No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1STAFF REPORT Development Services Department June 12, 2012 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Certificate of Demolition No. COD 12 -13 to certify a Negative Declaration for the demolition of a 1,869 square -foot house designed by a notable architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh Sr., to construct a new single - family residence at 410 Vaquero Road. SUMMARY Certificate of Demolition No. COD 12 -13 was filed by project designer, Mr. Robert Tong, to demolish an existing 1,869 square -foot house designed by a notable architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh Sr., to construct a new single - family residence at 410 Vaquero Road. An aerial photo and photos of the site are attached. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Tong (Designer) LOCATION: 410 Vaquero Road REQUEST: A Certificate of Demolition to certify a Negative Declaration for the demolition of a 1,869 square -foot house designed by a notable architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh Sr., to construct a new 5,325 square -foot single - family residence. SITE AREA: 16,980 square -feet (0.39 acre) FRONTAGE: 100 feet along Vaquero Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is developed with a 1,869 square -foot, one -story, single - family residence that was constructed in 1938. It is zoned R -0, First One - Family. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single - family residences, zoned R -0. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units /acre) — this designation accommodates low- density single - family residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lots with detached single - family residence. The lots range from 10,000 to 22,000 square feet or larger. Permitted uses include a single - family residence on a single lot, and private tennis courts and similar facilities. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices for COD 12 -13 were mailed on May 21, 2012 to the property owners of those properties that are located within 100 feet of the subject property — see the attached radius map. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a public hearing notice and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration were published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper on May 21, 2012. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Effective July 5, 2011, a Certificate of Demolition is required before demolishing any building or structure that is fifty (50) or more years old. This process is in compliance with the requirements of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, this process carries out the Arcadia General Plan goal of identifying, and encouraging the maintenance and preservation of historically, culturally, and /or architecturally significant structures and sites in the community. The process requires an assessment to be conducted by a qualified historian or evaluator to determine the significance of the structure and /or site. The assessment is to provide documentation as to the history of the structure and /or site, including photographic evidence of the current condition. If it is determined that there is substantive evidence that the structure or site reasonably meets National, State, or local criteria for historical significance, the application may be referred to the Planning Commission. The procedures for Certificates of Demolition are attached to this report. COD 12 -13 410 Vaquero Road June 12, 2012 — page 2 If preservation of a historically significant structure is not feasible, the Planning Commission may require a mitigation program as part of the Negative Declaration that may include, but is not limited to formal documentation of the structure using historical narrative and photographs, facade preservation, and /or placement of a plaque or historical marker. If a structure has been, or is nominated to the California or National Register of Historical Resources, an automatic stay is placed on the application to demolish the structure until the Office of Historic Preservation completes the review of the nomination. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1,869 square -foot house to construct a new, 5,325 square -foot, single - family residence at 410 Vaquero Road. A Certificate of Demolition is required for the demolition of the existing residence because it is over 50 years old. The plans of the proposed new house are attached, and the plans have been approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association. For this Certificate of Demolition, Ms. Casey Tibbet, of LSA Associates, Inc., a qualified evaluator, completed the California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for the subject residence. The Primary Record indicated that the home was designed by a notable architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. Therefore, the application was referred to the Planning Commission, and the Primary Record was expanded upon with a Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Record, which was also completed by Ms. Tibbet. This report assesses the historical value of the residence, and a copy of the evaluation forms are attached to this report. According to the BSO Record, the subject building is an early Ranch -style residence with a Monterey influence that was designed by well -known architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. for his son and daughter -in -law in 1938. According to the former owner, Ms. Pat Kreyssler, the daughter of the original owners and the granddaughter of the architect, the house was owned by the Alpaugh family from 1938 to 2011. The residence originally had two bedrooms and one bathroom, but was expanded over the years to accommodate a growing family. Ms. Kreyssler stated that the building was structurally damaged in the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake, and that a building contractor inspected the house and stated that it would be financially infeasible to repair it. Ms. Tibbet has also observed that the building appears to be in poor structural condition. The BSO Record was completed in accordance with the following standards of the California Register of Historical Resources for historical resource significance: 1. The structure and /or site is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; COD 12 -13 410 Vaquero Road June 12, 2012 — page 3 2. The structure and /or site is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3. The structure embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and 4. The structure and /or site have yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. According to Ms. Tibbet, the residence does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and is not a historical resource as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. The residence was built in 1938, and was not associated with Arcadia's post -World War II boom of planned suburban development that occurred during the 1940s and 50s. While the subject residence was designed by a well -known architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr., this home is not representative of the Beaux Arts, Mediterranean /Spanish Revival, and Art Deco style commercial buildings and hotels that he is noted for designing in Los Angeles, and which have been determined to be architecturally and historically significant. And, although the residence is a good example of an early Ranch style home with a Monterey influence, it does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of that type, period, region, or method of construction, and the home has been altered. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department completed an Initial Study to determine whether there might be any potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed demolition. The Initial Study did not identify any areas in which such impacts might occur, and accordingly a proposed Negative Declaration was prepared. The impact of the proposed demolition is considered less than significant because the structure does not contribute to the significance of the property due to the lack of historic integrity. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was posted at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office and was published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper on May 21, 2012 in compliance with the 20 -day public review period requirement. There were no comments received regarding the proposed Negative Declaration, which with the Initial Study and the applicant's Environmental Information Form are attached to this report. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Certificate of Demolition Application No. COD 12 -13, subject to the following conditions: COD 12 -13 410 Vaquero Road June 12, 2012 — page 4 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 2. Approval of COD 12 -13 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should move to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Certificate of Demolition No. COD 12 -13 to allow the demolition of the structure. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the June 12, 2012 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447, or by email to tli arcadia. ca. us. Approved by: Jim,Ka�`ama Cir munity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of the Site 100 -foot Radius Map Procedures for Certificates of Demolition Proposed Plans Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Environmental Information Form COD 12 -13 410 Vaquero Road June 12, 2012 — page 5 Front view of the subject property at 410 Vaquero Road Front view of the adjacent property to the north at 420 Vaquero Road Front view of the adjacent property to the south at 400 Vaquero Road Scale 1 inch = 70 Feet —moo 0 70 140 7 Fidelity National Title Company 100 FOOT RADIUS MAP DrawIrg Date. November 29 2011 - Fl APN: 5776- 028 -008 Any discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose and are not shown by the public records. This plat is for your aid in locating your land with reference to streets and other parcels. While this plat is believed to be correct, the Company assumes no liability for any reason of reliance thereon. Procedure for Certificate of Demolition I. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Before an application is filed for a project that would be subject to a demolition permit, Planning Services shall determine whether the building or structure is fifty (50) years or older. If the building or structure is fifty (50) years or older, or the age of the building cannot be ascertained, follow the procedures set out in Subsection A, below. If the building or structure is Tess than fifty (50) years old, the Building Official shall issue a demolition permit if all other requirements of the code are met. If the building or structure is older than fifty (50) years and not exempt per CEQA, follow the procedures set out in Subsection 8, below. A. Buildings or Structure that Fifty (50) Years or Older, and Buildings or Structures of Unknown Age. If the building or structure is fifty (50) years old or older, or the age of the building cannot be ascertained, a qualified architectural historian or historian, at the expense of the property owner, shall conduct an assessment to determine the significance of the structure(s) and /or site(s). The application shall provide evidence and supporting documentation as to the lack of historic significance of the structure or building, including photographic evidence as to the current condition, and an evaluation by a qualified architectural historian or historian. If a survey was completed to the structure or building in question and it is more than five (5) years old the evaluation can only be used as a guide. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall document the structure or building and complete the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record form (DPR 523A), and Location Map (DPR 523J) forms. Detailed instructions for preparing the documentation forms can be found on www.ohp.parks.ca.gov. The Evaluator must meet the Secretary of Interior's minimum professional qualifications. B. Buildings or Structure that Fifty (50) Years or Older and not exempt per CEQA. In addition to the requirements listed in Subsection A, an Initial Study fee must be filed, and a qualified historian or historian shall document the structure or building and complete the Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) Record Form (DPR 523B), Effective Date: July 5, 2011 documentation of the structure using historical narrative and photographic documentation, facade preservation, plaque, or historical marker. IV. APPEALS Appeals from the Planning Commission's decision shall be made to the City Council. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within five (5) working days of the Planning Commission's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt of an appeal, Planning Services shall fix a date for the public hearing and to be held not Tess than twenty (20) calendar days and no more than 40 calendar days thereafter. Public Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the same manner as the Planning Commission process. AUTOMATIC STAY If a building or structure is nominated to the California or National Register of Historical Resources, an automatic stay (no action may be taken by the City) shall be placed on the request to demolish the structure or building until the Office of Historic Preservation completes their review of the nomination. EMERGENCY DEMOLITION Structures or buildings that has been severely damaged as a result of an earthquake, fire or other natural disaster, and which require immediate demolition because the building presents an imminent threat to public safety, shall be exempt from this process. A determination to demolish an existing building on such grounds shall be made by the recommendation of the Building Official and approved by the Development Services Director, or designee. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES If any person demolishes a structure or building without an approval of a Certificate of Demolition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to penalty fees by the city. Effective Date: July 5, 2011 seu-t“ • nem+ Wel 1•1 vrn law vo 'wesn Iwo le ..13 uuni fa • •••••Id 1.0ume•• • 'OM 11/NOLINNWAINI OVANVS catam APitim4c.rx vo viavotiv 'OH otianovn 01 381110H AllINVA MONIS c? OOO6= 029=1 PLANT LEGEND V a sue-sw tail =hi orooNss 111111106141 .11.•W IOU IS •••10 .1.11 11 WM • 11•10.1.1 Plw•PI11 • 'OM 11/11011VMELLNI OVANVS • -.47:64,414.,:va LIT.= • ":• 61.744 ▪ "Zes1.1_ vo Viavoav 1:12101131113VA Olt+ asnoti AllINVA MONIS 1 gr. 5 9 o ; „Ot,Z0.1.170= 0 00000 6=o 'Pvg029=1 .0P.C1..900 980'43'45=1 • ) 2 5 a. uJ 1— to _VA Q UE_RO _ _ _ _ - - - - - - V a NOV1411/711,0•41*(111101•1 2.8 • 0•11=1.111•11.01•111 • OVANVS *It ;wit, .7:24.Taki vo otmovn 01t, 3snoH A1IVdV 319141IS 1 1 0, ... , ,,. . .. ...... lb, , . ! I' n Loa J el El ik 111 ! 04 1 .111ERI 1 r I 1 Rl' i , g 1 _ _ 1 III [E ' 1 ' LTrumi iL_1k t , k r- 4g ,_ i .1. L k, -ill ..., 181g g 0 f t. 1 l', L 11111 '-. OWN OLL:JOI 1 - /...., 1 i .1 L._ r 1 ,. ■7. 1 1 1 J 3 ks - V. '7.. ,; •--- 11 ...„ ... ... ' .. „_... 1 0, L AL T • II ox air T 5 a 8 MONM IOW >•!• NOFM/ MD P.I. VIM WOW VD 111••••• VOW'S •.n.O.O 1 IR • ° *^'"" "°""' • , _ ��s *+.1.74-%,,c, c =' - V3 'V1 VIA y YJ YIa YJaY 'aa Oa3110VA 011/ 38110H A11WVd 3'10NIS z p .! 11 R N 3 yNi ouvna I �d�Nds L AL T • II ox air T 5 a 8 .99 05111-9. (929) 091• 11099-91. (9291191 V511'90016 VO '0121091V '002# Is 0.13 01.5 •3 SSZ • 8191.0101 1011909•0N • DNI 1VNOLLVNIIE1NI OVANVS V3 VICIV311V 021 0113110VA 014 3snoH A1RNYd 310NIS 2 REAR ELEVATION 060L191119Z91 xej• By09'9f(9Z911e1. tl' Sfl'BOOL6 tl�'eipea�tl OOZN "1S eiel�elueS'3 SSZ • buluueldPlluepisa8 . I "°"' L.1 `via YJ�V o is •aa Oa311bVA OU 3St10H A1IW`dd 31DNIS o N p �� �• nw °3NI1VNOI1VN2I31NI OVANVS aW^5 REAR ELEVATION 1 1/3 VIQV3HV "OH 0113f10VA 014 3115 3S(1OH A71WH3 31ONIS „Jr.. Saar..3011 . 0111/1.30 Y MY. ONINNYId 3Lfl13311H3tlV 3dY3SONYI VO WV, a0 0103 z W U 0. a _ 0 o W ¢ y a = N zz ¢ a 0 3z a ¢2 a O W W O m W W m Pd UzO Z 2O OF 15. NEW LAWN AREA OF SODDED TURF. 3dVHSONV1 17. NEW POOL SAFE VINYL FENCING. II_ zl�'�L IT - 11- .,..,oII 1 NY �/ d id33NO331111133HS • 4. AN a yy • RII .`'r.►'s of )gac cawlr '1 +T0��MKPI (^) a - vmgcvy —. e p = LL w o 16 w (� J w r o °w -^ y z 0 3z O J WO j �U Z LLO p¢ zu OU Ez∎1 3w U QOS CW -x p12- >U06 wp S W- FZ 0 i3 ate' W KJ W ¢Z = a3 >> ¢ Z w¢ p w y w t� O W 3� rw ?zap g� _ ?w (1J »o W 1 a'� W a ,Lt'`,, a paf 2p. 30� oasu No oz�w O W U W U o 6 W J O K G Ow O > p r LL' O r O Z O Q: r O r = J pOU CU yy?Ua Oax a,> O�V e�t7 . W woo w'o wg�o° W< w� woo wom? Wzoo Z U Z a LL U a 2 a ,1,D3 Z0 200 -J - oi m 4 6 I. \'„ State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6L Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 9 P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication O Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson, CA Date: 1966 PR 1988 T1 N; R11W; S.B.B.M. c. Address: 410 Vaquero Road City: Arcadia Zip: 91007 d. UTM: Zone: 11; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) AIN: 5776 - 028 -008 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This early Ranch -style residence with a Monterey influence is surmounted by a low- pitched, cross -gable roof sheathed with wood shingles. The exterior is clad with a combination of wide horizontal boards, stucco, and board - and - batten. The asymmetrical, west- facing facade features a recessed porch and includes a garage in a projecting bay, wood- framed French windows, a brick chimney, a larger pair of wood - framed French windows, a wood and glass door, and a wood - framed casement window flanked by shutters and set in a projecting bay. According to the former owner, Pat Kreyssler, who is the daughter of the original owners and the granddaughter of the architect of the residence (Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr.), the house was owned by the Alpaugh family from 1938 until 2011. According to Ms. Kreyssler, the residence originally had two bedrooms and one bathroom, but was expanded over the years to accommodate a growing family. The house has its original windows and siding. The residence is accessed by a single front door that opens into a rectangular entry area that features a hanging lamp and elaborate wood paneling on the ceiling. To the left (north) is the living room which (according to Ms. Kreyssler) originally was accessed through two large doors that opened into the room and were later replaced with pocket doors. The fireplace in the living room includes decorative detailing. Attached to the living room facing the backyard is a lanai that Ms. Kreyssler indicates was originally a screened in porch with a ceramic tile floor. The porch was enclosed in the early 1950s and later further remodeled to include a lower ceiling to accommodate central heat and air conditioning equipment. A small wood - paneled den, a dining room, the kitchen, and a game room (1960s addition) are located north of the living room and lanai. The dining room has wainscoting and a curved ceiling on the east side above the windows facing the backyard. According to Ms. Kreyssler, the kitchen has been completely remodeled. At the south end of the (see Continuation Sheet page 4) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2- Single - familv property *P4. Resources Present: OBuilding ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District Resource Name or #: 410 Vaquero Road ❑Element of District DOther (Isolates, etc.) P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) (see Continuation Sheet) *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance -level architectural survey for City of Arcadia demolition process compliance P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Facade, view to the northeast (1/27/12) *P6. Date Constructed /Age and Sources: OHistoric ❑Prehistoric DBoth 1938 (Los Angeles County Assessor's Office) *P7. Owner and Address: Unknown *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Casey Tibbet, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: January and April 2012 *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none. ") None. *Attachments: :NONE Location Map ❑Sketch Map ❑Continuation Sheet ❑Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 9 *NRHP Status Code 6L *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single- familv residence B4. Present Use: Vacant *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch with Monterey influence *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1938 Permit for new residence (owner N. Walton Alpaugh, Jr.) 1942 Permit for furnace 1951 Permit for an addition including electric and plumbing 1955 Permit for addition (owner N. Walton Alpaugh, Jr.) 1959 Sewer permit 1965 Permit to re -roof with wood shake and extend a portion of the overhang (owner Alpaugh) *B7. Moved? ©No [Yes ❑Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Detached storage room in back yard B9a. Architect: Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. b. Builder: George J. Newman *B10. Significance: Theme: Architect Area: City of Arcadia Period of Significance: 1938 Property Type: Single - family residence Applicable Criteria: NA (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This early Ranch -style residence with a Monterey influence was designed by well -known architect Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. for his son and daughter -in -law in 1938. The residence is potentially significant for its association with architect Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. Because the City of Arcadia does not have a cultural resources ordinance, in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the residence is being evaluated using the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria. Historic Context: Canadian - American architect Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. (c. 1885 - 1954), best known for his Beaux -Arts and Revival designs in Los Angeles, first worked in the Toronto office of Robert J. Edwards from 1906 -1908. During this time he also accepted commissions for private residences, such as designing a duplex house for Samuel G. Near, Bellair Street, and publishing perspective drawings for an Edwardian house in the Rosedale neighborhood of Toronto. He formed a partnership with Charles M. Willmot in 1909, where he collaborated on several residential homes in the Toronto area (the S.J. Graydon residence on Huron Street, the W.A. Leroy residence on Forest Hill Road, and an additional two houses on Grenadier Road; Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 2009 - 2012). (See Continuation Sheet page 8) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Ancestry.com 1997 -2012 Accessed online on April 17, 2012 at: http: / /www.ancestry.com Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 2009 -2012 Accessed online on April 17, 2012 at: http:// www. dictionaryofarchitectsincanada .org /architects /view /35 Gebhard, David and Robert Winter 1985 Architecture in Los Angeles. Peregrine Smith Books, Layton, UT. Kreyssler, Pat 2012 Oral interview on April 19, 2012. Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD) 2005 -2012 Accessed online on April 17, 2012 at: https : / /digital.lib.washington.edu /architect/ architects /1913/ B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Casey Tibbet, M.A., and Elisa Bechtel MLitt, LSA Associates, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: April 2012 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1/95) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) (Refer to Location Map page 3) *Required information State of California - Resource Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION LOCATION MAP Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 3 of 9 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road *Map Name: ESRI Imagery: Aerials Express *Scale: 1:2400 *Date of Map: 2010 I: \SYI1201\ Reports\ Cultural \DPRlocation_410_VaqueroRd.mxd (4/20/12) DPR 523J (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 of 8 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road `Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update *P3a. Description: (continued from page 1) house there are two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a bedroom addition (probably 1950s). The property has a detached storage room in the backyard. Ms. Kreyssler noted that the bricks in the front walkway and fence supports were collected by her parents from a much older building that was torn down in South Pasadena. Ms. Kreyssler stated that building was structurally damaged in the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake. A contractor (who happened to be the grandson of the original builder) inspected the house and deemed that it would be financially infeasible to repair it. Although the residence retains a high degree of integrity from the historic -period (pre -1963) and is a somewhat early example of the Ranch style, it is a modest residence that is similar to many others. In addition, it appears to be in poor condition structurally. P5a. Photo or Drawin• (continued from pa.e 1 Facade detail, view to northeast (4/19/12) North elevation (4/19/12) Rear exterior (4/19/12) Rear exterior (4/19/12) DPR 523B -Test (8/94) State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 5 of 9 *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. tesource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road *Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo or Drawing (continued from page 4) Rear exterior (4/19/12) Rear storage room (4/19/12) Entry (4/19/12) Bathroom (4/19/12) DPR 523B -Test (8/94) State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 6 of 9 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo or Drawin • continued from Livin room and lanai 4/19/12 Living room (4/19/12) Living room (4/19/12) Damage in dining room (4/19/12) Damage to foundation (4/19/12) DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 7 of 9 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road `Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo or Drawing (continued from age 6) Damage to foundation (4/19/12) Drawing of Norman W. Alpaugh Sr. (4/19/12) Photo of Alpaugh's rendering of 410 Vaquero Road (4/19/12) Damage to garage ceiling (4/19/12) Photo of Alpaugh's rendering of the Park - Wilshire A•artments 4/19/12 Photo of Alpaugh's competition drawings (4/19/12) DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 8 of 9 *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road *Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo or Drawing (continued from page 7) Photo of the Town House (4/19/12) Photo of Alpaugh's rendering of Elmiro Theater (4/19/12) *B10. Significance: (continued from page 2) In 1912, Alpaugh moved to Los Angeles, California, where he partnered with Clarence H. Russell. While he had primarily designed homes when in Canada, Alpaugh mostly designed commercial buildings and few homes during his career in Los Angeles. Buildings designed by Alpaugh while at Russell & Alpaugh include: the Town House Hotel (1929, on Wilshire Boulevard, listed in the National Register in 1997); Park - Wilshire Hotel (1923, LA City Landmark); Elmiro Theatre (1934, Santa Monica, now AMC); Warren G. Harding High School (1923 -24, Los Angeles); Temple Emanu -El (1924, Los Angeles); Charles Edward Toberman House (1924, Hollywood); Asbury Apartments (1924, Los Angeles); 7th Street School (San Pedro); and the Chamberlain & Proctor building (Hollywood). He also did many renderings of buildings designed by other architects. Later in his career, according to Ms. Kreyssler, Alpaugh designed several theaters and reportedly mentored an African - American architect who went on to be one of the first well -known black architects in the Los Angeles area (this has not been verified). Alpaugh died on November 15, 1954 (Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 2009 - 2012). Significance Evaluation: Under CRHR criterion 1, the residence does not appear to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. Since it was built during the 1930s, a period of minimal growth and scarce materials, it was not associated with Arcadia's post -World War II boom of planned suburban development that occurred during the 1940s and 50s. Under CRHR criterion 2, the residence was designed by well -known architect Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. However, this modest home is not representative of the grander Beaux Arts, Mediterranean /Spanish Revival, and Art Deco commercial buildings and hotels he designed in Los Angeles and which have been determined architecturally and historically significant. The house was built for the architect's son, Norman W. Alpaugh, Jr., and his wife Frances, who moved in on their wedding night (Kreyssler 2012). Since the young couple paid for its construction, it was modest with minimal architectural detail (ibid.). He and Frances added on to the house as their family grew and continued to live in the house until their deaths in the 1990s (Ancestry.com). Although designed by Alpaugh, he did not live in the residence and it is not representative of the work for which he is well- known. Therefore, the residence does not appear to be significant under this criterion for its association with Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. Alpaugh's son, Norman Jr., was a talented artist who aspired to be an architect like his father, but had to leave high school early to help the family financially (Kreyssler 2012). He got into accounting, attended USC, and stayed in the financial field (ibid.). There is no evidence to support that either Norman W. Alpaugh Jr. or his wife were important figures in local, state, or national history and therefore the residence is not significant under this criterion for its association with them. Under CRHR criterion 3, the residence is an example of an early Ranch style with a Monterey influence. However, it does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. While it was designed by a well -known architect, Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr., it is not particularly representative of the work he is best known for which is large - scale commercial architecture. Further, this residence does not possess high artistic values. Therefore, the residence is not significant under this criterion. (See Continuation Sheet page 9) DPR 523B (1/95) `Required information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 9 of 9 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 410 Vaquero Road *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. `Date : April 2012 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 8) Under CRHR criterion 4, which is typically applied to archaeological resources, the residence is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. For the reasons discussed above, the residence does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR and is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA. DPR 523B -Test (8/94) NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name or description of j Certificate of Demolition No. COD 12 -13 project: 2. Project Location — Identify 410 Vaquero Road street 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) (1) Name: ' Robert Tong of Sanyao International Inc. (2) Address: 1 255 E. Santa Clara Street, #200, 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 is attached. 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: Thomas Li - Associate Planner Arcadia City Hall - Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone No.: i 626- 574 -5447 Date Received for Filing: Staff Negative Declaration FORM "E" CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Certificate of Demolition No. COD 12 -13 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division / Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive — Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Thomas Li, Associate Planner Phone (626) 574 -5447 Fax (626) 447 -9173 4. Project Location: 410 Vaquero Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Robert Tong, Sanyao International, Inc. 255 E. Santa Clara Street, #200 Arcadia, CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Very Low Density Residential (2 -4 Dwelling Units/Acre) 7. Zoning Classification: R -O, First One - Family COD 12 -13 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 Certificate of Demolition to demolish an existing 1,869 square -foot, one -story residence at 410 Vaquero Road. The subject residence was designed by a notable architect, Mr. Norman W. Alpaugh, Sr. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The surrounding properties are fully developed with single- family residences, zoned R -O. CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J ") Part 1 -1- COD 12 -13 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 ❑ Biological Resources O Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ • Transportation / Traffic ❑ Agriculture Resources • Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Mineral Resources Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality [] Noise • Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® 1 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. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. /s/ Signature May 14, 2012 Date Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J ") Part 1 -2- COD 12 -13 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. 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 significance. CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J ") Part 1 -3- File No.: COD 12 -13 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 project site is within an urbanized area in a single- family zoned area. The topography of the project site and surrounding area is an approximate two percent (2 %) slope from northwest to southeast. There are no adjacent properties where a potential scenic vista would be obstructed. Furthermore, the proposal is to demolish an existing single- family residence to accommodate a future new single - family residence. 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? The subject application is to demolish an existing single - family residence, constructed in 1938, designed by a noted architect, Mr. Norman W Alpaugh, Sr. However, the residence does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Also, 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 resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? The proposal is to demolish an existing single- family residence to accommodate a future single- family residence. The zoning and the use of the site will not be altered. Furthermore, the design of the new single - family residence is subject to the approval of the homeowner's association, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposal is to demolish an existing single - family residence to accommodate a future single- family residence, which will be subject to the lighting restrictions as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposal would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES - 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? The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area and contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. 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)), CEQA Checklist -4- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? The City of Arcadia has no timberland or Timberland Production land and has no land zoned for forest land. There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest and to non - forest use? The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area, and has no forest land to be converted 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. Therefore, the project would 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 Resource Sustainability Element Chapter of the City's General Plan. The proposal is to demolish an existing single- family residence to accommodate a future single - family residence, and does not include uses that are cited by SCAQMD as a sensitive receptor. The project will not result in any increase in developments and uses. The surrounding land uses of the subject site will remain consistent with the growth expectations for the region, and would not have any impacts that conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑ El existing or projected air quality violation? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continues the trend of long -term improvement in air quality and air quality measurements within this region are better than both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the city. The proposal is to demolish an existing single - family residence to accommodate a future single - family residence. The use of the subject site will remain the same and it will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CEQA Checklist -5- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone (03), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2,5), Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved land uses of the area. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? The SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document lists schools, hospitals, and residences as sensitive receptors. The project will not put sensitive receptors any closer to sources of pollutants. The allowable uses in the surrounding areas 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ people? The project will be constructed using conventional methods and equipment. No unusual odors will be created. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The project site is located in an area fully - developed with single- family residences. The project site is not near any of the aforementioned biological resources, and is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. 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 project site is located within an area that is not proximate 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? There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The project site is not proximate 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 CEQA Checklist -6- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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. 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 no oak trees will be affected by the project. 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? The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5. A qualified historian, Casey Tibbet of LSA Associates, Inc., completed a Primary Record, and a Building, Structure, and Object Record for the subject building to be demolished and determined that it does not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The residence was built in 1938, and was not associated with Arcadia's post -World War II boom of planned suburban development that occurred during the 1940s and 50s. The subject building was designed by well -known architect Norman W Alpaugh, Sr. However, this home is not representative of the Beaux Arts, Mediterranean /Spanish Revival, and Art Deco commercial buildings and hotels he designed in Los Angeles and which have been determined architecturally and historically significant. Also, the residence is an example of early Ranch style with a Monterey influence. However, it does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Therefore, this project would not have the above impact because it does not meet the criteria for determination as a historical resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Furthermore, the subject site is developed with a single - family residence. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during earthmoving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. If the landowner rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (PRC Section 5097.98). Implementation of the above action would reduce significant adverse impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation is required. SC 5.b If buried cultural materials are encountered during earthmoving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -7- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site or unique geologic feature? The subject site 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. Implementation of the above action would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to be less than significant. SC 5.c Should any construction activity encounter any paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains within the project area and none are anticipated to be found. However, if human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Therefore, in the event that burials are discovered during any excavation activities the implementation of the above action would reduce significant adverse impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation is required. SC 5. d If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? CEQA Checklist -8- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 of this region is subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other designated earthquake hazard zone; nor is it located on a hillside where landslides may occur. The project will not have a significant impact in exposing 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. The standard condition below shall be followed in the event of unstable earth conditions discovered during construction, as further soils studies shall be conducted. SC 6.b Soil compaction testing shall be conducted before the road construction occurs. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project site is a flat site and will not result in an on- or off -site landslide. The project does not include any excavation, grading or filling of any sloped areas. d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? During demolition, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will result from construction equipment, vehicle trips, and energy usage. However, emissions will be below the significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year established by SCAQMD. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? 0 El CEQA Checklist -9- 4 -03 • File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The City of Arcadia has adopted policies under the City's General Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The proposed demolition of a single- family residence will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. 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 dreg not involve the use of hazardous materials and will not create the potential for a significant hazard to the public or the potential release of 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 the use of hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste, and therefore will not have this impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The subject site 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 subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, there would not be any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working at the subject site. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? o There is no private airstrip near the project site. It would not change the uses of the surrounding site and would not result in a safety hazard for people in the project area. CEQA Checklist -10- 4 -03 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The City's Fire Department coordinates emergency operations and manages the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), a central command post to manage emergency response. As part of its emergency planning and response program, the City identified "critical facilities" that serve an essential or important function in disaster situations and /or contain concentrations of population. These are places from which emergency operations and response can be conducted. The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence and would not negatively impact the 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? California's Public Resource Code and Government Code 51175 -89 directed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL Fire created a mapping system that identifies Fire Hazard Zones, and has created a map showing areas that are considered to be Very High Fire Hazards Zones in Arcadia. The map has been officially adopted by the City, and the City has targeted these areas to implement stringent wildland fire mitigation strategies. The subject site does not fall within any fire hazard zones, and is not within close proximity to any wildlands 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 Clean Water Act provides control over urban runoff and storm water discharges through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES permit protects public health and aquatic life. At the local level, cities must ensure provision of vegetated swales, buffers, and infiltration areas in new development projects. Additional approaches include designing sidewalks, roads, and driveways utilizing alternative materials to minimize impervious surfaces. The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants. For Arcadia, the NPDES permit is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. The NPDES program coordinates the actions of all incorporated cities within this region (except Long Beach) and Los Angeles County to regulate and control storm water and urban runoff into Los Angeles County waterways and the ocean. In support of the NPDES permit and the obligation to keep waterways clean by reducing or eliminating contaminants from storm water and dry weather runoff, the City is required to implement the most effective combination of best management practices for storm water /urban runoff pollution control. The City has a storm water education program, an aggressive inspection team that issues notices of violation for water quality violations, and requires the use of best management practices in residential, commercial, and development- related activities to reduce runoff. The project must comply with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and therefore will not have the above impact. File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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? The project will be designed and constructed to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and will not have this impact. ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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 demolish an existing single- family residence for the construction of a new single- family residence and will not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 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. e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the ❑ ❑ ❑ biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? f) Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? The project will comply with NPDES requirements to ensure that no water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are violated. The project will not have this impact. 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 (i.e., 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 will not affect or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge as there will be no increase in the intensity of land uses. It will not deplete groundwater supplies or significantly interfere with groundwater recharge. 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 will not alter existing drainage patterns and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The project will not have this impact. 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? CEQA Checklist -12- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project will not alter existing drainage patterns and will not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and will not result in flooding on- or off -site. The project will not have this impact. j) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The project is located in a fully- developed area and will be constructed to prevent on and off -site erosion. The project will not have this impact. k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? The project will not create or contribute runoff water and will not affect the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? The project will comply with NPDES requirements and will be designed so as not to cause significant alteration of any flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff, and will avoid any such environmental harm. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Runoff from streets, parking areas, and other developed lands often carry some level of pollutants. However, The project is subject to all NPDES requirements to ensure protection of water quality. 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 subject site is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Zone. Dam failure may be caused by a seismic event or an unprecedented intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of the subject site but is highly unlikely to occur. The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence to construct a new single - family residence and will not place any housing in a flood hazard area and therefore will not have the above impact. o) Place within a 100 -year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? As discussed above, there are currently no areas within the City that are within a 100 -year floodplain. Also, the project will be subject to all applicable drainage requirements. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? The subject site is within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Zone. Dam failure could be caused by a seismic event or intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of the subject site, but is highly unlikely to occur, and therefore, 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? CEQA Checklist -13- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The City of Arcadia is not located near any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean and will not be inundated by a seiche or tsunami. The subject site is on a flat alluvial plain that will not generate a mudflow. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? The subject site is a fully- developed area located in an establish community. The proposed use will be consistent with the existing uses and would not physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. 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 site. 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? There are no known mineral resources on the subject site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The subject site 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? There may be short term noise impacts resulting from the demolition. However, the construction must comply with the City's noise ordinance, and construction is limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7 :00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? CEQA Checklist -14- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The demolition will be performed so as not to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The project is to demolish an existing single- family residence and will not increase noise levels as the uses are to remain the same. Therefore, there is no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? There will be no permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. e) For a project located within an airport and use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 is no private airstrip near the project site. The project would not change the uses of the surrounding site and would not impact 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 demolish an existing single - family residence to allow a new single - family residence in a fully - developed area. It will not induce substantial population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project is to replace an existing single - family residence with a new single - family residence house on the subject site, and would 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 replace an existing single - family residence with a new single - family residence house on the subject site, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: CEQA Checklist -15- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ It will not cause substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. The project is consistent with other developments in the area and will not cause significant adverse physical impacts to the use of public services. 15. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The project is to demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence, and will not directly promote the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities to cause substantial physical deterioration of the facility. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? El ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The project is to demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence. The proposal would not conflict with measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. CEQA Checklist -16- 4 -03 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) adopted their most recent Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 2004. For the purposes of the CMP, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C >_ 0.02), causing LOS F (V /C > 1.00). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant impact occurs when the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2% of capacity (V /C ? 0.02). The project is consistent with the existing development pattern in the area and will not conflict with the CMP. File No.: COD.12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 proposal will not change air traffic patterns. 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 demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence and will not have the above impacts. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence and 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 demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence; it does not eliminate public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and 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 -17- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. This board has established the Basin Plan which (1) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (11) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti - degradation policy, and (110 describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements. Any future development 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 demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not result in the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Local Stormwater management facilities, such as the storm drains within the area roadways, are the City's responsibility, while regional facilities are the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPVtr). 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 demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB221). CEQA Checklist -18- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact The project is to demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence. 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 consistent with existing use of the subject site, and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. 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 demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not increase the wastewater treatment demand. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence. During construction, the contractor will be required to recycle useable material to reduce waste. The project will not change the density of the uses and 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 demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence. The project will not change the density of the uses and will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. Any future development shall also be subject to the requirements as set forth in the Basin Plan. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist -19- 4 -03 File No.: COD 12 -13 Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project is consistent with the General Plan, and does not have the potential to 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 to demolish an existing single- family residence to allow the construction of a new single- family residence, and will not conflict with short-term or 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 General Plan, 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 consistent with the General Plan. The project is to demolish an existing single - family residence to allow the construction of a new single - family residence and will not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. CEQA Checklist -20- 4 -03 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM File Igo. - 0 . 12 - 1.3 Bate Filed: `--"--- -2* ° /2--. General information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: VAro LCe - pCo,e617 Grows % Q SEn-71,21 Wee, PR- • Art u. 6# Vero Gr 2. Address of project (Location): `/ /o V&pa v Ri. 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Role s aNr .e Leru rer /Alt) 2.5'S" f'. SotAllat CZ;t 4 574. ZOc et- eA u ..., 7/4t) ' a - il 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 7144//ert iller.44 ,'7- 5. Zoning:'° f> 6. General Plan Designation: fr '7(/. "7' e /4 Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): A/6(4) 2. 5 f � S/y %G ftA4441 r gg L1 /Tr 7 .C. '3 " 6vr100 e--- 2 -2 -11 8. Site Size: /7147. 3 Sq. Ft. / 9. Square footage per building: 531-7 ' Acre(s) 10. Number of floors of construction: 2-/ 11. Amount of off - street parking provided: (3) 12. Proposed scheduling of project: kl WI- 13. Associated projects: rfA- 14. Anticipated incremental development: 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: OA t Alvri 5-5g-07 ri« . g5 e0, d 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A- 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: t lA 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate dearly why the application is required: -2- 12 -10 20. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 0 la 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. CI 3 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 0 la 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. Q El 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. O 3 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? O Q 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) CI ® 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects Q 3. 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? 0 51 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior ER? Environmental Setting 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted.) -3- 12 -10 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set - backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date 04z (Signature) For t PAN/ Pa I 4-- PLEASE NOTE Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, the following filing fees may be imposed, as applicable, by the California Department of Fish and Game to defray the costs of managing and protecting California's vast fish and wildlife resources. For further information, see http : / /www.dfe.ca.gov /habcon.ceoa changes.html Related Fees Certified Regulatory Program - $965.50 • Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declaration - $2,044.00 • Environmental Impact Report - $2,839.25 -4- 12 -10