Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3STAFF REPORT Development Services Department July 26, 2011 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 11 -03 (71642) for a proposed two (2) lot, single - family residential subdivision at 225 E. Longden Avenue. SUMMARY Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 11 -03 (Parcel Map No. 71642) was submitted by the applicant, David Liu on behalf of the property owner, Yiyang Hu, for a two (2) lot, single- family residential subdivision at 225 E. Longden Avenue. The new subdivision would create two Tots that would each be developed with a new house. Both lots would be substandard in width, but the subdivision is otherwise consistent with the General Plan. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the tentative parcel map application, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: SITE AREA: FRONTAGE: David Liu (Designer) 225 E. Longden Avenue Approval of a tentative parcel map for a two (2) lot, single - family residential subdivision 25,236 square feet (0.58 of an acre) 136.42 feet along East Longden Avenue EXISTING LAND USES & ZONING: The subject property is developed with a 1,817 square -foot, one -story, single - family residence built in 1945. The zoning is R -1 -7500, single - family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single - family dwellings and are zoned R -1- 7,500. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential for up to six (6) dwelling units per acre. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 11 -03 were mailed on July 14, 2011 to the property owners and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in a local newspaper on July 4, 2011. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 25,236 square -foot lot located at 225 E. Longden Avenue into two lots, and to remove the existing improvements for the subsequent construction of a new single - family residence on each lot. Both of the new lots will be interior lots with identical dimensions, their characteristics are as follows: Subdivision Characteristics Lot No. Width Depth Area 1 68.21 feet 185.00 feet 12,618 square feet 2 68.21 feet 185.00 feet 12,618 square feet Code Minimums 75.00 feet 100.00 feet 7,500 square feet The proposed 68.21 -foot widths of the proposed two new Tots are Tess than the 75 -foot minimum requirement. However, there are several other Tots nearby with substandard widths (see the 300 -foot Radius Map & Table A - Substandard Lot Widths of Neighboring Homes). The proposed subdivision will divide a particularly large lot into two lots that would be of comparable size for the neighborhood (see Table B — Size for Lots within the 300 -foot Radius). Applications for Architectural Design Review for the new homes on the proposed two lots have not been submitted, and will only be accepted if the proposed subdivision is approved. If the subject property were to be redeveloped as one lot, the current zoning regulations would allow for a two -story home that could be up to 30 feet tall with approximately 17,000 square feet of living area. The two proposed lots could each be TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 2 developed with two -story homes up to 25 feet tall with approximately 8,500 square feet of living area. This is comparable to what could be built on the lot adjacent to the rear (2115 S. Third Ave.) and on the lots to the northwest along South Second Avenue, and on the lots to the south along Second and Third Avenues. The area of the subject property is 25,236 square feet or 0.58 acre of land area. The density factor in the City's General Plan for this area is up to six (6) dwelling units per acre. The proposed subdivision complies with this density limit. And, with the exception of the substandard lot widths, the proposed subdivision meets all other applicable subdivision and zoning regulations. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the following General Plan land use and housing policies: LU -1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City's land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses. H -2.3: Encourage compatible residential development in areas with recyclable or underutilized land. H -2.4: Maintain development standards, regulations, and design features that are flexible to provide a variety of housing types and facilitate housing that is appropriate for the neighborhoods in which they are located. H -2.6: Require that the density or intensity, as well as design of new developments, be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. H -4.4: Support infill development at suitable locations and provide, where appropriate, incentives to facilitate development. The Development Services Department recommends approval of this tentative parcel map application, subject to the conditions in this staff report. Other Requirements The applicant shall be required to comply with all applicable Code requirements as determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 3 significance. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared for this project, and a Notice of Intent is attached. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 11 -03 (71642) subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree preservation plan identifying by size and type all trees with a diameter in excess of four inches (4 ") shall be presented to the Development Services Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a demolition and /or grading permit. Approval of a tree preservation plan may require the altering of the design of the proposed subdivision and the potential building footprints. 2. An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any oak tree and /or construction within the protected zone of any oak tree. Such permit shall include mitigation measures, subject to the approval of the Development Services Director or designee that compensate for the removal of, and /or encroachment upon any oak tree, and minimizes any impacts on an oak tree. 3. The developer shall pay a $100 Map Fee and $100 Final Approval Fee, and shall post a $200 deposit for a Mylar copy of the recorded map prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 4. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the developer shall either construct or post security for all public improvements as shown on Tentative Parcel Map 71642. 5. A separate demolition and erosion control plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Parcel Map. All existing structures shall be demolished and removed prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 6. A grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the project shall provide and incorporate all proposed Low Impact Development (LID) methods on the grading plan. 7. After the issuance of any building and /or grading permits for this project, a Rough Grading Verification Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading Verification Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to any final building inspections and issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. Said Grading Verification Forms will stipulate that all grading operations have been completed in substantial TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 4 compliance with the final grading plan approved by the City's Engineering Services. 8. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. 9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 10. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 11 -03 (71642) shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant(s), and civil engineer have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to acknowledge acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -03 (71642) subject to the following findings and actions: A.1. Find that the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the Arcadia General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage from the project into the public sewer system will not violate any requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region. The Public Works Services Department did not have any comments indicating that the existing sewer system is inadequate to accommodate the proposed subdivision. A.2. Find that the CEQA determinations as set forth in the attached Initial Study are appropriate. TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 5 A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director or designee to approve and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project. A.4. Approve this project subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission must make at least one of the following findings based on the evidence presented, expand upon the finding(s) with specific reasons, and move to deny the project: D.1. Find that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act. D.2. Find that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.3. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. D.4. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.5. Find that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D.7. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. D.8. Find that the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein said lot is located. D.9. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. With regards to this, the legislative body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This provision shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 6 If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter, prior to the July 26, 2011 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin at (626) 574 -5444 or nbaldwinAci.arcdia.ca.us. Approved by: ■1' Jim Co,- Development Administrator Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -03 (71642) Aerial Photo & Vicinity Map 300 -Foot Radius Map Table A — Substandard Lot Widths of Neighboring Homes Table B — Size for Lots within the 300 -foot Radius Photos of Subject and Surrounding Properties Environmental Documents TPM 11 -03 (71642) 225 E. Longden Avenue July 26, 2011— Page 7 1 2 a 9ZLZ- 6L£ -9Z9 7131 1f116 Y3 11N3fld V l '1S )I2lYd VIA LSW ONI1111SNOO H331039 A'8 0 90016 V3 ``d l GV 0e1V 3f1N9AV N3a9N01 '3 5ZZ NOISIMI08f1S 101 -Z b 9 NORTH t N CO O O z 0 d z 5 1 'h Q 8 8 8 4, 4, LJ ee z w I h6 bb d i HPri I n it .ezigylxlt 0 e 1 !I 1 !II)) I�rlr�� I ;11; gb b �q/ lzb 1111„611 1 1111: ti li 110 ilk iiIIh )11 'i iNhe3 iiNfigi ii i d ddII dc[11 ®©oc00000.- - `3t\ V TRW $ 4, n t g Ail A rer► :3$�* ._ L 1'_ _ 1 zti�eri .ZS DX 30540111 e+` y I ,001:1C1 225 E. Longden Avenue TPM 11-03 (71642) Table A: Substandard Lot Widths of Neighboring Homes Address Front Lot Width 102 E. Longden Ave. 70 106 E. Longden Ave. 60 110 E. Longden Ave. 64 116 E. Longden Ave. 60 120 E. Longden Ave. 62 124 E. Longden Ave. 62 132 E. Longden Ave. 62 138 E. Longden Ave. 62 TPM 11 -03 (71642) Table A — Substandard Lot Widths of Neighboring Homes Table B: Size for Lots within the 300' Radius that are Nearest the Subject Property Address Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) House Size (Sq. Ft.) Year Built 2100 2nd Ave. 14,350 2,586 1961 2108 2nd Ave. 14,350 2,108 1949 2112 2nd Ave. 14,350 1,824 1957 2116 2nd Ave. 14,350 1,963 1949 2120 2nd Ave. 9,750 2,284 1966 201 E. Longden Ave. 11,700 1,612 1951 215 E. Longden Ave. 12,375 2,387 1959 225 E. Longden Ave. 25,160 1,817 1945 2121 3rd Ave. 9,920 1,928 1955 2115 3`d Ave. 13,440 2,147 1956 2109 3rd Ave. 9,090 1,796 1.955 2101 3`d Ave. 8,000 1,758 1956 235 E. Longden Ave. 10,500 2,042 1958 2135 3`d Ave. 8,000 1,848 1958 200 E. Longden Ave. 22,190 3,660 1956 240 E. Longden Ave. 9,690 3,127 1989 300 E. Longden Ave. 9,750 1,404 1953 308 E. Longden Ave. 9,750 2,563 1957 2128 3`d Ave. 8,383 2,292 1966 171 E. Longden Ave. 9,882 2,257 1938 170 E. Longden Ave. 10,850 1,545 1941 TPM 11 -03 (71642) Table B - Size for Lots within the 300 -foot Radius 225 E. Longden Ave., Subject Property 235 E. Longden Ave., Adjacent Lot to the East 215 E. Longden Ave., Adjacent Lot to the West 201 E. Longden Ave., Two Lots to the West 220 E. Longden Ave., Lot across the Street (South) 240 E. Longden Ave., Lot to the Southeast 200 E. Longden Ave., Lot to the Southwest 2125 S. Third Ave., Lot Abutting Northeast Corner of Subject Property 2121 S. Third Ave., Additional Lot Abutting Northeast Corner of Subject Property CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -03 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive — Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Name: Nicholas Baldwin, Assistant Planner Phone: (626) 574 -5444 / Fax — (626) 447 -9173 Email: nbaldwin@ci.arcadia.ca.us 4. Project Location: 225 E. Longden Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: David Liu 302 E. Gladstone Street, San Dimas, CA 91773 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (4 -6 du /ac) 7. Zoning Classification: R -1, Second One Family (7,500 square -foot minimum lot size) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach necessary.) A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 25,236 square -foot lot into two, lots. File Nos.: TPM 11 -03 the project, and any additional sheet(s) if 12,618 square -foot 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The surrounding properties are developed with single- family dwellings. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None CEQA Checklist -1- 4 -03 File Nos.: TPM 11 -03 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Public Services [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Air Quality Geology / Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation / Traffic [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions ; or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature 6 -30 -11 Date Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner Printed Name & Title CEQA Checklist -2- 4 -03 File Nos.: TPM 11 -03 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or Tess than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. CEQA Checklist -3- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ El to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest cafbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ El Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non - agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ El Act contract? CEQA Checklist -4- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above impacts. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land ❑ ❑ ❑ El (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the Toss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ El e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ El their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. 3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ El established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ El quality plan? The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy. Conservation, and Waste Recycling. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CEQA Checklist -5- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ El concentrations? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ El 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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? There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? CEQA Checklist -6- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. The project will not conflict with that ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ El There are no known historical resources on or adjacent to the site. If previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction on the subject property, all work in the area would cease, and a qualified historian, archaeologist or paleontologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The City is fully- developed and is not known to contain any archaeological resources. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The City fully - developed and is not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halted should any remain be encountered; the County Coroner shall be contacted whose responsibility is to make the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project would not result in unacceptable impacts to human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: CEQA Checklist -7- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ El iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have significant impact or expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to any construction, soil studies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of the construction upon the soil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ ❑ ❑ El would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: CEQA Checklist -8- 4 -03 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation File No Less Th; Significar, Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The land use and The land use and The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for ❑ the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The project does not involve hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The nearest airport to the subject site is the El Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles away. The proposal would not contribute to any airport related safety hazards. 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? CEQA Checklist -9- 4 -03 ❑ ❑ ❑ File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There are no known private airstrips in the area. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ El h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ El that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ IE water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff 'from ❑ ❑ ❑ delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of ❑ ❑ ❑ receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non - contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; CEQA Checklist -10- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact and groundwater recharge. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the ❑ ❑ ❑ biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ El requirements? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). g) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 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)? El El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ El area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off - site'? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? CEQA Checklist ❑ ❑ ❑ El -11- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ in a manner that results in environmental harm? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). n) 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? A series of flood control channels within the city convey storm water to regional facilities to the south. Due to this system, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. The City of Arcadia was located within flood Zone X as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map Community Number 065014. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500 -year flood and protected by levee from 100 -year flood. Under this zone, no floodplain management regulations have been required. Therefore, the project will not have the above impact. o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ El death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the proposal will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? The subject property is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject property is on a relatively flat alluvial plain that is highly porous and is unlikely to generate mudflow. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -12- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 11. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ El would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Result in the Toss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 12. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The project is a tentative map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and will not significantly increase noise levels as the uses are to remain the same. The development of the site could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and will not significantly increase noise levels as the uses and activities are to remain the same, and do not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the CEQA Checklist -13- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Furthermore, the subject single - family dwellings are subject to the City's noise regulations. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and will not increase noise levels beyond those permitted by code requirements. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundborne noise levels during the construction phase of the project. However, the construction will be monitored to comply with noise and time limitations. The current limitation on construction hours is from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sunday. 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? The project is located approximately three miles from the El Monte Airport. The proposed subdivision is to replace one dwelling unit with two units. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ p project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no known private airstrips in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, there will not be any impact on the noise levels for people residing or working in the project area. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The new units will be served by existing infrastructure and would not have the above impact(s). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ 0 ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The one unit to be demolished will be replaced with two units. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ IZ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CEQA Checklist -14- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The one unit to be demolished will be replaced with two units. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ E ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ El ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The increase of one dwelling unit would not cause significant impacts to governmental facilities. 15. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? El El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: 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, CEQA Checklist -15- 4-03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact and mass transit? Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (I -210), regional arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The subject properties are bordered by a Modified One -Way Primary Arterial with 3 lanes in each direction. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a given street and the amount of traffic each street actually carries is expressed in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from level A (Free Flowing) to F ( "Jammed ). The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) 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? The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C z 0.02), causing LOS F (V /C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C 0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ El increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for' 'single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding ❑ ❑ ❑ El public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ El Regional Water Quality Control Board? CEQA Checklist -16- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. This board has established the Basin Plan which (1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (10 sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ El treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. 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? Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility, while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW). The City municipal storm drain facilities will be maintained and improved in conformance with the City of Arcadia Drainage System Technical Memorandum. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). CEQA Checklist ❑ D ❑ El -17- 4 -03 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, the subject proposal does "project" A `project" means any of the following: 1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. 3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. 4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. 5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. 6) A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. 7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan. The project was reviewed by the City's Public Works Services Department. They determined that the proposal will not increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? File No.: TI- Less Than Significant No Impact Imp not qualify as a ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the -above impact(s). g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? 0 El The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan. It will not violate any federal, state or local statutes and regulations relating to solid waste. This project is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife CEQA Checklist -1g- 4 -03 File No.: TPM 11 -03 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan. It does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment to a significant level and will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is located in a fully - developed area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental goals to the disadvantage of Tong -term environmental goals? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan, which is intended to achieve long -term goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single - family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The proposal is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two for single- family developments. The land use and density are consistent with the City's General Plan and would not have the above impact(s). ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -19- 4 -03 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that the public agency named below has completed an Initial Study of the following described project at the following location: Public Agency: City of Arcadia Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -03 Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or 225 E. Longden Avenue, between Second Avenue attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 and Third Avenue. 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): This Initial Study was completed in accordance with the Lead Agency's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the Lead Agency's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. ❑ The Project site IS on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project site IS NOT on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. ❑ The proposed project IS considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance. ■ The proposed project IS NOT considered a project of statewide, regional or areawide significance. ❑ The proposed project WILL affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. State ►1 The proposed project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Depailinent of Transportation. ❑ A scoping meeting WILL be held by the lead agency. A scoping meeting WILL NOT be held by the lead agency. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and are available for public review at the Lead Agency's office, located at: Lead Agency address: 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 Comments will be received until the following date: July 26, 2011 Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the Lead Agency prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested. The Lead Agency will consider the project and the Draft Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration at its meeting on: Date: July 26, 2011 ! Time: 7:00 p.m. If the Lead Agency finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This means that the Lead Agency may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Thomas Li Staff Associate Planner Title NOI to Adopt Neg. Dec., Mit. Neg. Dec. \2011 1 FORM "D"