,000 tons of recyclables per day that is diverted to a one
million square foot, state of the art MURF Facility. Assuming the maximum daily enrollment of 349
students at the Rancho School, the projected solid waste generation will be 175 pounds per day.94 This
solid waste generation is substantially less than that generated when the Rancho Elementary School was in
operation. The elementary school’s maximum enrollment was 780 students when it was open. As a result,
no significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
G. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? No Impact.
The proposed use, like all other development in the city, will be required to adhere to all pertinent
ordinances related to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no significant adverse impacts on the
existing regulations pertaining to solid waste generation will result from the proposed project’s
implementation.
H. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in power or natural gas
facilities? No Impact.
SCE and SCG provide service upon demand, and early coordination with these utility companies will
ensure adequate and timely service to the campus. Thus, no significant adverse impacts on power and
natural gas services will result from the adoption and subsequent implementation of the proposed project.
I.
Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations in communications
systems? No Impact.
The proposed use will continue to require telephone service from various local and long-distance
providers. The existing telephone lines in the area will continue to be utilized to provide service to future
development. Thus, no impacts on communication systems are anticipated.
The potential impacts related to water line and sewer line capacities are site specific. Furthermore, the
analysis herein also determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse
impacts on utility infrastructure and/or services. The ability of the existing sewer and water lines to
accommodate the projected demand from future development in the area will require evaluation on a caseby-case basis. As a result, no cumulative impacts on utilities will occur.
The analysis of utilities impacts indicated that no unmitigable significant adverse impacts would result
from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required.
94
This solid waste generation rate assumes 0.5 pounds per day per student per day.
Page 77
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment:
¾
The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of the recommended standard
conditions and mitigation measures included herein.
¾
to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the
implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures referenced
herein.
¾
The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation of the recommended standard
conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.
¾
The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of
the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.
¾
The initial study indicated there is no evidence that the proposed project will have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitant upon which any wildlife depends.
Page 78
SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the results of this environmental assessment:
¾
to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of the recommended standard
conditions and mitigation measures included herein.
¾
to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the
implementation of the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures referenced
herein.
¾
The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, with the implementation of the recommended standard
conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.
¾
The approval and subsequent implementation of the proposed project will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of
the recommended standard conditions and mitigation measures contained herein.
¾
The Initial Study indicated there is no evidence that the proposed project will have an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitant upon which any wildlife depends.
4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition, pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the
decision-maker coincidental to the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. In accordance with the
requirements of Section 21081(a) and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, the following additional
findings may be made:
¾
A mitigation reporting or monitoring program will be required, as specified in the final decision
relative to the proposed project’s approval;
¾
Site plans and/or building plans, submitted for approval for the proposed project to the
responsible monitoring agency, shall include the required mitigation measures, as appropriate;
and,
¾
An accountable enforcement agency or monitoring agency shall be identified for any applicable
mitigation measures/conditions adopted as part of the decision-maker’s final determination for
approval of the proposed project and its subsequent implementation.
SECTION 4 ● CONCLUSIONS
Page 79
A number of mitigation measures have been recommended as a means to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse environmental impacts to insignificant levels. AB 3180 requires that a monitoring and reporting
program be adopted for the recommended mitigation measures.
4.2.1 NOISE IMPACTS-MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential noise impacts indicated that the following mitigation measures will be required to
reduce the proposed project’s potential noise impacts:
Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Noise Impacts). Campus activities and uses must conform to those
identified in CUP 930-294. All of the activities identified for the campus must conclude by 7:00 PM.
Use of the playfields must be limited to those hours between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Monday through
Saturday.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Noise Impacts). The campus must be secured so that vehicles cannot
access or park within the campus after hours. Signage must be provided indicating that parking within
the campus after hours is prohibited.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Noise Impacts). No exterior public address systems or audible alarms will
be permitted. The noise levels from machinery or mechanical equipment must conform to the city’s
noise control standards.
4.2.2 TRAFFIC IMPACTS-MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential traffic and circulation impacts indicated that the following mitigation measures
will be required to address potential traffic impacts:
Mitigation Measure 4 (Traffic and Circulation). No student drop offs or pick-ups will be permitted
along San Cristobal Drive. All such activities must occur on-site within the existing parking area. The
applicant will be required to provide the appropriate signage and/or curb striping.
Mitigation Measure 5 (Traffic and Circulation). All campus employees must use the parking provided
on-site. No on-street parking will be permitted at any time. At such time the enrollments require
additional on-site parking, the applicant will be required to provide an additional curb cut on San
Cristobal Drive to provide access to the new parking area within the paved area located in the
northwest portion of the campus. This new parking area will be reserved for the staff.
Mitigation Measure 6 (Traffic and Circulation). All campus events must be limited to those identified
in the CUP approved for the project (CUP No.930-294). Any special events must first be approved by
the Community Development Department to ensure that sufficient parking is available and any
potential traffic impacts are mitigated.
SECTION 4 ● CONCLUSIONS
Page 80
SECTION 5 REFERENCES
5.1 PREPARES
BLODGETT/BAYLOSIS ASSOCIATES
16388 E. Colima Road, Suite 206
Hacienda Heights, California 91745
(626) 336-0033
Marc Blodgett, Project Manager
5.2 REFERENCES
Bugliarello, et. al., The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975.
California Administrative Code, Title 24, Energy Conservation, 1990.
California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of the Orange County Area, 1987.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Regional Wildcat
Map 101, 1990.
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database, 2010.
California Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazards Mapping Program, 1999.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Historical Landmarks, 2004.
California Department of Water Resources, Progress Report on Groundwater Geology of the Coastal
Plain of Orange County, 1967.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Material Users/Generators in Orange County,
2004.
California Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA
Guidelines, as amended 2005.
California, State of California Public Resources Code Division 13, The California Environmental Quality
Act. Chapter 2.5, Section 21067 and Section 21069.1998.
La Mirada, City of. La Mirada General Plan. 2004
La Mirada, City of. Zoning Ordinance. 2000.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, 1998.
Rand McNally, Street Finder, 1998.
SECTION 5 ● REFERENCES
Page 81
Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2010.
Southern California Association of Governments, Population, Housing and Employment Projections,
1999.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2000.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2007.
Thomas Brothers Maps, The Thomas Guide for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 2000.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 U.S. Census, 2010.
U.S. Geological Survey, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An Earth Science
Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360, 1985.
U.S. Geological Survey, La Mirada 7-1/2 Minute Quadrangle, 1986.
SECTION 5 ● REFERENCES
Page 82

mitigated negative declaration and initial study biola youth campus

Transcription

Similar documents

Travelworld Motorhomes: Coachmen Mirada 290 KS For Sale

no vember newslet ter 2013 - Heights Christian Schools

the Guidelines for the registration on

TotalCard - Identification Systems Group

Vital Signs week 2 - Love God

Arizona Western College Northern Arizona University Yuma Branch

St. John of God - Planning Office for Urban Affairs

Tsuen Wan Government Secondary School Student Oriented

A Whole New World: Welcome to Michigan Tech

City of La Mirada Supreme Court Ends Redevelopment: Decision