Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: Ordinance 2291 and Resolution 6799 to Change Zoning of Property at 650 West Huntington Drive from Commericial to High Density Residential of A.4 • OAF so, 11110,111 Aqu[[S,If03 :tai.*, • 4tualtyofti STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: November 1, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 for 650 W. Huntington Drive: Resolution No. 6799 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive from "Commercial (0.5 FAR)11 to "High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac).f1 Recommended Action: Adopt Ordinance No. 2291— An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 to change the zoning of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive from "Commercial Office/C-O" to "High Density Multiple-Family Residential/R-3.11 Recommended Action: Introduce SUMMARY The subject site at 650 W. Huntington Drive is currently designated, "Commercial (0.5 FAR)11 by the General Plan and zoned, "Commercial Office/C-O." The current General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map are attached along with an aerial photo of the subject site. Also attached are photos of the subject site and adjacent properties. The site is 1.7 acres (74,052 square feet) in area with approximately 135 feet of street frontage along the south side of West Huntington Drive. It is presently improved with a 17,920 square-foot, two-story commercial building and 140 on-site, surface parking spaces that were originally used by an insurance company as an automobile claims facility. The applicant, Mr. Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Jeff Lee, has been exploring alternatives to make better use of the site. In 2006, a 76-unit senior housing project was approved, but due to the recession the owner abandoned the project. In April 2011, the applicant received approvals from the Planning Commission to expand the existing office building to 25,105 square feet and to subdivide it into medical office condominiums. This project is not getting the desired market response, and the applicant and owner have decided that multiple-family residential is the best use of this site. To effectuate this, the applicant is requesting to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from "Commercial (0.5 FAR)" to "High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac)" and re-zone the property from "Commercial Office/ C-O" to "High Density Multiple-Family Residential/R-3." At this time, the owner has not prepared a development proposal for the property; however, he has indicated that he would probably develop the site at the lower range of the allowed density. The applicant has said that the owner would like to know that the subject site can be developed residentially before incurring further engineering and architectural expenses. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and the Planning Commission, at their September 13, 2011 meeting, considered the proposed applications at a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend approval. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation of the subject site from Commercial with a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.5 to High Density Residential with a density of 12 to 30 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 33 to 51 units) and a Zone Change to re-zone the property from Commercial Office (C-O) to High Density Multiple-Family Residential (R-3). According to the applicant, the owner prefers to develop the property with residential units. He has had good experience with many prior residential developments, and the residential condominium market appears to be rebounding. The owner also feels that the site is a desirable residential location because of its proximity to the mall, Baldwin Avenue, Methodist Hospital, the County Park, and Arcadia High School. The key issues in analyzing the requested changes of the Land Use Designation and Zoning are consistency with the General Plan, and land use compatibility. General Plan Consistency The Arcadia General Plan has established goals and policies for a land use planning framework based on the land use pattern that has evolved over time, and a "vision" for the City's future growth and development. The requested General Plan Amendment is consistent with all aspects of the General Plan. Particularly relevant Elements for this request are the Land Use and Community Design Element, the Circulation and Infrastructure Element, the Housing Element, and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element. The Land Use and Community Design Element goals promote balanced growth and development with maintenance of the high quality of life for Arcadia residents. This is to G PA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Dr. November 1, 2011 — page 2 be achieved by paying special attention to preserving the established character of residential neighborhoods and providing a diverse set of housing options that will meet the community's needs at all stages of life. The subject site is adjacent to multiple-family residential developments on the east and south sides of the lot, so the requested change would be a natural extension of the existing neighborhood. Circulation and Infrastructure Element The Circulation component of the General Plan aims to maintain an integrated circulation system that will meet the current and future needs of all Arcadia residents, businesses, and visitors. The City's infrastructure systems (water, sewer, waste management, etc.) must also remain sustainable and environmentally sound in order to support an appropriate level of development. The General Plan establishes a balanced mix of land uses that will promote economic growth and maintain a high quality of life. The subject site fronts on Huntington Drive, which is designated a Principal Travel Corridor and has eight (8) lanes of travel; four(4) in each direction that are separated by a wide, landscaped median. This section of Huntington Drive can accommodate the potential traffic that would be generated by the requested land use change, which would allow a maximum of 51 units. It was determined for two prior development proposals; a 25,105 square-foot medical office condominium, and a 76-unit senior housing complex that Huntington Drive is adequate for the potential traffic that would have been generated by either of those uses. According to the City Engineer, and based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the following table shows that a residential development at a density of 30 dwellings per acre would generate in the peak hour less traffic than the recently approved medical office use of the site: Uses - Vehicle Trips in the PM Peak Hour General Office (0.5 FAR) 37,026 s.f. 56 Multi-Family Residential Minimum 33 Units 34 Maximum 51 Units 52 Medical Offices —25,105 s.f. (CUP 10-19 &TM 71478) 69 This request has been reviewed by the Public Works Services Department and their determination is that it will not have a significant impact on water, sewer, storm drain services, or on the nearby public landscaping features. The County Sanitation District (sewers) indicates adequate capacity for a 51-unit, multiple-family development; however, the applicant will have to obtain a "Will Serve Letter" prior to proceeding. GPA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Dr. November 1, 2011 —page 3 Requests for comment were also sent to Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas, but responses were not provided. For both of these utility services, the applicant will have to secure service commitments before being allowed to proceed. The Arcadia Police and Fire Departments also reviewed these applications and both stated that there would be no significant impact and that no unusual requirements are necessary. Housing Element The goals and policies of the Housing Element are to provide a diverse mix of housing, encourage housing on underutilized land, and to provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The applicant's request will provide additional residential units on an underutilized site. Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Element There is not a national or State standard for the amount of parkland or open space to be provided per capita. This is because regionally, the availability of natural open space varies from extensive to very limited. As for the effects of a 51-unit, multiple-family residential project on the City's parks, recreation and open space opportunities, they would be marginal. Since the adoption of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2007 there has been little change in the estimated 105 square feet per capita of parks and open space for Arcadia residents. This is due to the limited population growth during that period. And, in addition, there would be a parks and recreation development fee collected to offset impacts to the City's facilities. A response was not received from the Arcadia Unified School District. But, even if an exceptionally large number of additional students (e.g., 3 per unit) were to be added to the District by a 51-unit, multiple-family project, there should not be a negative impact on any of the affected schools (i.e., Holly Avenue Elementary, First Avenue Middle, and Arcadia High Schools). The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2010 General Plan states that based on enrollment figures for 2008, ". . . there is remaining capacity in all schools and approximately 1,404 more students can be accommodated by existing facilities" (p. 4.13-8) and per State regulations, the development fees paid to a school district are presumed to fully mitigate a project's impact on local schools (p. 4.13-22). The impact on Library services is difficult to assess because there are no specific standards established. Los Angeles County has service level guidelines, but these are based on the County-wide library system, and its applicability to the Arcadia Public Library is unclear. Nevertheless, based on the County's guidelines of a half square-foot of library facility space per person, 2.75 library items per person, and 1 public access computer per 1,000 people, the Arcadia Public Library should not be significantly impacted by a 51-unit, multiple-family residential project. The Arcadia Public Library far exceeds the County's guidelines. G PA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Dr. November 1, 2011 —page 4 Land Use Compatibility If the requested R-3, High Density Multiple-Family Residential designation and zoning are approved, the 74,052 square-foot site could be developed with 33 to 51 units. A main issue with the requested change is the compatibility of a high density multiple- family residential development with the existing and potential future land uses of the surrounding sites and area. The adjacent sites have the following Land Use Designations, Zoning, and improvements: North: Regional Commercial (0.5 FAR) & Public/Institutional — General Commercial (C-2) & Public Purpose (S-2) — Regional Mall and City Fire Station South: High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac) — High Density Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) — A 10-unit and an 18-unit residential apartment/ condominium complexes East: High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac) — High Density Multiple-Family Residential (R-3)—A 30-unit residential condominium complex West: Commercial (0.5 FAR) — Commercial (C-2) —A Realty Office, Restaurants, and Retail Given these surrounding land uses, and the transitional nature of the subject site, the requested change is compatible with the area. The property is appropriate for both commercial use and high density residential. If the requested change to the General Plan Land Use Designation is approved, then the property must be rezoned to R-3, High Density Multiple-Family Residential to maintain consistency with the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission, at their September 13, 2011 meeting, considered the requested Land Use Designation and Zone Change at a public hearing. The three attached letters of opposition were distributed to the Commissioners prior to the hearing. After the hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. An excerpt of the Minutes for the September 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting is attached. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. G PA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Dr. November 1, 2011 —page 5 FISCAL IMPACT The requested land use change will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 of the property at 650 W. Huntington Drive by taking the following actions: • Adopt Resolution No. 6799 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 to change the Land Use Designation of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive from "Commercial (0.5 FAR)" to "High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac)" and • Introduce Ordinance No. 2291 — An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 to change the zoning of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive from "Commercial Office/C-O" to "High Density Multiple-Family Residential/R-3." Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 6799 Ordinance No. 2291 General Plan Land Use Map Zoning Map Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of the Site and Adjacent Properties Letters of opposition (3) presented to Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from 9-13-2011 Planning Commission meeting Negative Declaration (& Initial Study) GPA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Dr. November 1, 2011 —page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 6799 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 11-02 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 650 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM "COMMERCIAL (0.5 FAR)" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (12-30 DU/AC)" WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 was initiated by the applicant Mr. Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Jeff Lee to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from "Commercial (0.5 FAR)" to "High Density Residential (12-30 du/ac)" of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive, more particularly described as follows: Lots 4 and 5 of Tract No. 2828, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 33 Page 63 of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said County. Except therefrom the most Northerly 15 feet as granted to the City of Arcadia by deed recorded March 22, 1926 in Book 5808 Page 295, Official Records. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment and, accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 and the draft Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered the following: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council, including the Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration; and 2. The decision and record of the Planning Commission's September 13, 2011 public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02, along with all information and testimony presented at the Planning Commission's public hearing; and 3. All information and testimony presented at the City Council's public hearing on November 1, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such area or vicinity because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02, and the Amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan. SECTION 3. That the evaluation of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 as set forth in the Initial Study is accurate and appropriate; that the Amendment will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the Amendment will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends; and therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration that has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves. General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from "Commercial" to "High Density Residential" for 650 West Huntington Drive, more particularly described previously herein. -2- SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2011. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: etifitt., P. 4b1,10 .4 Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- ORDINANCE NO. 2291 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 11-01 TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT 650 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM "COMMERCIAL OFFICE/C-O" TO "HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/R-3" WHEREAS, Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 was initiated by the applicant Mr. Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Jeff Lee to change the zoning of the property at 650 West Huntington Drive, more particularly described in Attachment "A" from "Commercial OfFce/C-O" to "High Density Multiple- Family Residential/R-3"; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on Zone Change No. ZC 11-01, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on Zone Change No. ZC 11-01; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of the City Council's public hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered the following: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council; 2. The record of the Planning Commission's public hearing and decision regarding Zone Change No. ZC 11-01; and 3. All letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing on November 1, 2011, including the staff reports, environmental documents (including the Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration), and all documentation presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. That the approval of Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject property as herein described, and is compatible with the zoning of the surrounding properties. 3. That the evaluation of Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 as set forth in the Initial Study is accurate and appropriate; that Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 will have any potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends; and therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration that has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council approves Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 to change the zoning of the subject property as previously herein described from "Commercial Office/C-O" to "High Density Multiple-Family Residential/R-3." SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of the City of Arcadia within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] -2- Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2011. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: StA1214,AA P. geAgl-cal Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -3- Attachment "A" 650 West Huntington Drive All that certain real property situated in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: Lots 4 and 5 of Tract No. 2828, in the City of Arcadia, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 33 Page 63 of Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said County. Except therefrom the most Northerly 15 feet as granted to the City of Arcadia by deed recorded March 22, 1926 in Book 5808 Page 295, Official Records. Attachment "A" -4- Jt Sierra Madre • } , . ._..._.. \.law lilt �. ►T i�e.�l `' Monrovia �� �r:��i1�i�, N ,\. Y do � Pasadena � rphiromiim �\ /"ii Fi , i ir-r-t-ii ..„,1 1:11"ipr miiihiliAmaik alp II or" Nit. _y�s__I 1 ___Yla�ct,—71.1"11101-01,,M, �;�,�t t_1_ . . , 1,/;i 1 €< 1 a'/ 1 ,.. �I,I Y�i x I �v _ ,f x asp=.il i> f _ �.�\ Mande BIM 10 1111 , \ „,„:,; - Ismi � � �'��� -�.-- ,�. \ii 22 al :1111adfrii,"!.1111 ill I1I ; � ,s ___ '1 � 1 r II J �� :=11111-1E- I_ lump s, . 1�r— �1 :l 1 i I Los An el/. 1 ---1--A,......."... ni.,,,,mcmcil it I t icirmshil......ti.....c. Pi -eit' i 1 ,-T-,b...... J . _ _ �'' wr•Y '�{`� Imo'_ I''1'''1111111V11�ggS �- 1 � t"7� 3:7— , �7//,, `Y / Irwindale i \ 0 • IUPI!!i'.- X1111 . A �� �ll :w I -- — 0 14.111111110MI i \ ,,.I''" 7,r.,.....Mapped by:Hope-Palmed Inc-,2010. 4wrkup 8C illi // Data Sources:City Maratha,2008. j� ``-": EI Monte +*/ ® 0 t000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet /.'`, l / Land Use Designations Residential Estate(up to 2 du/ac) Commercial/Light industrial(0.5 FAR) Mixed Use Notes: Very Low Density Residential(2-4 du/ac) Industrial(0.5 FAR) -Mixed Use FAR Is for non-residential uses. Low Density Residential(4-6 du/ac) Public/Institutional -Mixed Use designations requires the inclusion •,,; Medium Density Residential(6-12 du/ac) ;_ Open Space-Outdoor Recreation of a ground-floor,street frontage commercial High Density Residential(12-30 du/ac) Open Space-Resources Protection component for all projects.Commerial uses Commercial(0.5 FAR) =?:^ Rail Right-of-Way are allowed.Stand alone residential uses are Regional Commercial(0.5 FAR) %//�///Downtown Overlay(1.0 FAR) not allowed. Horse Racing =Z.;Santa Anita Commercial(0.3 FAR) Mixed Use(22-30 du/ac&1.0 FAR) .�.• City Boundary Downtown Mixed Use(30-50 du/ac&1.0 FAR) ��Sphere of Influence FIGURE LU-4:LAND USE POLICY MAP 2.8 I LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN-NOVEMBER 2010 A N G E L E S ,t*A' •I A T - A L<-� Zones :Z 4; _ Zoning Map \`\ _ l\ F O R E S T Residential Mountainous Single Family(R-M) �`, -J„ �„ �,• First One-Family(R-0) '�-` / Minimum Lot She ''''Gs. �-��rV� �_'^^�^r■ s�,Ma�•aq t� "I(30,000 SF) I ..:':.d Its,000 SF) _'°+1• �? ,,,� , (22,000 SF) (12,500 SF) r ' : '���+?� ; ` Second One Family(R-1) k ---'-' Minimum Lot sire ,C3 Cat 1 1 / P I(15,000 SF) [ J(10,000 SF) J — L. �� {�� .; (12,500 SF) l (7,900 SF) i �I I �- ` _ ,.,e,:., -i� , Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential(R-2) �f 1 ' ` —High Density Multiple-Family Residential(R-3) ....= 11111,-.3.....41- �i� y ��� _Restricted Multiple-Family Residential(R-3-R) ' LLLJJJIIIJJJ r — ., I ! _r x.., Commercial OfFlrx(C-0) -o ag__ \l l 41a1 I �. _:J Limited Commercial(C-1) '--l«aa�mum"■',s�i♦ \" 1 1 j ... _General om ercial(C-2) �flI�� 'Mil I-Ia IMF ,�.�� a fdui r I; ") Central Business District(CBD) �I lE _1 I= ,. ',120`}'- I /' ', MONROVIA �Commercial s(S-1)Planned Development(CPD-1) �o�Z-.J n� ir,1_ . 4� ,N Mixed Uses U) j� [1=1� ID I I =..= r I ) 1 I: �� ,.- ����N Mixed Use(MU) ►J—J�—� -s.-;,..,s1,_-1 IJ .g,ter s; y-- 7, A Downtown Mixed Use(DMU) -�r I II II II I I{ a ' / r`i? ''1- Commercial Manufacturing(C-M) C�+_. �=IBM.— I 'SI�Ik4k @F€tEIRSaem kw..t.:eill /� flaeM .seeee%.." 1YBIai1, i ,1* EIiRb --1idiii g€I€€it Airi \ /, Planned Industrial District(M-1) ��i P 5����Bk\®9�ag �gl f r/�� �w°�„a" ca �STkN,- f11i� tt In e.�;�r Public Purpose(S-2) ��_ ea.- 11 it 1 ..�� otiii )))tlslleaetinotasL :, •. I�.5 .016,„,;(,,,,,•7,\s,,\eux v ,u��i1e� ' �Luuseud' � "` open space Jos) mcka""f raalfYl VIti (, i5 �\ iJ 'rs € � ��i aas � , ��k�YielJiiil� �r+""\ \ i'a L 1 Rail Right-of-Way(R-R) ____// I i9i sR[fltR Apr nI� \�... \3v @66Pr1411[Rtml. rp Tp €ri �_ IIPIIiill t , . overlay IltalgiPt€i °TVili Ie r r s rr 1 uu ni I■n•L I 'I •I 1 H•-X- SpeGal Height Overlay(H) . ? p-1 I I 1 1,1 1 I �r.91:b) i( P,1 I �, _ - .�I '1 E The number adjacent to the"I1"indicates -_-...�'�iT ec If 'fi t T t uv "i =., the maximum n mbar of stones allowed• ,.�„�� I �) I ('rr{ j 1 ,r II ' i !-1 �� 1 I D Architectural Design Overlay(D) I( 01 I� I -_ I ��I \ . l 1• io _'',,. \ 7i-_I I i �— ®� 1 P (Automobile Parking Overlay(F) ''11111111•x_ �_. \{,��� IV 'Ire"n \ I'a - I- 1 '� _� EMI Downtown Overlay IIN o rte: 1 :/` ; �� Ind Base Map Features tr '"'"I"'i %,A .f1A�ll p —. �� l ,:_,�---�,—• {—� , I .•—ArcadlaCity Boundary IN�� l / / --I_ 5371 i Assessor Map Book Grid Ile IMO - � jl I� The Grid identifies detailed zoning map sheets N J 4 t k Park/School/Golf Course • IH f F.: ;.',",:\, / y / - 11 I'---j- I- ~`� _ Other public facilities are identified on the map with a label. t� 1-_/ t II,i i Abbreviations are as follow:Elememrary School(ES), /`/ I �� Middle School .-ollwHigh School ratio,and \ aril / ` Fire Station(FS.•followed by the station number). �FA I i �1J L c, - „i ,,a-1 It 'ilD N n-1 ! 1 ills}" �� 9 \ �u '� U� al(III_1 I�—■ ��- " 011 ' 4 _ �' I , Q LLL €11 ��� _ =mill-- D0 0 ,MI �— l -' r 0,„.„„„„,: l 111, .1�(�1 4 . . (III€ 111 uununll .. ) I �i � I cur_ I \\. uih rt1 ivai.ti1111R11) I I i F I I _ I _ 61 Cif �Oo • ..... Ii I I!-, illy ' ' , It I „,,,,,;...u,fil Ifi !1) -!dl IIY I r I 1rtr _ a u r ml t3ltt) r ar ul l 1��� _ 1 Itil I eltet7 i3ir mr nue 1 lr i I I I.4 n u II I I. �__I�i��� D� to i---` I .� II r,...i a a,srl z ' I IIIIb I PP i i 1 I III ��� ��� 1 rat , 11 .� iZlbl if:114Sy 1i a 1 __ �� �� ❑ 11 T_IBOIIIIni......111 €ItI ixl,-..,%,,, Ilnill I _ I.:,.:II+�� I .r�:= D� 1 11€�dli 1- ni uu 1 D �a i r � ninnuulu I i l 1 �9 .fi uuil umll I huuu u w i€w €€a iYwe°1�taii In i!r ui munwu real .. l L (I .------- E I 1 . 1„,......IIIFIL 1 1 i}s 0 Iisi ... ' -0\1 ■ 1 ,14i14llllill I l r 1 . F !S 1 1111 IIIIPIIIIIIIIII 1 Y stlilb\'2u,iii u. h1 t Isalilt,.....11ttib(1 Ilitl 1 mulitiuuul i 1),____,• o r ,i F t 11R trtr.,... €1,, I I i._�_oato �� _,1 „t_ (S1et161ittilfl el IRI1111nt1 '.7.±'2_,'"f!:--T.: ❑ �+ L€ilpl.t.S €ttlsl auunnuh €- Ilnlnigull 1 i 1 - ��nil Illiii0Oi11+19 1 1 ��� l nIi �o�hlNille€1ISHtlu I I I I I 1 I 11 I_ � lhf u n 1 J ilin I �( uli °°°o° °°c °I ',z,-,,_.,4=={ I I J aao� ® nail i� e y ""\ ' I I ,'`\ '� �_— ��__ ��®® I _l. 1.J.�, l`��" I�� I R W I N D A L E ��u WWW��� a•, nBltl :1,-., _+1 I �=1111('' jy i:� IIooa000°°� gt ro ��o 1. or �� 1.K ---„/ rl ___-----\11111r• C=er----\ 0 :11°..\----\ , . , , City of Arcadia Zoning Map � gr„,..,,,, Q„_,,,—,-Lr —i\----3\ --'11-°1, � 0 0 Ordinance Number:2274 IS—‘1111frA -� �' Adopted Date:December 7,2010 �a O Effective Date:January 9,2011 D N/ 11 ::9,[5\ 7•QZ-Tq--•�� �y w Mapped by:Hogle-Ireland Inc. 1,� ,( :i� '- fData Sources:City of Arcadia,2010. ��U � U / Miles ���������� 7 / 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 t: C-2 I ,1:-,1inr111 ci 1 ,, I, ;1 x..111111`" V'.'..iI1 '1)( 1 `;I f ■ 111I,i 1 a .♦ IQ .1 r 1 C-2 2 _ "° iM � :.b w ; ' C-2 - C—O—D R-3 .. - "01-.,. '[ Subject F ',�.n. 1 `� Property >& 4. ,. +" C-2 R-3 R-3 N -- u ■ 1 ,i : III',, . , ,, ii r H....1 t _ r !C1 1 Gcogl "l'> 7segvr (IP2C 1 1�DrgrtaI A:be USDA farm Service Acency, =eoEye,'U '7-'3:I c�Ical Sur- y, !lap Bata 1•I_C 11 ;1) b_ -Terms ii! Pw,111.1)-cli.g., ii 650 W. Huntington Dr. • . .. . •0�o � � GPA 11 -02 and 11 -01 d ZC 11 01 ' Subject Property,650 W. Huntington Dr.,View from Across the Huntington Dr. 44', t,kir l 9 S,+ • sok yA' r 1 rta• ��f CI g Subject Property,650 W. Huntington Dr.,View from Front Parking Lot N ,Y ' tip : .: . f. r .!-ate Ley y ' r . Subject Property,650 W. Huntington Dr.,View of Rear Parking Lot yaw ,. a t+ 1 «- ',f'+ of san z' , 1 I l i I " _:i c ... * �, `�$ ..._. �� �'s t � '�' �%`. � `` a��� ,�, r b k fN� Subject Property,650 W. Huntington Dr.,View of Rear Parking Lot V ,y; ,',*1, 1. '1 ,1.y*Q .. ,f�Fl f, • 1-44 ii„ikf' . .ow. �, gi:-4 9Yn e�i 4; '''''""r., x ter...Sh `i � :' it .�+..1, fix ' ., 634 W. Huntington Dr.,View from Across the Huntington Dr. . iJ. ! $d ,^i 4- Z' 'x a ,..••4,-;,:.:_.. . r: • . ; -is a • �J s>t 4' {G Subject Property,650 W. Huntington Dr.,View of Rear Parkin g Lot air' r 4."Y y`.N':<.. .. - i t litAkill 10 _ r 660 W. Huntington Dr. and 820 S. Baldwin Ave.,Subject Property in Background C '''- '' Alif.04(4.i iii, loge _ F„,..,...,,.:. , ,, * f s S• • h x+ti,r I wya 820 S. Baldwin Ave.,Subject Property in Background 11,%'0I '' ..,.. - r';,,i tfrr i i 4 " ' ''' r4 )4;1 I I lif' ' 11 Ilfi k „ , . - • 1 Iii .. , 1 „Iiitif 1 / \. . ,.. .., .9., ..:,1„.i _-.--r''--", ' ' '' -,'' I.. . + ,i i y. ` it ' )' _ R'— 7-- — .- — tto s�6,f ' 4. 4t" *r y .3 £ ^^w a k} ' ,y i •.e $ .. ref fl gif. .n 1: s i 3 y :� :3' '� ","4 �s,}'.. 834 S. Baldwin Av.,Southwest of Subject Property �.. ' �,,K:� kaa= 4,s . «� f h. lit \ {{ (. 6 fiP k { •y i;,..; ,, ,,, .�. i J i. i . , ,r L r, YlktPvillilli ip ilVI. ,..., — : 1 ammerrius , 4,.. 850 S. Baldwin Av.,Southwest of Subject Property 09/12/2011 10:29 6268211514 EXEC OFF PAGE 02/03 Molly M. Robbins RECEIVED 642 West Huntington Drive, # 0 Arcadia, California 91007 September 12, 2011 S E P 3. 2 nil l Planning Services Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive City of Arcadia Arcadia,California 91007 To whom it may concern: I received a Notice of a Public Rearing Before the Arcadia Planning Commission and Notice of intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration in the mail on Thursday, September 8,and found it when I got home from work at 6:00 p.m. It stated that there will be a public hearing on the request to change the land use designation from commercial to residential and a request to change the zone from C-O to R-3 for the property at 650 West Huntington Drive. The document also states that any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed project and environmental document that may be legally challenged may be limited to only the issues and objections raised at or prior to the hearing. I have an appointment on Tuesday night at 5:30 p.m.that has been scheduled for over a month which prevents me from attending the hearing. I object to the fact that there was not more advance notice about this hearing so that I could make other arrangements and reschedule the appointment in a timely manner. The notice says that the application plans and the environmental document are available for public review at the Planning Services office but Arcadia City Hall is closed on Friday, September 9, so that leaves one day to view the plan and document,figure out if one has any objections,write any comments and get them delivered to meet the aforementioned deadlines. I object! This issue came up several years ago when the owner of the property wanted to change the zoning so condos could be built. I don't remember what all of the issues were at the time but they were sufficient to convince the powers that be not to grant the request and I don't know what has changed since then that warrants reconsideration. Parking was one of the issues that I distinctly remember was a problem.when the request to re-zone was made the last time. There was not enough room on the property to meet the City's legal requirements for parking spaces and the owner wanted an exception. made for his project. I personally measured the curbs in the neighborhood to ascertain whether or not there was sufficient space and determined that there was not and had the numbers to prove it. 09/12/2011 10:29 6268211514 EXEC OFF PAGE 03/03 Planning Services Page Two September 12,2011 There are already too many condonainium/townhouse buildings on that block of Huntington Drive without enough parking spaces to add another one and further exacerbate the problem. The street parking situation on Baldwin Avenue between. Huntington Drive and Fairview Avenue is as bad or worse and if I were the owners of the Caldwell Banker property,I would be objecting quite forcefully to this plan because their parking lot will be inundated. Why does the City write laws and pass regulations only to have them ignored or re-written or to be asked to make exceptions all of the tune? The owner of this property wants to make money and is entitled to make money. The property was purchased with commercial zoning and that was the condition that existed when the decision to buy was made. I guess the existing structure didn't prove to be profitable enough or perhaps the original plan was to get the zoning changed. After a few years,an attempt was made to re-zone the property to R-3 but it failed. After more time the owner submitted a plan for a senior residential complex that was approved,as far as I know. However,nothing was ever done with that project and now it's back to the R-3 attempt. As far as I am concerned,the owner needs to start exploring his commercial options and forget his residential dreams. The City doesn't need to forsake its laws,rules and regulations or compound its problems to accommodate this application and I,as a neighbor and tax paying resident of Arcadia,object to having to address this issue again. Sincerely, Molly M.Robbins Owner 09/12/2011 10:33 6268211514 • •,, .-- EXEC OFF 'L L''''‘'''# "fszt- e2,02 - ...„-, SEP 1 2 2C1 1 Planning Services : ' ---E.4. 'L-- St• SL&eit-,' ht,,(A City of Arcadia • 63K (A,1 t. cid? (9‘27. ee,r,:,,,, ,...,- . . 6--1'19 //-o2, • zc /i-o/ Cyree-cit4-. ,4 67--et4AA._ cdA-7A-r- ((A, 4 -i/t/Yz: Cl- p÷. aA/ 1 tte---1' y. Ako,,,,,L, tK,b 161-e470/ gt- (Aiz,. ii-0 (At 4,41 -6146-i . leA09:z-& 74---. . , . ' ''.°4 1/24AL 11(15() Ift;93t , / r7‘-t /0),6•L A/13t 7, /1 fa.('-ii 0 4 A-' -11/LePritY ' ti--L. 64,. ,...a,,,,ztei 77.:., „.,..,cte,, ,, iv . ,f ,, _. ,,,,,. . , . adwir 6 .. 0 ( , azz.,e_e56c4- iaIl--"ft•-t--. ..i -7, 4 71/t/c.0 71,e, /9-11/tAA-t , , ) • ,. , . -- .leetoe‘,.t-Ci a/4,1 .y1/46,e ae - / 100g---d"A■6V6i.A01,-041 11 it ) ( V- -1,.. .---- 3'/74,"- - frilk.e6-1 Sep-12-11 05:03P Downhower • RECEIVED September 11,2011 S E P f 3 Planning Commission ilrrrpic� Service s City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive City of Arcadia Arcadia,CA 91007 Dear Planning Commissioners Baerg, B.aderian, Chiao,Beranek,and Parrille, I am writing in regards to applications (.GPA 11-02 and 7.0 11-01,both of which are repeat requests by the owner of 650 West Huntington Drive to change that property's zoning. I will not be able to attend your September 13th meeting due to a prior business commitment. But,I would like to once again register my objections to the proposed zoning changes. This same application was submitted approximately 6 years ago. My concerns and objections to such a zoning change have not altered. First, in the area between Baldwin and La Cadena,Huntington Drive is already crowded with 250 residential units. Despite that density,there are only a handful of on-street parking places. Those must be shared between residents who have more cars than garage spaces and any guests who come to visit. Needless to say,there is nev r enough street parking. Adding residential units would only increase the demand for,and the scarcity of, public parking. Second,our corner of the block has experienced multiple major power outages this past year. The last outage occurred at the end of August and lasted 12 hours. 650 West Huntington is in the same power grid area as my property (634 West Huntington). Adding additional residcptiai power drains will only increase the possibility of long outages. A commercial property does require power resources too,but its 9 to 5 demand is not the same as the 24 hour demand residential units create. When a zoning change was previously requested,the City Council voted to keep the zoning C-0. The property's owner, Scott Yang, had purchased it with the knowledge of its commercial zoning. At that time of their decision,the Council told Mr. Yang the commercial zoning would still allow him to either develop the property as commercial offices or as senior housing. To date,neither development/improvement has been attempted on the site,which is a shame. 1 know that earlier this year Mr. Yang had been interested in improving the property for use as medical offices/condos. I was in favor of such an improvement and assumed it would go ahead. Unfortunately,one of my neighbors spread fears in our complex regarding medical waste dumping and possible parking issues (some residents currently "borrow"parking spots at 650 West Huntington if they can't find street parking). Unfortunately,those rumors led to a petition which seems to have influenced Mr. Yang to abandon the medical offices/condos idea. Sep-12-11 05:03P Downhower P.03 It is my hope that rather than rather than changing the our zoning your West commission Huntington and further crowding an already densely populated area city, encourage Mr. Yang to continue to pursue the plans he put forth earlier this year for medical office development. Such a development would be an asset at our the goner community. It would provide medical services in a location near Methodist s P traffic and the electrical demands would mM��on an already crawdedoand busy than 24/7,which would mean a much s p neighborhood. Thank you, tutick J. Downhower 634 W. Huntington 17r. #8 Arcadia,CA 91007 PS-I have been referring to Mr. Yang even though the application before you shows the applicant as Hank Jong. Mr. Yang, dba Nevis Homes,purchased 650 West Huntington in 2004. 1 did not find a record of any subsequent sale of the property. I am assuming Mr. Yang is still the owner since he applied for the parking modification in April of this year. If Mr.Yang is still indeed the owner,is he allowed to pursue a re-zoning again even though his same request was previously denied? itozy . MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION r �a Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 7:00 P.M. \`�a.` Arcadia City Council Chambers - EXCERPT- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 11-02 AND ZONE CHANGE NO.ZC 11-01 650 W. Huntington Drive Hank Jong The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Commercial to Residential and a Zone Change to change the Zone from Commercial- Office (C-O)to High Density Multi-Family Residential (R-3). RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Approval Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin, presented the staff report. Commissioner Baderian noted that the staff report indicated, based on the acreage, 30 to 52 units could be built on the site and he asked if a condition could be added to limit that to 30 units. Ms. Flores explained that R-3 minimum and maximum density standards are already defined in the zoning regulations. Commissioner Baderian asked if a traffic study had been completed using the maximum number of units, i.e, 51, as a basis. Mr. Baldwin explained that since the project data had not yet been submitted, no parking study had been done. However, he added, preliminary drawings show that using 34 units as a basis, the project meets parking requirements. Ms. Flores pointed out that, at this point, the Commission is only charged with analyzing the change of use and the project will be presented for design review at a later date. She added that the City Engineer, Mr. Wray is available to answer questions regarding parking and traffic. Commissioner Chiao asked if the Commission will be able to impose conditions on the number of units at this point rather than waiting until the design review is presented. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that if the Commissioners feel that a certain number of units would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, they can impose limits in the design review phase. He explained that at this time, only the zone change is under consideration but that the project will come back before the Commission at a later date allowing the Commissioners an opportunity to consider conditions. He added that once the Planning Commission has reviewed the project, it will be presented to the City Council for further review. Commissioner Parrille asked if this zone change and eventual residential housing project would apply to State housing requirements. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that it would contribute toward Regional Housing Needs Assesment (RHNA) requirements but not to affordable housing requirements. Commissioner Chiao asked why the zone change had been denied in the past. Mr. Baldwin explained that when the project was originally presented to the City Council it was tabled and eventually the applicant withdrew the application so, in essence, it was neither approved nor denied. Commissioner Chiao asked if there were other projects that would satisfy the existing zoning at this site. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that the site is currently zoned for commercial/office use and during this recessionary period these areas have struggled. He said the applicant feels that the zone change would more easily attract tenants for the project. Commissioner Chiao said that in 2006 there were 76 senior citizen housing units approved under Conditional Use Permits and he asked if there are other areas of the city that would encourage senior housing. Mr. Kruckeberg said that all Commercial zones allow senior housing at even higher density than what is being proposed for this project but currently, there are no senior housing projects pending. Commissioner Parrille asked if the proposed zone change would create problems for the school district. Mr. Kruckeberg said that although no problems are anticipated, the school district will be notified of the project and they will provide a formal response. The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Baerg asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Hank Jong, the applicant, represented the owner, Mr. Jeff Lee. He said that they had reviewed all the conditions and will comply. He offered to answer the Commissioners' questions. Mr. Scott Yang, part owner of the project, said that the property was zoned for Commercial use when it was purchased but in the General Plan it was designated as R-3, so they were given a choice. At that time, the applicant determined that Commercial zoning would be most profitable but now, the changing market calls for residential projects. Chairman Baerg asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Chiao to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. Commissioner Baderian pointed out that a medical use would generate more traffic in the daytime, Monday through Friday, and a residential use would generate more traffic on evenings, weekends and holidays. He expressed concern about the impact to on-street parking but felt he could support the zone change as long as the Commission would have an opportunity to review the project in the design review phase. Commissioner Chiao said he is troubled by the many variables that cannot be addressed before approving the zone change. EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES GPA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W.Huntington Dr. 9-13-11 —Page 2 Commissioner Baderian agreed but added that the zone change falls in line with the recently adopted General Plan. However, he asked: do we approve the zone change tonight and have the opportunity to review the project at a later date or deny the zone change and leave the use as it is? Commissioner Chiao said that he would prefer to know more about the proposed project and the potential impacts on schools and parking before making a determination on the proposed zone change. Chairman Baerg pointed out that the applicant might be reluctant to make the significant investment required to develop the project to the approval stage without knowing for certain that the zone change would be approved. Commissioner Beranek noted that the Commission's recommendation and concerns will be forwarded to the City Council for a determination and the Planning Commission will have another opportunity for review of the project later. Commissioner Parrille said he supports the proposed zone change because it appears to be compatible with the type of use west of Baldwin Avenue. He added that the Commission will have to closely review the future plans for parking and traffic associated with the project during the design review phase. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 11-02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Beranek, Chiao, Parrille and Baerg NOES: None EXCERPT FROM PC MINUTES GPA 11-02 & ZC 11-01 650 W.Huntington Dr. 9-13-11—Page 3 wear a CITY OF ARCADIA vi tie 240 W.HUNTINGTON DRIVE t'1 ARCADIA,CA 91007 \a e mr NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name or description of project: General Plan Amendment No. GP 11-02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11-01 2. Project Location—Identify street 650 W.Huntington Drive address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site(preferably a USGS 15'or 7 1/2'topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: A. B. Other(Private) Hank Jong,EGL Associates, Inc. (1) Name: 11819 Goldring Road,Unit A (2) Address: Arcadia,CA 91006 The Lead Agency, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Lead Agency, including the recommendation of the Lead Agency's Staff,does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Lead Agency's findings are as follows: The Lead Agency hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia,Planning Services,240 W.Huntington Drive,Arcadia,CA 91007 Phone No.: 626-574-5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Lead Agency based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia,Planning Services,240 W. Huntington Drive,Arcadia,CA 91007 Phone No.: 626-574-5423 Date Received G � G` for Filing: Thomas Li,Associate Planner Staff Negative Declaration\2011 FORM"E" File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 M� 1 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE \�3i ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. GP 11-02 and Zone Change No. ZC 11-01. 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: Thomas Li, Associate Planner Phone:(626) 574-5447/Fax— (626) 447-9173 Email: tli@ci.arcadia.ca.us 4. Project Location: 650 W Huntington Drive 5. Project sponsor's Name and Address: Hank Jong, EGL Associates, Inc. 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning Classification: C-O 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the land use and zoning designation from Commercial to High Density Residential(12-30 du/ac), and from C-O to R-3, respectively. CEQA Checklist -1- !Ile Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Westfield Santa Anita Shopping Mall—zoned C-2 South: Multiple-Family Residences—zoned R-3 East: Multiple-Family Residences—zoned R-3 West: Realty office, restaurant, and retail—zoned C-2 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Biological'Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology/Soils [ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Land Use/ Planning [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing [ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities/Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: • [Xj 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. CEQA Checklist -2- File Nos.: GP.11-02&ZC 11-01 [ ] 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. 8. 18-11 Signature Date Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Printed Name&Title 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 less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "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. CEQA Checklist -3- Pile Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 . 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 -4- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 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 subject site is bordered by a regional shopping center to the north, realty office to the west, and multiple-family residences to the east and south. There are no adjacent properties where a potential scenic vista would be obstructed. Furthermore, the project will be consistent with the existing developments to the east and south. Therefore, there will be no impacts to any scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑ �� 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ►Z� the site and its surroundings? The project is to change the land use designation and zoning from commercial to allow a multiple-family development. Future development will be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes complement the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project is to change the land use designation and zoning from commercial to allow a multiple-family development. Any future development must comply with all applicable light and glare restrictions as set forth by the Arcadia Municipal Code and therefore would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 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 carbon 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use? CEQA Checklist -5- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ (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 loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to ❑ ❑ ❑ non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 project will change the land use designation and zoning of the subject property to allow for a multiple-family development, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -6- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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)? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non-attainment area for Ozone (02), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,2), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM.,o), 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 changing the land use designation and zoning from commercial to allow multiple-family uses would not increase pollutants. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ El concentrations? The uses on the subject property is not listed as uses that emit odors and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. The allowable uses on subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and will not have an impact that conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ El people? The subject property do not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 subject property is located within a fully-developed area that is not within close proximity to these biological resources, and is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, the project would change the land use and zoning designation from commercial to allow a multiple-family development, replacing an existing office building. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 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 subject property is located within a fully-developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑ as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? CEQA Checklist -7- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 ' - Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject property is located within a fully- developed area that is not close proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ❑ ❑ ❑ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. The project will allow the development of a multiple-family project on the subject site, replacing the existing commercial building at a fully-developed site. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. 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? 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 subject property is within a fully-developed area and is not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? The subject property is within a fully-developed area 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. CEQA Checklist -8- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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: 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ El iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 subject property is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor are they located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject property is located in a fully-developed area, the project will not have a 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ .1 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 City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The proposed structures will be constructed on a pad where there are existing structures. Furthermore, these structures will be built to current building and safety standards. 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 CEQA Checklist -9- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact property? The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code. The project will not have the above impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑ El tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject site is in a fully-developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not applicable to this project. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, ❑ ❑ ❑ that may have a significant impact on the environment? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for a multiple-family development. This residential project would not generate more greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, than a commercial building that this property is zoned for and/or is allowed to build. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for ❑ ❑ ❑ the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for a multiple-family development. The subject site is within close proximity of services(community center, library, hospital, county park, fire station, bus stops), thus reducing the number of vehicles miles traveled. This type of development is consistent with the applicable plan, policy or regulation for the region. 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? The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above impact. 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 project does not involve hazardous materials and will not create a significant hazard to the public or release hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -10- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 subject property is not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑ such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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 for people residing or working at the subject property. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ ►Z� project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There are no known private airstrips in the area. Since the uses on the subject property will not be changed, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The proposed plans are subject to review by the emergency response units, and will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard and will not have the above impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? CEQA Checklist -11- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. 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; and groundwater recharge. The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The project will not discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired. e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the ❑ ❑ ❑ biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure that stormwater discharge causes no significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies. f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? The proposal is subject to all NPDES requirements and will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 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)? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would replace an existing commercial building. The proposal will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no substantial increase in the intensity of the uses on the subject property with a commercial land use designation. CEQA Checklist -12- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. 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? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject property is located in a fully-developed area and will not increase erosion. k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff ❑ ❑ ❑ in a manner that results in environmental harm? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer so as not to cause significant alteration of the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm. m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would be subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -13- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact impede or redirect flood flows? 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 impact. p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 City of Arcadia 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development The subject site is within a fully-developed area and a multiple-family development would be consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and would not be physically dividing an establish community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. This type of development will be consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site. It will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject property. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? • CEQA Checklist -14- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact There are no known mineral resources on the subject property that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ El resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The subject property is not designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. 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 to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. not 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 groundbome noise levels? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, and does not include uses that would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. There may be a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or goundbome 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. Any future development would replace an existing commercial building. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Furthermore, any future development would be 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development 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 goundbome 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -15- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 • Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. 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? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. It would facilitate new housing units. However, it is within a fully developed area, and the use is consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south. The increase in housing units is limited to the units on the subject site and will not induce substantial population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, and will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ CEQA Checklist -16- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, replacing the existing commercial building and will not significantly impact the above public services. Each of these City departments has reviewed the subject proposal and has concluded that it will not result in substantial adverse impacts. 15. RECREATION Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ El other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The additional housing units will potentially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. However, the existing facilities are far below capacity, and the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts on these facilities to cause substantial physical deterioration. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ El ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, and will potentially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. However, the existing facilities are far below capacity and the proposed project will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing El ❑ ❑ 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? Arcadia's roadway network is nearly built out, consisting of the Foothill Freeway (1-210), regional arterial roadways, collectors and local streets. The subject property is on a Major Arterial with 4 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"). Arcadia Engineering Services have reviewed the subject proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. 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 CEQA Checklist -17- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 z 0.02). The lead agency may apply more stringent criteria if desired. The City Engineer has reviewed the subject proposal and concluded that the levels of service of the surrounding streets will remain at an acceptable level after the completion of the project. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The project does not change any air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ►� sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The project does not include new design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and found that this project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding ❑ ❑ ❑ public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The project does not significantly intensify the use of the site, and will be consistent with the adjacent uses to the east and south of the subject property. Therefore, the proposal will not conflict with alternative transportation opportunities. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? CEQA Checklist -18- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 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 (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements, and it is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ .❑ ❑ treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Local Stonnwater 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ►5 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 -19- • File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact For the purposes of compliance with Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221, the subject proposal does not qualify as a "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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development on the subject property, and does not qualify as a "project"under the applicable Codes. 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The wastewater flow originating from the subject site will discharge to a local sewer line. The proposal 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. The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has also reviewed the subject proposal, and they expect an increase in average wastewater flow from the subject site based on the Districts'average wastewater generation factors. Therefore, they are collecting a connection fee to mitigate the impact of this project on the current sewage system for the incremental increase in wastewater processing. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. It will not increase the need for landfill capacity. g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ related to solid waste? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. It will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. This project is also subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. CEQA Checklist -20- File Nos.: GP 11-02&ZC 11-01 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 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 project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development, and does not degrade the quality of the environment. It 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 long-term environmental goals? The project is consistent with the use of the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The project is consistent with the use of the adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site, and will not have negative impacts on the environment;neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully- developed area. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ ►=� substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project is to change the land use and zoning designation of the subject property from commercial to allow for multiple- family development. The use is consistent with the adjacent use to the east and south of the subject site and will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. It is located in a fully-developed area and no physical changes are proposed by the project. CEQA Checklist -21- City of Arcadia Environmental Checklist Form Information Sources for Evaluation of Potential Impacts 1. City of Arcadia General Plan 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan 3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code 4. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA." 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map — Mt. Wilson Quadrangle — Preliminary Map — Released: March 25, 1999. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District: www.aamd.qov/prdas/agquide/doc/chapter02.pdf 6. www.water.ca.gov/pubs/use/sb 610 sb 221 guidebook/quidebook.pdf 7. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) Basin Plan 8. Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public 9. www.calepa.ca.qov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm