No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2000sm,� • A N N O T A T E D A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting November 21, zuuu 7:00p.m. Council Chambers INVOCATION Reader Laura Lawrence, First Church of Christ Scientist ACTION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Lee Shimmin, President of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic All present 1. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full Adopted s -o 2. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Community Service Award to Jim Hayes 3. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Business Recognition Award to the Bashful Butler Steve worsley 4. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Employee Recognition Award to Cara Wilhelm 5. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE to Shone Wang, Sister City Commission City Clerk Alford 6. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed item of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed item 6a you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the public hearing. Pub. Hrg Closed a. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6201, a resolution of the City Adonted 5—O Council of the City of Arcadia, California, approving General Plan Amendment No. GP 00 -002 to adjust the General Plan Land Use Designation boundary between the Commercial designation of 201 -221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU /AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue to align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PEF,, ?E k std: Lee Shimmin 7. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports /Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items See-Minutes RECESS CITY COUNCIL Gary A. Kovacic, Mayor • Mickey Segal, Mayor Protempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Shang Chang, Gail A. Marshall, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager June D. Alford. Citv Clerk 8. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic All present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None Recommendation to authorize Pacific Relocation Consultants to perform Approved 5 -0 relocation services for ten single -story residential units (20 potential relocation candidates) along Fifth Avenue, and to appropriate $45,000.00 to pay for said services ADJOURN to December 5, 2000 at 6:00p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Minutes of the November 7, 2000 regular meeting b. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6203, a resolution of the City Adopted 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, authorizing the City of Arcadia to acquire Federal surplus property from the California State Agency for Surplus Property C. Recommendation to accept all work performed by Leatherwood Construction Company for the Longden Avenue 30" waterline project as complete; to authorize a retention of $73,000.00 to be made in accordance with the contract documents (less City incurred costs of $41,655.00); to approve Contract Change Order #4 in the amount of $55,793.00 for additional work associated with the project; and to appropriate $10,000.00 from the Water Reserve Fund d. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6200, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, repealing Resolution No. 5649 delegating its authority to make certain determinations on applications relating to disability retirements of local safety members and to promulgate rules and procedures to implement such responsibility and adopting appeals procedures Approved 5 -0 Adopted 5 -0 Recommendation to award a one -year contract (with annual contract Approved 5 -0 extensions subject to City Council approval) in the amount of $420,910.00 to CLS Landscape Management, Inc. for landscape maintenance services at City facilities, and to authorize an additional appropriation of $140,910.00 from the General Fund Reserve for the unbudgeted balance of the cone -2- 10. CITY MANAGER ACTION Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 6204, a resolution of the City Adopted 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, designating the attached map as the Survey Area to be studied to determine the feasibility of amending the Central Redevelopment. Project to add territory b. Recommendation to appropriate $15,000.00 from the Sewer Reserve Fund Approved 5-0 and to authorize a Backflow Prevention Program to encourage property owners on Sierra Madre Boulevard between Perkins Drive and the Sierra Madre Wash to install backflow, prevention devices C. Recommendation to adopt Negative Declarations pursuant to the California Approved 5-0 Environmental Quality Act for four seismic reliability projects 11. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 2138, an ordinance of the City Adapred s -n Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Article VI, Chapter 4, Part 2, Division 1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding the distribution of written materials within the City of Arcadia ADJOURN to December 5, 2000 at 6:00p.m in memory of Barbara Ann Ovesen Coleman ADJOURNED at 8:13 p.m. -3- 94. e _ MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: November 21, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH, CITY ATTORNEY .i4�l -. Dtv-� SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 62005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 5649, DELEGATING ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS ON APPLICATIONS RELATING TO DISABILITY RETIREMENTS OF LOCAL SAFETY MEMBERS AND TO PROMULGATE RULES AND PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT SUCH RESPONSIBILITY, AND ADOPTING APPEALS PROCEDURES BACKGROUND Whenever a local safety member (i.e., a police officer or fire fighter) applies for a disability retirement through the Public Employee Retirement System ( "PERS "), PERS requires the City to determine whether or not the safety member "is or is not incapacitated." The local safety member may then appeal this determination to the City Council, which in turn is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing presided over by an administrative law judge appointed by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Resolution No. 5649 was adopted by the Arcadia City Council on March 17, 1992, in order to establish local regulations governing the processing of such disability retirement applications. This resolution delegated to the City Manager or designee the authority both to make an initial determination on the applicant's disability and to make a final decision after sitting in on the appeal hearing. L i GFp However, while the City Council may grant the City Manager or his or her designee the authority to make the initial determination on an applicant's disability, the Government Code appears to prohibit a similar delegation of authority with regard to the appeal process. As discussed below, proposed Resolution No. 6200 modifies Resolution No. 5649 so that the City's procedures for handling disability retirement applications conform to current law. DISCUSSION Government Code section 11512 does not appear to allow the City Council to delegate its authority with regard to the appeal hearing. In particular, Section 11512 states that "[t]he agency itself shall determine whether the administrative law judge is to hear the case alone or whether the agency itself is to hear the case with the administrative law judge." (Emphasis added.) Government Code section 11500(a) defines the term "agency" to include a city council and adds that "wherever the words `agency itself are used the power to act shall not be delegated unless the statutes relating to the particular agency authorize the delegation of the agency's power to hear and decide." Because no other statute authorizes the City Council to delegate its power to "hear and decide" under these circumstances, the City Council cannot delegate its authority with regard to appeal hearings to the City Manager. Moreover, allowing the City Manager or his designee to make both the initial decision of disability and the final decision on an appeal of that initial decision would allow applicants who lost their appeals to raise claims that the final decision after appeal was biased. Resolution No. 6200 would delete the delegation of authority given in Resolution No. 5649 to the City Manager to hear and make final decisions on appeals of initial disability determinations. In addition, the proposed Resolution would provide the City Council with the option, on a case by case basis, of (1) allowing the administrative law judge to hear the case alone or (2) hearing the case itself together with the administrative law judge. Finally, it would require interested parties to submit statements of contested issues, witness lists, and document and exhibit lists to the City Council to assist it in determining whether to have an administrative law judge hear the appeal alone or to hear the case itself with the administrative law judge. Of course, the administrative law judge presiding at the 2 appeal hearing would likely permit a party to still present any such issues, witnesses, documents and exhibits even though they were not previously submitted to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT For each appeal of an initial disability determination, the City would be required to pay the costs of the administrative law judge. Currently, the Office of Administrative Hearings charges $140 per hour for the services of its administrative law judges. (Of course, this rate is subject to change.) In addition, the City would have to pay the costs of a certified court reporter. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6200, "a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, repealing Resolution No. 5649, delegating its authority to make certain determination on application relating to disability retirements of local safety members and to promulgate rules and procedures to implement such responsibility, and adopting appeals procedures." CONCURRED: XZA William R. Kelly City Manager Attachment — Resolution No. 6200 c: Tracey Hause, Admin.Srvs. Director Carol Przybycien, Human Resources Manager 3 35->'� • 06 -DfJ. 1.1! - ,ARCaD -h RpORAZ£O STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 21, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator -- SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 00-002, AND ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 6201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 00-002 TO ADJUST THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF 201-221 E. DUARTE ROAD AND THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAX.) DESIGNATION OF 810 S. SECOND AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING NORTHERLY LOT LINE OF 201 E. DUARTE ROAD. SUMMARY General Plan Amendment Application No. GP 00-002 was submitted by Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. to adjust the Land Use Designation boundary between the Commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue to align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road. This Land Use Designation boundary adjustment affects a 3.81 foot wide strip of property that was not accounted for by a parcel map and zone change in .1977. The Planning Commission at its October 24, 2000 meeting voted 5-0 to adopt the attached Resolution No. 1623 to recommend approval of the requested General . Plan Amendment. The Development Services Department is also recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Duarte Road and Second. Avenue. The two lots were created by Parcel Map No. 8342 (see the following map) in 1977. Also in 1977, Zone Change No. Z-77-2 added a P/Automobile Parking overlay zone to the northerly R-2 zoned portion of the property (810 S. Second Ave.). Subsequent General Plan Land Use Designation boundaries for this area were established to be consistent with the zoning boundaries. LASER !MADE D y. 0 / ht , Cp—cc . ♦ 5a ' A However, the southerly boundary of the zone change _- does not coincide with the 1 ;32.s s so i so i north lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road (Lot 2 of Parcel Map' ALICE ST 8342). The result is a 3.81 •5 i 30 i 50 1Q 50 '; foot wide strip of land just to ja {,i3 I the north of 201 E. Duarte Q 17 4 j Road that is designated I , 1 r, I i , Commercial by the General 16 !4 • 13 i it L6, Plan and zoned C-1/Limited = 1 '. Commercial, but is adjacent to ' ` z�°'' the multiple family property at . . 8342 ' ' 810 S. Second Avenue (the ---- 2.07-1=_-__-=-1.-v-..-_:,,,...--,. northerly portion of Lot 1 of Parcel Map 8342). z--=;.......:4: Z4,16,1'014 - �} 1 -z 2 e . This General Plan o. or Amendment is the first step in t'-t - ,,� , (-0.t) cr)aligning the General Plan (znQ �za3-z ;'""�' Land Use Designation and �-'° . Zoning boundaries with the north lot line of 201 E. Duarte A ;r,y Road. The eventual goal is to DU develop 810 S. Second 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 8342 Avenue with a five-unit residential condominium project. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission at its October 24, 2000. meeting voted 5-0 to adopt the attached Resolution No. 1623 to recommend approval of this General Plan Amendment. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are also attached. DISCUSSION This General Plan Amendment is to change the Land Use Designation of a 3.81 foot wide strip of property just north of 201 E. Duarte Road (Lot 2 of Parcel Map 8342) from Commercial to MFR-12 for Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.). This 3.81 foot wide strip of land extends from Second Avenue eastward to the easterly property line of Lot 1 of Parcel Map 8342 (see the diagram of Parcel Map 8342). This general plan change is the first application necessary to enable the R-2 zoned property at 810 S. Second Avenue to be developed'with a five-unit residential condominium project. The GP 00-002 November 21, 2000 Page 2 of 3 project could not be subdivided into condominiums unless there is consistency with the • General Plan and Zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been drafted for this General Plan Amendment. RECOMMENDATION This General Plan Amendment will not have an affect on the eventual development of the subject property and the land uses will be consistent with the surrounding uses. The Planning Commission and Development Services Department recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002. • CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council should open the public hearing. Provided that the testimony presented is consistent with the information in this staff report, the Council should move to .adopt and file the Negative Declaration and adopt the attached Resolution No. 6201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 00-002 TO ADJUST THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF 201-221 E. DUARTE ROAD AND THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAX.) DESIGNATION OF 810 S. SECOND AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING NORTHERLY LOT LINE OF 201 E. DUARTE ROAD. Attachments: CC Resolution No. 6201 PC Resolution No. 1623 PC Minutes of October 24, 2000 Land Use and Zoning Map Draft Negative Declaration & Initial Study Approved by: , �'y � t William R. Kelly, City Manager GP 00-002 November 21, 2000 Page 3 of 3 • RESOLUTION NO. 6201 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, • APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 00-002 TO ADJUST THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF 201-221 E. DUARTE ROAD AND THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAX.) DESIGNATION OF 810 S. SECOND AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING NORTHERLY LOT LINE OF 201 E. DUARTE ROAD. WHEREAS, this General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002 was initiated by Mr. Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. to change the General Plan Land Use Designation boundary between the commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810;, S. Second Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 8342 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 98, Page 35 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County So that the land use designation boundary will align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road to enable a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development.at 810 S. Second Avenue; and • WHEREAS, on October 24, 2000 a public hearing was held before, the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000 voted 5 to 0!•to adopt Resolution No. 1623 to. recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000 the City Council held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002 and the Draft Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered the following: 1. The staff report and related attachments submitted by the Development Services Department to the City Council, including the initial study and Draft Negative Declaration; and • _ I ` c 2. The record of the Planning Commission's October 24, 2000 public hearing regarding this General Plan Amendment, along with all letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at that public hearing; and 3. All letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing of November 21, 2000 and all oral presentations at that public hearing; and i WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing.the City Council reviewed' the record of the proceeding, discussed and deliberated the matter, approved the General Plan Amendment, adopted the Negative Declaration, and adopted. this Resolution to reflect their findings and decision consistent with the staff report end their deliberations; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. .. Section 2. That the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property; or improvements in such area or vicinity, and that the project as proposed is consistent with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan. Section . 3. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study is accurate and appropriate; that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and that when considering the project as a whole, there was Ino i evidence before the City Council that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends; and that, therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. Section 4. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation boundary between the commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte • -2- 6201 • Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue so that the land use designation boundary will align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road to enable a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development at 810 S. Second Avenue. Section 5., The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 21st day of November 2000. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: - - • • Y-f,ge,,„ P. i)-, F4-(i Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6201 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular - meeting of said Council on the 21st day of November 2000, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ' City Clerk of the City of Arcadia - - -3- 6201 RESOLUTION NO. 1623 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 00-002 TO ADJUST THE LAND USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF 201-221 E. DUARTE ROAD AND THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAX.) DESIGNATION OF 810 S. SECOND AVENUE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING NORTHERLY LOT LINE OF 201 E. DUARTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on September 7, 2000, Mr. Hank•Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. filed an application for a general plan amendment to adjust the land use designation boundary between the commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue, more particularly described as follows; so that the land use designation boundary will align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road for a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development at 810 S. Second Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 8342 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 98, Page 35 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 24, 2000 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,. CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report dated October 24, 2000 are true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds: 1. That the request to adjust the land use designation boundary between the commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue to align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road, does not conflict with the General Plan Land Use Designations of any surrounding or nearby properties. • 2. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the initial study are appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative Declaration should be approved. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002 based upon the information submitted by the Applicant to the City as of date of this Resolution. Section 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's direction to staff given at its meeting of October 24, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson and Murphy NOES: None Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1623 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on October 24, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson and Murphy NOES: None Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: f I v - Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia -2- 1623 J. ,� . tit;); 4) PUBLIC HEARING GP 00-002 201-205 E. Duarte Rd. & 810 S. Second Ave. Hank Jong • Consideration of a general plan amendment to adjust the GP designation boundary between the Commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Rd. and the Multiple-Family residential (12 du/ac max.) designation of 810 S. Second Ave. to align with an existing lot line for a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development at 810 S. Second' Ave. RESOLUTION 1623 A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, recommending to City Council the approval of GP 00-002 to adjust the land use designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Rd. and the rnutliple-family residential designation of 810 S. Second Ave. to align with the existing northerly lotline of 201 E. Duarte Rd. The staff report was presented. In response to a question from Commissioner Bruckner, staff replied that the alley was vacated approximately 30 years ago. The result of a parcel map and zone change in 1977, was a 3.81' wide strip of land north of the lot at 201 E. Duarte Rd. that is designated for commercial use by the GP and is zoned C-l. This piece of land extends eastward from Second Ave. to the easterly property line of Lot 1 of the 1977 parcel map. This process is to clean up the inconsistency for future development. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Murphy closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend approval of GP 00-002 to the City Council and adopt Resolution No. 1623. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson, Murphy NOES: None Planning Commission 10/24/00 • . . / -,,,, . _ —-- R-2 (Th 0 , 0 0 C) 0 --. ALICE • ST. , - 0 < . 0 , R-2 8 DETACHED 270 3 RESIDENTIAL •,5 UNITS , tz-10 I D ki IVI i to , 8342 UNDER . . CONSTRUCTION th P.M.B. cti CC sT, C-2 a ci2 0 0 1 _ 1— FAST FOOD 0 Z-. ': WITH 0 _ 4 DRIVE THRU LO Ot ) o A . . / I 09.7 9-- - -- . RD- DUARTE. re uj 0 ix = 0 1-• 0 cr i_ 0 • 2 5 ° BANK 0 L.t.i 0 ,-,-( < LU O. I LU < W 2 ca C4 R-2 R-1 . c.) a , C-2 • 0 ri: ED S . < 0- › 0 LAND USE & ZONING MAP GP 00-002 / Z 00-002 / MP 00-024 /ADR 00-025 / TM 53330 201-221 E. Duarte Rd. & 810 S. Second Ave. 1 NORTH Scale: 1 inch = 100 feet YQ File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 .N • 04 CITY OF ARCADIA � °R�AS==°". 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Adopted: -- D RAFT-- Title and Description of Project: General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002; Zone Change No. Z 00-002; & Tentative Tract Map No. TM 53330 — A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a 3.81 foot southward adjustment of the General Plan Land Use Designation boundary and Zoning Designation boundary between the Commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue to align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road, which is a vacant lot. These are to accommodate a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development of 810 S. Second Avenue. The Tentative Tract Map will follow the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to split 203-221 E. Duarte Road from 810 S. Second Avenue with a new lot line that will align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road, and for-the condominium subdivision of the proposed 5-unit residential development of 810 S. Second Avenue. Location of Project: 201-221 E. Duarte Road & 810 S. Second Avenue Northeast corner of East Duarte Road & South Second Avenue In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles Name of Applicant or Project Sponsor: EGL Associates, Inc. — Civil Engineers for Sunny Development 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit#18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Contact: Hank Jong — (562) 945-0689/fax (562) 945-0364 Finding: The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public hearing of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare - that the proposed project will not have a.significant effect on the environment based on the results of the Initial Study, and the consistency of the proposed project with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission hereby finds that this Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at the location listed below. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia—Development Services Dept./Community Development Division/Planning Services Attention staff member: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner (626)574-5445 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Date Received for Filing By Los Angeles County: (County Clerk Stamp Here) Name of Los Angeles County Staffperson Title File Nos.: GP 00-002; OF • Z 00-002; ";1411/1116 • &TM 53330 a CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE P°""TS° ARCADIA, CA 91007 . CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment No. GP 00-002; Zone Change No. Z 00-002; & Tentative Tract Map No. TM 53330 2. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Dept. / Community Development Div. / Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Lead Agency Contact Person & Phone Number: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner— (626) 574-5445 /fax (626) 447-9173 4. Project Location (address): 201-221 E. Duarte Road & 810 S. Second Avenue Northeast corner of East Duarte Road & South Second Avenue In the City of Arcadia, County.of Los Angeles • 5. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Phone Number: EGL Associates, Inc. — Civil Engineers for Sunny Development 11823 Slauson Avenue, Unit #18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Contact: Hank Jong — (562) 945-0689 /fax (562) 945-0364 6. General Plan Designation: The northerly portion of the property is designated "Multiple Family Residential with a 12 Dwelling Units Per Acre Maximum Density" and the southerly portion is designated "Commercial". Form"J" -1- CEQA Checklist 4/99 • File Nos.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 7. Zoning Classification: The northerly portion of the property (810 S. Second Ave.) is zoned PR-2 for transient automobile parking use in conjunction with a nearby commercially zoned property or for multiple family residential use at a density of one unit per 3,750 square feet of lot area. The southerly portion of the property (201-221 E. Duarte Rd.) is zoned C-1 for limited commercial use. 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.) A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a 3.81 foot southward adjustment of the General Plan Land Use Designation boundary and Zoning Designation boundary between the Commercial designation of 201-221 E. Duarte Road and, the Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Max.) designation of 810 S. Second Avenue to align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road, which is a vacant lot. These are to accommodate a proposed 5-unit residential condominium development of 810 S. Second Avenue. • A Tentative Tract Map will follow the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to split 203-221 E. Duarte Road from 810 S. Second Avenue with a new lot line that will align with the existing northerly lot line of 201 E. Duarte Road, and for the condominium subdivision of the proposed 5-unit residential development of 810 S. Second Avenue. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The 3 lots to the north are developed with single family.residences. The property to the east is being developed with 8 multiple family residences. The areas to the. south and west are developed with commercial uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, participation agreement) The City Building Services, Engineering Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Services, and Water Services will review the construction plans and subdivision map for compliance with all applicable construction codes, dedication of • public rights-of-ways and easements, and compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, and will oversee construction and installation of any necessary infrastructure or improvements within the public rights-of-ways. Form "J" -2- CEQA Checklist 4/99 • File Nos.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; _&TM 53330 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 [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Agricultural Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Air Quality [ ] Population l Housing [ ] Biological Resources [. ] Public Services [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Geology/ Soils [ ] Transportation /Traffic [ ] ' Hazards & Hazardous Materials [ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [ ] Land Use / Planning DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] 'I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier 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, but 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. By: J es M. Kasama, Associate Planner For: City of Arcadia Si rem Date: September 27, 2000 9 Form "J" -3- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File Nos.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: • 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the responses 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 XVIII, "Earlier Analyses," must 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, uses 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 significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. • Form"J" -4- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; . Z 00-002; TM 53330 — Less Than --- Significant Potentially With Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [ ] I ] [ ] [X] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [ l I I [ ] [X] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [ ] [ ] [X] [ l The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will be a new source of light, but will not adversely affect views in the area. ) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [ ] [ ] [ l [X] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? [ l [ ] [ ] [X] There is no agricultural or farmland on the subject property or in the vicinity. III. AIR QUALITY— (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the proposal: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? [ l [ l I l [X] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? I ] [ ] I ] [X] 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)? [ ] [ ] [ l [X] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [ ] [ ] [ l [X] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. IV. 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 Form"J" =5- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; 8_TM 53330 — Less Than — - Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Have a substantial adverse effect 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 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42). [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ]. [X] [ ] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] iv) Landslides [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Form"J" -6- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 Less Than -_ - Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. VII. 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildiand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there Form"J" -7- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 _ Less Than -- Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land .uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] c) 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] h) Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] i) 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The subject properties are within the Santa Anita Dam Inundation Area, but the project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in a significant increase in the potential for the exposure of people or property to flooding hazards. IX. LAND USE & PLANNING —Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. X. 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? [ ] [ ] • [ ] [X] 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? [. ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. Form"J" -8- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &TM 53330 -- Less Than —_- Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI. 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? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient • noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ ] [ ] [X] [ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project itself will not result in any of the above impacts, but the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will result in additional noise during construction, but such should not be substantially above existing ambient noise levels. XII. POPULATION & 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)? [ l [ 3 [X] [ 3 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ 3 [ ] [X] [ ] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project 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 would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? [ ] [ 3 [ ] [X] b) Police protection? [ 3 [ ] [ ] [X] c) Schools? [ ]. [ ] [X] [ 3 d) Parks? [ 3 [ ] [X] [ ] e) Other public facilities? [ ] .[ ] [ 3 [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. XIV. RECREATION—Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial Form"J" -9- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; . &TM 53330 _. Less Than -- Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] = [ ] [X] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting • alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] ' [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any significant impacts. XVI. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [ J [ ] [ ] [X] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Form"J" -10- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No.: GP 00-002; Z 00-002; &-TM 53330 Less Than -- Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [ j [ j [ ] [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [ j [ j [ j [X] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) • [ j [ j [ j [X] c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I j [ j [ j [X] The project and the eventual development of the proposed 5 residential units will not result in any of the above impacts. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES No earlier analyses, and no additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes to analyze the project. • • Form"J" -11- CEQA Checklist 4/99 File No. -P 06-007- ©d-00 oft X1"1 53330 CITE OF ARCADIA Axc_ . • f\, j. 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE °14'a$,TSp= ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: 6'- 7- 00 General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Hank Jong Address: 11823 Slauson Ave. , #18 , Santa Fe Springs , CA 90670 2. Property Address (Location): 201 E. Duarte Rd. , Arcadia, CA 91 007 Assessor's Number: 5779-18-41 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Hank Jong, 11823 Slauson Ave. , #18 , Santa Fe Springs , CA 90670 562-945-0689 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: General Plan Change; Zone Change & Tract Map -al 5. Zone Classification: R-2 ; C-1 6. General Plan Designation: parcel 1 : Resident parcel 2 : commercial Project Description 7. Proposed use of site(project description): Building 5 unit condominium s 8. Site size: 32 , 432 S .F. 9. Square footage per building: Type A: 2, 61 6 S .F. , Type B: 2 , 451 S .F. , Type C: 2 , 41 S S.F 10. Number of floors of construction: 2 1 1. Amount of off-street parking provided: Parcel 1 : 1 0 ( residential ) + 3 (guest) parcel 2 : 17 (office) 12. Proposed scheduling of project: 8 months 13. Anticipated incremental development: N/A 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 5 unit condominiu - avera•e size = 2 477 S .F. sale •rices de•end on market condition/ for single family use only. 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N/A • 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: parcel 1 : R2 with southerly 15 ' zone change C1 to R2 Make it a better design of a 5 unit condominium Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or publiclands or roads 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage pattersn. ® EJ 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. E.I.R. 04/12/00 Page 2 7 - YES INTO 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. 31. Storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage delivery or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? 32. A significantly environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water 0 runoff? 33. A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 34. Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? 35. Harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? Environmental Setting 36. 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, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. • 37. Describe (on a separate sheet)the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my lrnowledge and belief. Date Signature E.I.R. • 04/12/00 • TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1.J 53330 201 E. DUARTE ROAD, ARCADIA =— - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS yn---- ---- — —�= F , -., �. TJ *t 7' ,•,"4 try; , „ i ' l tzr r i5 - . .a a+ T'.ym.y�}t,•w�•., �-s -yam t? , fare 41i.s'4: g,4: s '•. K •,t d•tif`, -t. '.. � 4,r4 �' a•f ' .,".1-..,..: {.5 lh is T t^-.C�. a .. +i' + a .t• 4.1.•;',--.!.. - r-c S.;41%:14."F d fn > ?,4 - f " .•_ rte • R'4s t. ; ' " a ;' sir ,� i F Photo 1:Subject site—(viewing east across 2nd Ave.) Photo 2:Subject site — (viewing north across E. Duarte Rd.) • 9 aft s. ,R, t ' xfir,{ f€ >ft„4 '43i1`• F . x. �� ' -yy r os • , x x. t j•a . b. 3 r ,'tom •„�. . •' y _ - Photo 3: Single family house located northwest of subject Photo 4:Store located west of subject property —(viewing property—(viewing northwest across 2nd Ave.) southwest across 2nd Ave.) -, t _ •' .' F a.. tµse M J '� I 01ii� .ttllht iiii r+( t N re dl h,J',h ol f••• ; .5 .� a•. r�!yyp...,r oar c� t `s1C '_�” 0E 4 " Photo 5:Single-family house located west of subject Photo 6:Single-family house located north of subject property Property acrossing 2nd Ave.(viewing west from 2nd Ave.) (viewing northeast from 2nd Ave.) a s TENTATIVE TRACT MAP i. _.'53330 201 E. DUARTE ROAD, ARCADIA = __ SITE PHOTOGRAPHS a s '. �-;r�r _- "; . aw-� r��3: �.,' -f-.- I E 4 4 ,, m Z �� a ,; 1 "1. v - .{ F .�:c.r-,.... .-Lx•t*r Y S 3^•.. Ise ,-t. . _ 3 .. . . = h- :,,,--:-'4:='-r-, ,... - : gnu ,x f Bc Photo 7:Store located south of subject site—(viewing south Photo 8: Store located south • of subject site— (viewing south across E.Duarte Rd.) across E.Duarte Rd.) 1 . Photo 9: Single family house located southeast of subject Photo 10:Adjacency located southwest of subject property — property—(viewing southeast across Duarte Ave.) (viewing north across Duarte Rd.) • f / C) 6--V0— S-6) 0 is/It\\\•k +k RI'oRE9 °° AT STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 21, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct() SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 6203 AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO ACQUIRE FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY • • SUMMARY: Currently,the City of Arcadia is on the eligibility list to purchase surplus property from the Federal Surplus Property Program. The City's eligibility has not been updated for a number of years and in order for the City to be eligible to purchase equipment from this program, the State of California Department of General Services requests that the City Council adopt a resolution updating the employees eligible to purchase this property. DISCUSSION: The California State Agency for Surplus Property allows government agencies to purchase excess property through the Federal Surplus Property Program. The City received a letter from the State of California Department of General Services stating that the City's eligibility to purchase surplus equipment has not been recently updated. In order for the City to continue to have the option of purchasing surplus equipment from the Federal Surplus Property Program, an updated resolution is necessary. Various City Departments have taken advantage of this program on a number of occasions over the last few years. It is in the City's best interest to continue to have the ability to purchase equipment from this source. LASER IM14G CD Attached is a Resolution authorizing the City's Purchasing Officer, Administrative Services Director and City Manager, or their designees, to acquire surplus property from the California State Agency for Surplus Property. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. RECOMMENDATTION: It is recommended the City Council: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6203 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO ACQUIRE SURPLUS PROPERTY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY FOR SURPLUS PROPERTY." Approved By: Alkr\ "1 William R. Kelly, City Manager Dt e/C.) -27 7• • I '$p OAATQO�jo, STAFF REPORT AA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: November 21, 2000 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: (Con Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director pBy Pete Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator SUBJECT: Report and Recommendation to adopt City Council Resolution 6204, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, designating the attached map as the Survey Area to be studied to determine the feasibility of amending the Central Redevelopment Project to add territory. SUMMARY The City Council adopted the initial survey area for the Central Redevelopment Project by Resolution No. 4315, on February 6, 1973. (See Survey Area Map., Attachment 1). The final project area boundaries were adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 1490 on December 26, 1973 (See Project Area Map, Attachment 2). The City Council has directed staff to proceed with a proposed amendment to the Central Redevelopment Project Area adding the South Arcadia commercial district to the project area. (See proposed Survey Area Map, Attachment 3). The first step in this process is the adoption by the City Council of a "Study Area". Staff recommends adoption of City Council Resolution No. 6204 (Attachment A). DISCUSSION The proposed "Study Area" (Attachment 3) comprises most of the commercially and industrially zoned properties in the South Arcadia Business District and the adjacent public rights of way, e.g, streets, alleys. NO residential zones are included. Upon the recommendation of Keyser Marston Assoc., the Agency's consultant, the survey area does not include properties which have been recently redeveloped, i.e, Ralph's, Albertson's, Say-On. Staff has however added the currently unzoned former City owned Mounted Police and City Water property. The adopted Survey Area will be studied by staff, the consultants, Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and City Council to determine if redevelopment is feasible. LASER I'MAGED /r/. / 0 a , The next step is the preparation of the Preliminary Plan by the consultant and staff. The. Preliminary Plan is submitted to the Planning Commission, then to the Redevelopment Agency, and then to the affected taxing agencies, State Board of Equalization, and LA County. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact at this time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the. City Council adopt.'Resolution 6204, entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, designating the attached map as the Survey Area to be studied to determine the feasibility of amending the Central Redevelopment Project to add territory." Ur)01 Approved By: . William R. Kelly, City Manager • • Central Redevelopment I 1 . . Project Area , • - ,, Adopted - City Council ATTACHMENT 1 ... Reso' +315 \ -6..?,...-- 1 ._ • . E.":1- (February 6, 1973) 1 r:77)(.."2—) _ _ km — ir .....A ii I 1 - , .. .. . Mr 1 -;:- • - ;. •- / !gi 11-25.---74 ' 1 I sirnoi. / ••a* oammok liFa 111 i le. --- : Ag, • , , . , .. z . L ip 4 -- ' -- •ft31 il:Ir OPP , ..... .■?!...- r II // '1 1 .--,---, ,.._ , ar...\ .. , _ • ,_.. .... , ,., . , • . . , / –me I .. e g _ • • 3. . ati— Off... .. ,___, . . . v- 1 . lip"..'ir. lig or _ • ., 4.- wiLF4C_ , .: : ..... ,„ • 111 0 10 -. ..' I : i , ir: ,.. g o. . „ ., .. . 1 • 2 , . ...I frr,.. R1,a • \ :.,•,.,.., ;L. .....;:. ... ;.414%\... r'e / /41" , .. It.•=31 1 '. • . , ■.. 4.11-•/1/1. ' 4. .34. a 0- — I i g el 1 i .... c3 ..7 .3.. 33. W cr, cr 0 D ° • kJ • Mit 111 J LI 0 0 r •1: . 11 g r 0 E . . -,... . . . • ,.. . I air,,,.. ............... g IMMEMIEM.*11 in4O....1.1.4 .. 1 all.Z. ..' . <0...;. ." •... II. ' ...1 CP 0. 3 .: ..s • u . . .... 43 . ct 4... . _ . .1.... . 41/4 r,.....e'e ei. ,.• '''t. e -:,,c, • •.,,,, • , • .1•4, • .... ..,; ..:. • , . • 1 i . e7,9_ 1 / ... .. , '...., SIT \ lir 1 11 . I . . . . .l, . S•0> . . linen. • d r . ///' . • / . •;...,.. ...„.. . ..D.) . . V. I .6. ' ' .1, -. • ' 1 •..X.r. • • . . A. e. -r• ==.7.7% 0 . ...- .. It • I . l ..- .0 . e011 Me -- 6--.\41,1. ":'„,, c"pd. 341r .. V. •• ••. • . g N.) , •... •.• •. . VA. • 0 • .. V.a. . ./.// 151. ) - ...... ,. . A1t-A1.0flegr 1_ .1 ■ ■tee law mai U41;; ♦, ``''N ►Ian an, . w Central Redevelopment Project PF F•o 'HD IflhD RHO RL ♦ CITY OF ARCADIA : •wm M CG RLD RHD RHD RHD CG . C•1•rad• I•Ivd �. ` I <1CGI RHD . I: COI RHD %S CG ,% I. 1 I I II 1 iro c o L. P. t• St. '. � I 1 014 'CG/I >n •. t !t. r` C _ I I I P D .�� �,, • S. .■ II ■r. _ N. 11 — ■ C G u EP IA %� co`� .. CG PD I« ECG I CG Imo ( � - Hr■tl■Irt•■, Dr!v• 1M-11.r sM11-1.rs.■ti.r sr I CC I ( CC I O ® . I ., CG 4' RHD G CG . RIID • Ilarw ow NM 1111 Ilar IL r • > a PD 1 I % I + '• • • 5.. '••� 1 y ■ 4' LEGEND a♦ .I n =�t RHD Residential High Density I Industrial ,` 2 RLD Residential Low Denslly PF Public Facilili• s CO Commercial Office PD Planned Development NORTH ry • October, 1986 CG Commercial General • ..r.. Protect Area Boundary I" 600' ..-. - . . . • . • , I i ! i 1 i • 1 1 I ! L I 1 1 I rL-1 ;I------! ( ) i 1 1. li 1. 1 I It I L..---,WT /// -1.--s--"— .------• 1 I i I 1 pry.y L--. ; . OM 1 i / , I I r_ct) ! , ‘ l •-"''' ...--' 1 j ROCCA , 2 1 ill ......- • I ( , i 1 \ _ 1 ,.. 4 . ,___,1 L -J1 \ • ___ F_ FrODELL Pt ' 1 0".°' ___ 5 1 i S WOCCAldri Pt -- .-- I ." „.,,,, LONCoa,,:.,1 9.01:4* z ... ! 11,-----.--------1- i ' -.....T:\ 5 .,..13 II - -I i I WOOC....Ff AV - \ li .41..-Di72 I ! IS L, , Av . ,41 , i SAASAA I 1 ...11.. -L■1. L'4°."V 1 '°: ' V \ \ 1 I . I 1 \ \I._■•■•1■I■,,-. —..,440■IM.1 ! I r- ,r„„.„w i-r"' 1 i \ ii. LAS 71,40 0,, 1 M 1 I 1 \ \ u„,---- ...„,r,...... .,1110111111111111 i -n„ n, , , 1_,1 ' ' . ,---------1 \ ! 1 r._, ..„ ,„0. . L,. \ .\ I •_-- •' •••.- .''" \ :\ Ci \ 1 i 'I i \ \\ \ • •.---e; ,--. 1\ ,,c, \ i______-4,\■-- •; ‘, 11 ''' 1 III ' 1 \ I I • . •,..- . •• ■ , t • t , \ ! • ,t...•\______—••-,, ,...,•.v,Y13 i ,____ _, ,..., n-----\\ \ , .,..... , ! , „ , \01 % \ \ \ ! 1 liL_Li \ ' .. t. 1 r..< E1\ R 1 -'--..es ,__.-----, •----1 . ■ _____..------------' rTii )) ! ' • I • --\ r-----A Or% --,, , e, __--- ali 1 , , _____A _ \ \ 1 \ ._..------1 i 1 i 500 0 500 1000 Fez ■ \ I 1 '.... ' ,,-•,' " \ \ \ V t i , \ 11 1 1 / r____FH,Lb:c..--■11111111111 ------- I . . - ti 1 i ■ ,\ \------ r------\\ '' \ r. , \ . .---1---) r-------1------7\ \' '‘(..-'....' n • i ! 1 / PI t # . i 1 :: ii, II --4. Proposed South Arcadia , .. , Develop Engineering Division Development Services Department it > .,... H ' '.1%;',Aion‘. Redevelopment Project Area H > ' • tri.cil, ." c-) Prepared by:R.5.Gonzalez,Nov.9,2000- y,,, .....*. °••Ponat119. j: Surve Map tri . • I-3 . • Lo •