The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 1, 2001A G E N D A Arcadia City Council ADLA and Redevelopment Agency fxoOR >oaets ° -°g Meeting May 1, 2001 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Conference Room 01010 m11 � ff mar ill e ACTION ROLL CALL: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) CLOSED SESSION — CITY COUNCIL a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators Sonny Morkus, Dan Cassidy and William Kelly regarding Teamsters Local 911, APOA, APWEA, AFFA, Management and non - represented employees. 2. CLOSED SESSION — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) 55 W. Huntington Dr. 21 Morlan Place 28 W. Santa Clara 41 W. Huntington Dr. 35 W. Huntington Dr. 27 W. Huntington Dr. 11 -19 W. Huntington Dr. 121, 145, 155 N. Santa Anita Ave. 101 N. Santa Anita Ave. 25 N. Santa Anita Ave. 5 N. Santa Anita Ave. 100 W. Huntington Dr. 130 W. Huntington Dr. Paul Rusnak Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia) Ellsworth Dohlgren Robert Johannsen Gary and Don Braun (35 W. Huntington Partners) Richard Gretebeck (Tempelkadian) Gary Barringer Ohannes Berberian Walter Griffin Ralph Wolveck (Professional Medical Investors) Anthony Fanticola (Wortman Oil) Brian Carney Geraldine Baird, et al Negotiating Parties — Agency Deputy Executive Director Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to May 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. Mickey Segal, Mayor • Gail A. Marshall, Mayor Protempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Shang Chang, Gary A. Kovacic, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager June D. Alford, City Clerk ACTION 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full 4. 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 4a and 4b 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. Consideration of a proposed general plan amendment to change the General Plan designation from Single - Family Residential (0 -6 du /ac) to Multiple Family Residential (12 du /ac) at 1012 -1026 S. First Avenue. (This application was filed by Hank Jong). b. Recommendation to approve TA 2001 -001, a text amendment amending Section 9275.1.51 by deleting crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process. 5. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING )FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items 7. CONSENT a. Minutes of the April 17, 2001 regular meeting. b. Recommendation to award a two (2) year contract extension in the amount of $40,024 per year to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for heating, ventilation and air conditioning maintenance services and waive formal bidding procedures. C. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with _ Bucknam and Associates in the amount of $39,500.00 for program management support of the Water System Seismic Reliability Program and related water programs. 2 • ACTION CONSENT — Continued d. Recommendation to award a contract to E.C. Construction Company in amount of.$215,152.50 for the street rehabilitation of Baldwin Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Las Tunas Road /Live Oak Avenue and appropriate an additional $59,600.00 to cover the contract cost, engineering and contingencies. e. Recommendation to award a contract to Olivas Valdez, Inc. in the amount of $99,801.75 for the 2000 -2001 Concrete Repair Program. Recommendation to award a contract to Dynalectric in the amount of $95,753 for the construction of a pedestrian traffic signal - Campus Drive at Arcadia High School. g. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with _ Horiuchi and Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the City Council Chamber and City Hall complex and to waive the formal Request for Proposal procedures. h. Recommendation to upgrade the imaging/optical disk computer system in the City Clerk's office in the current Fiscal Year. 8. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 2139, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a Chapter 10 to Article I, Part 2 regarding delegation of certain signatory authority to the City Manager concerning certain documents. ADJOURN to May 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. A N N O T A T E D MA G E N D A ❑ ❑❑ Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency _- r4CeAPeRAS19oae - Meeting May 1, 2001 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Conference Room ACTION ROLL CALL: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All Rresent TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None 1. CLOSED SESSION — CITY COUNCIL a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators Sonny Morkus, Dan Cassidy and William Kelly regarding Teamsters Local 911, APOA, APWEA, AFFA, Management and non - represented employees. 2. CLOSED SESSION — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) 55 W. Huntington Dr. 21 Morlan Place 28 W. Santa Clara 41 W. Huntington Dr. 35 W. Huntington Dr. 27 W. Huntington Dr. 11 -19 W. Huntington Dr. 121, 145, 155 N. Santa Anita Ave. 101 N. Santa Anita Ave. 25 N. Santa Anita Ave. 5 N. Santa Anita Ave. 100 W. Huntington Dr. 130 W. Huntington Dr. Paul Rusnak Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia) Ellsworth Dohigren Robert Johannsen Gary and Don Braun (35 W. Huntington Partners) Richard Gretebeck (Tempelkadian) Gary Barringer Ohannes Berberian Walter Griffin Ralph Wolveck (Professional Medical Investors) Anthony Fanticola (Wortman Oil) Brian Carney Geraldine Baird, at al Negotiating Parties — Agency Deputy Executive Director Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment At 5:03 p.m. the Council /Agency RECESSED to Closed Session to 6:51 p.m. RECESSED and RECONVENED in the Council Chambers ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to May 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. at 7:00 p.m. Mickey Segal, Mayor • Gail A. Marshall, Mayor Protempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Sheng Chang, Gary A. Kovacic, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager _ June D. Alford, City Clerk i ACTION 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers INVOCATION Reverend Terry Keenan, The Santa Anita Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Bob Hoherd ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal All present 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full Adopted 5-0 City Attorney Deitsch announced the City Council /Agency met in Closed Session. No reportable 4. PUBLIC HEARING action was taken. 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 4a and 4b 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. a. Consideration of a proposed general plan amendment to change the General Plan designation from Single - Family Residential (0 -6 du )fac) to Multiple Family Residential (12 du /ac) at 1012 -1026 S. First Avenue. (This application was filed by Hank Jong). b. Recommendation to approve TA 2001 -001, a text amendment amending Section 9275.1.51 by deleting crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process. Pub.Hrg. Closed Urgency Ord. 2140 optAd - 45 day ed mor 5i0 toriun pending land use study of subject area Pub. Hrg. Closet Approved -0 Ord 2137 — Introduced 5. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE- MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) Charles Chila 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items See Minutes 7. CONSENT a. Minutes of the April 17, 2001 regular meeting. ve d 5-0 as Amende b. Recommendation to award a two (2) year contract extension in the amount Approved s -0 of $40,024 per year to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for heating, ventilation and air conditioning maintenance services and waive formal bidding procedures. C. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Approved 5 -0 Bucknam and Associates in the amount of $39,500.00 for program management support of the Water System Seismic Reliability Program and related water programs. 2 CONSENT — Continued LJ d. Recommendation to award a contract to E.C. Construction Company in amount of.$2.15,152.50 for the street rehabilitation of Baldwin Avenue, Foothill Boulevard and Las Tunas Road /Live Oak Avenue and appropriate an additional $59,600.00 to cover the contract cost, engineering and contingencies. ACTION Approved 5 -0 e. Recommendation to award a contract to Olivas Valdez, Inc. in the amount App roved 5 -0 of $99,801.75 for the 2000 -2001 Concrete Repair Program. Recommendation to award a contract to Dynalectric in the amount of Approved 5 -0 $95,753 for the construction of a pedestrian traffic signal - Campus Drive at Arcadia High School. g. Recommendation to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Approved 5 -0 Horiuchi and Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the City Council Chamber and City Hall complex and to waive the formal Request for Proposal procedures. h. Recommendation to upgrade the imaging/optical disk computer system in Approved 5 -0 the City Clerk's office in the current Fiscal Year. 8. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to introduce Ordinance No. 2139, an Ordinance of the Introduced 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a Chapter 10 to Article I, Part 2 regarding delegation of certain signatory authority to the City Manager concerning certain documents. ADJOURN to May 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. ADJOURNED at 10:13 p.m. 0730 ®q0 j ., me ., cwi STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT May 1, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director J Prepared by: Dave McVey, General Services Sup rintendent Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO HORIUCHI AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,500 TO DESIGN THE HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM FOR THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AND CITY HALL COMPLEX AND WAIVE FORMAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCEDURES SUMMARY: The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) provides for the design and construction of a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) conveyance system for City Hall and the City Council Chamber. Construction of the improvements for City Hall and the City Council Chamber are included in the proposed 2001-02 CIP. Simultaneously, the new Police facility is under design. The police facility currently houses the main cooling system for both City Hall and the Police building. Horiuchi and Associates, a sub consultant of the design team for the new police facility, is currently designing a new HVAC system for the new Police facility. The design of this system includes a new chiller plant, which will also be used to provide coolant for the City Hall complex. Because these two (2) projects directly interface with one another, staff recommends that the City Council waive the formal request for proposal procedures and award a professional services agreement to Horiuchi and Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the HVAC system improvements for the City Hall Complex and the City Council Chamber as permitted by Arcadia Municipal Code Section 2844.3. DISCUSSION: Horiuchi and Associates is currently designing. a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ,(HVAC) system for the new Police facility. The design of this system includes a new chiller plant, which will also be used to provide coolant for the City Hall complex. The current chiller plant, which cools both City Hall and the Police Building, is . located in the old Police Facility and will be destroyed when the old building is demolished. • LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council - = May 1, 2001 Page 2 This year's Capital Improvement Budget provides for the first phase of a two phase project intended to design, engineer and construct an improved HVAC system for the City Council Chamber and City Hall. The current ductwork and ventilation system is inadequate and cannot properly heat or cool the offices throughout City Hall and in the Council Chamber building. Design modifications for these two buildings will increase cooling capacity and air volume supply and include a sufficient number of thermostat- controlled zones, for improved heating and cooling systems. Horiuchi and Associates will provide an on-site detailed study of existing conditions in the City Council Chamber and the City Hall Complex. The study will provide mechanical, electrical and structural plans/specifications; coordinate all modifications with the City's requirements and building design criteria; and process plans through the City's plan check, including Title 24 Energy calculations when required. By using the same HVAC design firm for the new Police facility and the existing City Hall complex, all related equipment, cooling designs and air distribution can be coordinated into one, energy efficient system. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council waive the request for proposal procedure and award a professional services agreement to Horiuchi and Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the HVAC system for the City Council Chamber and City Hall Complex. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $25,800 have been budgeted in the 2000-01 Capital Improvement Plan for HVAC design consulting services. The total cost of awarding a professional services agreement to Horiuchi. and Associates is $21,500. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Waive formal request for proposal procedures based upon the special facts presented.. 2. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Horiuchi and Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the HVAC system for the City Council Chamber and City Hall Complex. 3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form ti approved by the City Attorney. PM:DM:CL:dw Approved by: WOCI William R. Kelly, City Manager • 073e -yip sh /dpli fk/f'c4, -+, 7 STAFF REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT May 1, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director Prepared by; Dave McVey, General Services Su erintendent Chris Ludlum, Management Analyst SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A TWO (2) YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,024 PER YEAR TO SHELDON MECHANICAL CORPORATION FOR HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING MAINTENANCE SERVICES AND WAIVE FORMAL BIDDING PROCEDURES SUMMARY 0 On February 3,1998 the City Council approved. a 17-month Agreement with 'Sheldon • Mechanical Corporation to perform preventive maintenance of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC) with two (2) one-year contract extensions. Sheldon Mechanical Corporation is reaching the end of their second contract extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the existing contract an additional two (2) years. The contractor's offer of extension indicates no change in the annual contract cost of $40,024 or in the conditions of the Agreement. Staff recommends that the City Council award a two (2) year contract extension in the amount of $40,024 per year to_Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for heating, ventilation and air conditioning maintenance services and Y based upon the special facts of this situation, waive formal bidding procedures, as permitted by Arcadia Municipal Code Section 2844.3. DISCUSSION The Public Works Services Department is responsible for the day-to-day operation and maintenance of City facilities' heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC). The contractor is responsible for system repairs and performing a detailed preventative maintenance schedule as outlined in the contract scope of work. The contract provides for systematic scheduling of preventive maintenance tasks for multiple buildings and facilities. This preventive maintenance schedule minimizes the incidence of unscheduled maintenance repair services. The current Agreement provided for two (2) one-year contract extensions. Sheldon Mechanical Corporation is currently approaching the end of their second extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the term of this contract for an additional 2-years. The offer indicates no changes in the annual compensation or the conditions of the existing Agreement. Staff believes that this two-year extension would be beneficial to the City. • LASER IMAGED Mayor and City Council May 1, 2001 Page 2 Sheldon Mechanical Corporation has provided excellent and affordable service during the terms of the Agreement. The work assigned to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation is always performed in a timely, and efficient manner. They have also been instrumental in providing new improved HVAC design concepts, or more energy efficient programming of existing motors and cooling equipment. Based on Sheldon.Mechanical Corporations excellent performance and their proposal to extend the contract with no increase in cost, staff is recommending that the City Council award a two year contract extension in the amount of$40,024 for each of the two years. Staff concludes that extending the existing Agreement will. ensure that the excellent quality service being performed by Sheldon Mechanical Corporation will continue through the next two (2) years. At the end of the agreement, the new Police Facility will be nearing completion. Because the new facility will significantly change the type of equipment maintained and the size of the facilities at the Civic Center complex, staff recommends re-bidding for these services at that time. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for these services are provided for in the proposed 2001/02 and 2002/03 Operating Budgets for this contract. The total amount of the service contract with Sheldon Mechanical Corporation is $40,024 per year. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Waive formal bidding procedures based upon the special facts presented. 2. Award a two-year contract extension in the amount of $40,024 per year to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for heating, ' ventilation, and air conditioning maintenance services: 3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract amendment on behalf of the City. PM:CL:dw Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager • • 'AYtGAD ' "\ %� STAFF REPORT �ApoRATE� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT May 1, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: • Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director e By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (G.P. 01-001) FROM SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0-6 DU/AC) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAXIMUM) AT 1012-1026 S. FIRST AVENUE SUMMARY This application was filed by Hank Jong; for a General Plan amendment (GP 01-001)-- from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/SAC Maximum) for the properties located at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. The four lots that are included in the General Plan Amendment are all zoned R-2 Two-Family. The • proposed General Plan change would provide for consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. The Planning Commission at its March. 27 meeting voted 4-0 with one member absent to adopt Resolution 1637 recommending approval of the General Plan Change. BACKGROUND The inconsistency between the General Plan and.the Zoning came to light when a proposed 6-unit residential condominium project was submitted to the City for development of the two properties at 1020-1026 S. First Avenue. The propo ed project was designed in accordance with the City's R-2 regulations. Although the subject properties are zoned R-2, the General Plan designation for the properties is Single-Family Residential. The properties were zoned R-2 in 1954, which is consistent with the R-2 zoning of the properties to the north of the subject properties. 4 \1' • In order to subdivide a property into condominium units, State law requires that the zoning and the general plan be consistent. The applicant was informed of the inconsistency and was advised by staff that if he wished to proceed with the six (6) unit condominium project on these properties a General Plan amendment would be required to change the General Plan designation from Single Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential (12 DU/AC Maximum). The Arcadia Municipal Code, however, does not prevent the applicant from proceeding to develop the property with apartments because an apartment complex does not require a subdivision. Because the two lots at 1012 and 1016 North First Avenue are also zoned R-2, they have been included in the General Plan amendment, although the property owners have not made that request. The property owners at 1012 and 1016 North First are aware of the General Plan amendment and have not voiced any opposition. DISCUSSION. Two of the four properties (1012 and 1016 South First Avenue) are developed with single-family dwellings built between 1939 and 1959. This applicant recently demolished the existing dwellings at 1020-1026 South First Avenue. Under the current zoning designation the site can be built with apartments. The applicant has been advised that unless a General Plan amendment is approved, the units may not be sold as condominiums. Building permits for a multiple family project were issued on March 29, 2001 for six (6) units. The four lots contain a total square footage of 44,108 sq. ft. The lots are all 50 feet in width and 220 feet in depth. Based upon the R-2 zoning designation which allows one (1) dwelling unit per 3,750 square feet of lot area, approximately 12 units could be constructed on the four lots either as apartments or condominiums. The applicant for this General Plan amendment is proposing to develop two of the lots with six (6) units. If the properties were to be rezoned R-1 (Single-Family) consistent with the General Plan designation, the four (4) lots could each be built with new single-family dwellings. Properties to the north of the subject area are zoned C-2 and R-2 and developed with a service station, office and four multiple-family residences. To the east are single- family residences on Greenfield Place. To the south is a new single-family subdivision (zoned R-1) on Crystal Court. To the west across First Avenue the properties are zoned C-2, PR-1 and R-2 and developed with the Arcadia All-Pro Athletics Club, parking lot and a Church respectively. Properties on the north side of Christina Street, west of First Avenue are zoned R-3 and developed with multiple- family residences and on the south side of Christina Street the properties are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences. (See the attached aerial) • GP01-001 rpt(CC),Gpfile GP 01-001 May 1, 2001 Page 2 • Recently, the City Council rezoned eleven (11) lots located north of Live Oak Avenue between Greenfield and Fourth Avenue from R-2 to R-1 (Zone Change Z-00-001). All the lots were located adjacent to R-1 zoned properties to the north and commercial and multiple-family to the south. Most of these properties v■fere separated by an alley and parking lot from the commercial and multiple family properties along Live Oak Avenue that serves as a buffer between the properties. The difference between zone change Z-00-001 and the proposed general plan amendment being considered tonight is that the properties .subject to the zone change were more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; i.e., residential fronting onto residential. However, the properties subject to this General Plan amendment are located dir ctly across the street from commercially zoned and developed property and R-2 zo ed property developed with a church. Although, the Development Services Department does not generally encourag or support General Plan amendments increasing the density of. properties, the Development Services Department is recommending approval of the reque ted amendment for the following reasons: 1. The surrounding properties in this area are more "diversified". The area is not homogenous in zoning or types of development. There, is a mixture of ses ranging from commercial to multiple and single-family residential. A chan e in the General Plan would bring the zoning (adopted in 1954) and the Genleral Plan into consistency. 2. The General Plan Amendment would create a transition between the commercial development to the north and the Single Family Residential development to the south. An R-2 zone is a more desirable transition between the service station, the health club and parking area and the church than an R- 1 zone. • Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission at its March 27, 2001 meeting voted 4-0 with one member absent to adopt Resolution 1637 recommending to the City Council approval of GP 01-001 to change the General Plan designation to Multiple-Family Residential (12 du/ac). The Commission commented that they felt this change is consistent with the surrounding area and also felt that a six-unit condominium would be appropriate on the two properties and adopted Resolution 1637 recommending to the City Cotincil approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP 01-001 to change the General Plan designation from single-family residential to multiple-family residential (12 du/ ac maximum) for all the properties located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. GPO1-OO1 rpt(cc)\GPfie GP 01-001 May 1, 2001 Page 3 .4 Miscellaneous Information Attached for the . City Council's consideration are two letters and a petition in opposition to the proposed General Plan. amendment presented to the Planning Commission at its March 27 meeting. CEQA 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 prepared for this GP change'. RECOMMENDATION . The Development Services Department recommends approval of General Plan amendment G.P. 01-001 changing the General Plan designation for the properties at 1012-1026 South First Avenue from Single-Family Residential (0-6 du/ac) to Multiple- Family Residential .(1 2...du/ac)... .... ........... . .. .... . . ....... ..._,.. • Approval If the City Council determines that this General Plan Amendment is appropriate and it is deemed to be in the public interest, the Council should adopt the Negative Declaration and direct the Development Services Department to prepare the appropriate Resolution for adoption at a later meeting.' Denial If the City Council determines that this General Plan Amendment is inappropriate and it is not in the public interest, it is not necessary to adopt the Negative Declaration. However, the City Council should . direct the • Development Services Department to prepare the appropriate Resolution denying the requested General Plan Amendment for adoption at a later meeting. • GP01-001rpt(CC)\Gpfile GP 01-001 May 1, 2001 Page 4 ti - 4 Attachments: Aerial Map and photographs of the area (Exhibit 1) Land Use and Zoning Map and Proposed Site Plan (Exhibit 2) PC Resolution 1637 (Exhibit 3) PC March 27, 2001 Minutes (Exhibit 4) Letters and petition in opposition to the GP change (Exhibit 5) Environmental Documents (Exhibit 6) ti,N<"ei Approved by: ti • William R. Kelly, City Manager • • GP01-001rpt(CC)1Gpfile GP 01-001 May 1, 2001 Page 5 AERIAL MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA EXHIBIT 1 • .."---", • • h � sir 3,' $� �. r • ' . .• .r ,sz s 2 F r ,- rz• -^ , r - 1' ua��ia L;ii.. a ,• 4 : ci �r" X� � t om r'4.r 6 .i . ..,, y . - a y,r• "-• ., + r d {t4- Kr ir.....+= .r r t r z j- • Y J I+ :7•19,?".-7.t '-7 ,p.s ' �. dq a ,j rj9//' :xt fi _ {'s.`^62A �1r • z a � y A.^ a ' r �� Nr j ti-E {-� ' ':i Yi,�S.". twq' ;rp u :x�?-5- K s • r — ---•,...,-;.,,.., r7 . T , .q 1 a l " '' ' C .^ W s Ar.?z- K r �✓ s + .:r✓ ;% rt" i3 h rt`_-».Y 7y:' y r 3.L s".- k x .3 • h , -e .v m - +t Ld. �r + n'x t m ti r l ` r f�t - L} -] 7 k S.k S?:gy u r •t *•r rz ,= e • ,.' „_ tx' s_ Y& s • "ta�Yr .J�3 r f - �".J S ra rC rt 0 ii " ra,-,, i C Sa ` n `- *r•, '-x � r - _ `4 P ' P K : 4 ,-i-. `st4?, `r ? a .'t 3 'l -: "-- ,,L -" ' `�- a " +, r t 9H' ' vr • r,,,2+ r ,+1" '.1 t r1 .,1. E -R k ior:i. t s} { ° ^5^ E V� ' ske 11 AS•`y w '- <r + ,, �rF ' ' .+ 7 ti. d r ,1 J r 0. b t n ,i: 4, r1 r i,, r.. ?' 3 d S a J h .,,s a , C �5 ., , . F r~ r � t t i .> a c cS ,. z . s: N" `;`e4 ""`Mj'"si ` , •• VTF,W OF SUBJECT SITE 4/13/01 . • '� t L_.,r, a�, trf- r 4 4a ry. A`r �• g '-t`-'i4 {.1 S { 5�� ' ,r i.`^.kr 3 5 er l �` _ A " ''•• ,• �_rt+,t TT .z.r ( .- ' yt.. ''A.•` 9. r t rr „ {�` j '"fi .{e+ h E.'~� '')yy,s. �+ }I*..Y7 Kr t' is g y ”'{ t ,j u ,.1 t r 7 f '6 )f 1.••�• e °g 4.:: .,+� u,.- Y`• T �4t', �"��`$ -� �ti�--�'. .7_'Tr rz�{i ; ,r� S�t-+.�,�F' y4� 2:-.::':'-4-.•11 r ��r�. �� x .,',-,--'i':,- -.'..,--=‘'.-,':.-4 s r b .:" e r . :'', ' L r ,%•r ° L'6 d .t[ k y J,1 - 'K J S 1?, �'" A i .kg t .Y'LC-SZ.' 'w .. j � � 3,,• 2f • '„•;•;!,_'.-""-;-,. `L'r, sy"1't"''r7 ,, rrt , rtr a }, � xaA a - 'i r y- z`. s, ., ti s a. �''..J;t4.''t n• ."'- • 1.t's ^bct"i l r -' t 0' T{' Tzi s.�1'i r•: ? TJer �� *r. -°^--t -• j t�-'• s �3 n a 4 I �y`S4�-^� >'T .t i k 4 •t a 'r fo- .� : 5q .%a ,,.� "i. ,,,, {a Yeti., r'k,- r� t.L . ;k 3u�F h E• -f", .--n. ct`,.i`4 3 -,� �±`U' ' a+'` e4 -, r i. x —,'-wp.f ,E ♦ .• f " J� �w , ,.' r 3 r -'-:V., t 2+ 7 'r 3 f 1 ' � '� `i A '" s � . .q3 ` r & 7 •. r- t r c^^r ,d i ,,t .-„, r ��- 'h ,,••.,, s . ' ''F�r tp.... 2- � -.141.. ,, • 1.r ....„ .F'�1t',,4�' e,,L r . .,�� sx rzr..y s2 `'*hv.� N-vt L- ,,�,r,-4- 1�u -� a. 7 Y,�,t W.V •`° r- 4 s y ,” 'ti -• yj'4? r,: sts:-,' '-', y5 . �� , ,,an a 1,.,- ' :. yr.r -1;•••,••-•;',:.-,':.:1._ t ,,,, ., ...S i * 3 '* gr � s � { r• ,� e �s K �L, < < 'rr ' =' -yr :,'„-,•-•,,,..7,•:,.:.......F r Fat zs K" ' ,at'y ... L'F3- a ,U....., Yea __ „ter„. ....., n...�__,.. ,.� ._ -Yr..._ .. _ __...,..,>`a..• VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE FROM ACROSS THE STREET • •I • • . . , .- , ( t I ■, •• , . .- -,-,,s.t...tr""••••••••:g.; _ .' .••• .... •• ' -;.= ..j.----'••••,- -x`..- 4•••• „,.,Yrf-a•-.-....• • ..•...... -:. ... -4..;-;,,_;:4-4* ;_'-i„.::? S ,9 ...4,,'" - - 1 ,1,-'- • • - . ...• . J :9 , • i .. ,. _,...„... ,.. - V- - ;...,-- . .. -,•,,,,,, ... 4-G, ..„ ..--14: ; ,,,• ••• •-la gl.•:•'L --- .. --c,,,,,.---•-4•,q,,,,.,..........--., ttt.-- -..••••••••?...-..t&, .-..s...- - _4- . A:--- ' 11.1- ---.---.. "k r,-"- gs....,,,,,,,.-»_,,t, , tr, ".•• X-'••••,,-.-"•,-.-"-'''---.k ,-,S,--"''''' - *.?,,. ,.,` --?. , ..:-:`..-".. . -- f-'--=', 1':;-`'..1t1'2-. '--:21..1A-!' ..,.4.- • .,7.--., ;...,f;;:.5-5116/' -'":-=,=•-:.:•••:•0•1,Ea.-:-...:--.•:;•••'''-i-c-' ,-,- .,.-,7•.?„,,..-:,... ...,..rt•l-..----' '="•-•-.a.,'_',.'•'7....1----- il - ,, -,--' -•tr r= `,t .1.4-i • ,,,, ..4,,tr-v,-i'=fiar•4.•-'•17:..-.....-•-...,•:-• r- .a ,, ` 0.i.,:,--: •••,--,-1 --,-:-••• ----7--,-i„---,:-. •-....7.-. .-Dttry-,,,,t, fe_••;„..., -_, ,... .„,,,,,,, %;,,,,,i.t,--".• „;_,--g..4:•••,..:•,•-,.....v_ z_.,•k- _ . •,, - , .1- ----7---'-----1.,-,--- ------.4:-.*, ...._ • t--,, P...-3---....--,,,--=,,,,-...-"-. •'..nET.,,,--. ' " '.. 1;-. „,ST,,Tyki-''`-laV''•,''''''' 1',.4.- ,7-• 'r- _,,,,- '''"A ,'-' ".1.•". 1-42*'--.1r?. .::0- - lt.e-iiift'V-1-1---;,.--4, "-,, ----1 ‘----- /f,_,Ira-.7 p-- :,, „,p ,4,, .. ''' .,...,,,,, , ,,. -. ....,,,,,, v.... - ...,.....,..., 114410 fg■- . .2. ,,i ., ■ • ., - - -- ,,, ,- _.?".,,,•,,''',2',.%2 •r",4-...-.:-F,A.r.;r_,,..,:.1....,iiir,..,„..!..„.. , . • 1;• . .•a ;;, "I'- ''-\:•.''...41 : '. . ,,•±',.';,,,VLat.t1,37': ''i •••‘.t'S :• .- -%-••,'..:-•'?:,-!.•.1.7:::: . ' ' .--- 5'.71 ‘...' --; •■,...- :V-•,4,...-.„;-..., k .' ': - •,14r4sr7=4„,••••-,.... 7 •-•...,.;:"'.:::,,-7.,7f, •', • .. , • „..-..,.„---,,,,,-,..!•;,7---,..-- - %,e--,,J.. .3--,...,.,..--,,-,.....- , , - ' '' '"• - ' -' ",,,,,,,--,,,,-,...-1,-,..,---..-,, - ,.... . . . . . ,_....... :....,.. -„:-,1"...:4- ,,...-. ,:.-y-,!--,,:-,,,g,,-,-1,-,--:,------•. .4... .77- -- ' , • , , .-- ...,.,..., - .,• -..-.---; -,.•, , : ;'.: , ....--- ,,.‘„,..,,,,..A.",--,,,:,..--....-..:- ,-,,---,••••••••.„•.L.-,h-g- --.4...tfit.,..5....,7".„--.".4,_6,,.,-.,•.-„ •.t.-,... -.7.=::....----.--.',..,...,-.A---,,,,z,t.'-',ty-,,,,, ,";".. ' '- • '- .' " -•-,,,,,,-..4:-,--4-0---•,,--.',.'-',1.•,,."-.:., .,,;'.......4-,._.,,t- 7:1.:,.-4.---7..' .f, 4--,::'..:,,-'.';'.77-:r.::•:."-...,L.: .:.!r., -..,....,-,,,,..„...._,--;-...-,_..„4:_-_, ____ ,......„-...„..,__,,,,..„..,..,,,,-;„._.,.,....i..,..„.--.,-;....-,.. ..,-, „'„,...„--;„4---..:....:.,--,..- -.,•---,-,...-: •ry-FH-..:`...q-a"" ,'"-",-irir:-.-'..,' -_: :-. ,.... ''‘'''...___,.. _,- -,.,....„ •.--Z.---,,,,,,,,,,-----„,...:-,---.,,,,-,,-,,,-,.--,.-----,,-......p...i------------,------••__...,- '•-••••,13-il...- -.4----n•-;c•,,...- -_-•:-.•--g.,-,--,-.7'...*._•-tto,tfrg-v-,:q..-Metfirt-'1.C.TP14,7*_•-gt-.-",,T-5-7, ft ,...-„, ..„_.,,,4..„.,...9.,,,....,".„.„1,,,--...y.',=-:.i-ir.....,-,-,..--'tt.P--.,.. :,....."5,E,,,,iF•r-C,427--,,l,V4414.21NdF.444--'._•-•&•-,2„.•":"F,-,- T''"-C-2242-YALZ41,r,-,24:,,VATI.,%:',f.)---4.•-_,‘'-'0,e,IM:-`,,r4,*-_••,-4^,‘.,'a I-'•''''';'7"5,".'•&.•,-AVI: g.,,''''''i'e,••,:: 7; -f•r,!r-Wrf'?Vk.,rr"''•',:We,6;*•'`P 'rP•"?"^' 2.2-fF:A?*-21,f;;g'I''V,'T'-‘;It''-it'24..'kz,AVPFA,'51k*Z•el''NV-•t'I'"..lf,,-'::LW,',i2,1',4i"•rj.4'F,0•;4--',7' ,',4:-tqlr, ,•-•,,,,. '.1.2.:1..,:..'v lii:2,S,1,-1,3,2 -il:0-4;44;_24,1-67'ilt.,t'PA'AV,AteNk,,t,StittO 4-tt.401.,14,--AfP2:::44,14`-‘4,41Pi.:,";&VIZVV,k0P-RVIPt,•4‘,',W,S -1:-.1'-'1 ...,?•■'-'.'f 1".---'21::-TY.k.';*•"4,,W•t-D'21.-1•"Ne...2T2'-'41."=4",•tV";4;1,-,%:,';'-i`Vc.r-dgt`',A.,-.V4X,Yfk!'•,Ritt.V.,M.*,,Y,I40-4 ,,,,Ali,,A,%;gr**-,tilf40.-y,---.Z1-' 71--Ift-,c2aW A,t,;_-2;'-:,..,,,,!'1,9=•.i€,,,2*".!:,,i,*„.46.-%47,i',4-4-frA;•.S.,.-1,_-•:eitf4,P... 42.1.-,:',2;;;"qr-,4-a-1, 4,64.7:41.fV•4-Ve_.05--;1,4f-- "?ii""W.7 - 14.7"-.-APre,a94-04•1" ,,,-.-,..,,;.,,,-,--:;,„•••_." 7.,,,,,,:-:s.,,,,..,:,,,,,,,_.L.-r„,••,•?;-•,.-z,,p -r,,7_,.;:.5-1",-,`,,,,nrp..-•- •'-r,"",-1,E.T,,,... ri•MVP•M22,-Aa-',7,.,_ •4,..2,,-,,V4',?7,./A2-rtie,,,i`-'.7... .. ."*",._kr1--',r,,"'".FY-rg-74-Z; C:42"'II'''.-;:t127i1W": -.6974-ga;-'"4-.6;`', .;'2,fLT,TAWACJC;"/,;P'441';•,`,T4.,p11•7;1`52144:AY i'F0e,,V2'ke;r•," %.3&,,,,7450ijELtr,n`•''?j:',.41 x.-,.... , -wie ,rviE,..k7z-pEtipta.q.ow,i,09,-7.1.!::01,90.4-4;01,,,, TATist4ya-A:k:st 4-.,..11t§E-§; .$;,svpVik' ''' •'-‘-'-•"'"-=-.---•"',..",-4'..,.'"...•',41.---`'-.--.T..------cdt'••••.:8":••;,,,,,..---;.•..-.7,. .fd.? -1-....•.- ,1.g- -,-f- --.'.41,gti41--....--.--,.-A:4.r.:..,7-1•P-..-F-,....--.V-,.i'it--,,,•.''..1.-•.-.1.1+'''--, ---.2.,-.4.-- •-•,.- ::;,,,,,.,„__•„:„..,-......„,'; .,;^i,"•;4":-6,'‘,•,;•,:'„.,17,-ri,,,--_-,,t--•.:"..,..";',?..44,:',-`-,...;.:.,-,,,•t„-.....,.1, a-,-",---;...--t--7-4-..._t,4 i. ..----tt-iir,,,:••...3-.34-...;,-f.•..„4..-0I-.,.;_1",;(::,..,--4•:-..re.--s.37...-Reva;:41 ,t,.,.,,t,,?-•„:-,..•,..''-2,,,--,..;...•17.;:"-,1,-5,%",f41,1-=•--• ---T.,-,,,,. -, G.r.-4,--..-..„="W,,t.t,t,"41.-..--_ 49.4. ----,,,t ,4,;V-,1,--t' • -„,',-,..,-,,,p-t.T.1.-..-.--4,-,„,•-,-,-;,-----7,-, gx,=,f,,,t-4'...,,•,'.,,,-..- ,.■.'-..s.,.z...--,!..._,:--..,•'1---•F•1•.-•-•-•-••---.J.i"---.v••;...-- .--.,--,-..!,.,;(.7-#-."-,-.-.•L-r„-,..,•-•-•,,,---',-dt. ,_-_r--*--A.-.-7.--,•;,....;-14,7...-;:_-,,Aw.--.1t.4.-, ,,,-----:..-...,..tr.:*•...7„:„..,„tjr-a- ,--er. -1-, :-.,. •,, .... _,-.,,,,,‹,rx,,,,,./2,_,,,,,,,4,...1.2,-,,,•_,,,,1",,,,-..1-.,-;,, ,,,..,,,-;-,. -',..r."4,'2,4,57,1;•• ---1'2 ''''''''rr'=i'a•-•-2-1.M--":1.-',,t",-r•;-,-,,A,Wrk,r'2'",,%'.2-21-0,•,••:,7--1,, ri,-,,,,s, :.'..--..y- 7.''....',-•'.•";''',..-e'.1'.:1•,..;•:-4,',...'•;Tq.....‘,-.:;,F•■,,•,t,',...-.4%.Vvi.r:`,.-•:. 1.7zto,s,...t='X•-7-4,,,:i.,"`"--- 0-1,• ',--_7--"!-^f•t°1'.17-1:6?--4'b',..".'•.v.e..7V2c,-4-,tr..7.-e,..1.:$1,,,,4.1y,t,ZT. 7.1p -"C--'•••'` -.'-- ' 1. -`•-',-.11.f'il'.4‘1,V1-lr''''-'"J•rre,":1fi'---•:1-'!:t-'5 .,•4-.111-f-le,--7,7.,x---;1•11.1;";47,2104,■%'.7.S ,,i,-T42:4,04.1.:1,4.1.1.,,,..i.L;4,.-4tittr,grt2;1')Al.k-VV:4;;;•=.4e,:;f2, :fl',..1:t;_.•--4S .t"_•-""•.,L.',•-•'',.-z -,....--(4.!-: ' ' T.;-Z.'---.1---•$A.%''''::ft?:-2."-..La , fVZ.f..i.tigi-V-1',?•311.71.3S.2,-- i;::.51WEj• -•14,1:4'0:-•Iy1,;t:,,Iir-.*!' '.',.If;,-4----t.'"=.-... ,.11•Je•-"irt.'it'••3,1-2,1,-*:•::."-rtn-`-'414. ,•!'),00:1,42-)::-.-*;,..-..E,;:t7LT'..3'3Q=i41.4,V*.E.S. w4,A:=Ital.:.-,1-7 .,B.tkEff.:4-1.-_5:ri:,,,-..,.. ,1, -...7....Y1=---'4:41.,*.;:a.11.,,P,?.. .11--'•'-'4.-.P-s••••••••••---',,.as-;...,........:-),...11J•ti,..4-11,2..i. m-•..,,_,....r,r,-..- ........- 1012 S. First Ave. ---------.:----------'----- .----„ L .,,-,. _ ..--,-;;*, -..„:?1,,,,,,,..:,,,,,i) ... --, ., _ ....,, .;-,...-- ..... .. 1„...--,,, r„...--M --.; ,-,,,:t. , ,,,,.. ,,„....7,...-4„.._:,....t.„ ,.. _ .....,..„t_- „,.... ; ,.,,..5....,._ ..,..,.......„...2.,,., .. .-••1,^2.-`• ,-,,- .-..,,,.- ,"...: -Z.,•.,..'-1.,..--,.?' •4'-,,%?, In....2,ef,•ki,91-C.. --`-'"'"- '-'--'` -- , '',2,,, -.24- ,-' l'.lit:. ."7g."--,;.• - ---- .Ni..,A4" •21., . ' ."', -1-3,• l'',. -' S%""etaP: t,q,,,,,i.'• 4 "vg:47 -p.,..... .., -,` , .-,., 7---..--...--.- -- "4"f ,-..-;t!..:LT- , - .,_:,..-•t..--..-4-_45rert ="4....lc-,•.7-1't.:•-'''.,1 4,1:2-..•;rn--'-' ,-.------•f.,,,,,,-- ..,..-P.,•;...,i,47:4.7....,_---,4,..'-.A--r.4.,-:.----.--4r47-*--_-`,...-11,.-':= '''':' ..- 2 r•.06-,-,,,.. ..-.1.•--?.Z X,........-- .,.„-r-.;::. ' - '--- ,..7.,_ 1A-.,--•'::_--.--•,-;" tt--.- ------,- 1W '-,t-, :::,,,L• , -,...'-'-..9.7g,i--2-` 1.,-;--'' "1""'-. '._- ,..,„_,________,_-, , , ,-.-7;-,,,-, 1 ' '-'zarr....ri.:,....,...0. .. .1-.•tf-,...1. -Y;7 -i t.• . •4.,..1,, ,..,„„4.,...z 42-7,,-, ,2t. ,--- , •-,-----,...,;.1:-•,,71 r.,{EgLg ,,,.,„•;;0,,,•,:z.zi,::,,.;.-.,,,,,,, 1 •-•--- .,......- -41',3,--.: ,..... ---'i f"F"'',-. .," ' 1 tt..,-1=-1:',r-t" --fil.--. •,-.• g-7 - 1a,V_,---r Xf;„ 7'..,.3',.,..-.1.12...„--;.„ ,,-.-.,.0., ,,. .„,--e. 1--. ' . --- ....E.9-it.J.:,-- ,, -- • '. t,,,t,---..-Jr„,-..-4.L.k-s-.. - ''--.- - ,Tii.14-•:•:;;■'-','■, , ' -- ,,• - '': ' -,-,1"-, -i *•17. 4:41.,-... -i•-•--•••••_-,, ../ ':17•-•--7.' . ::51:74-:-4::••..W.; ''.:::•,*-- --,.af,•1'-`,.,-:_i•.-1.:1: ,•" - - • t I - -; ..4p.:At--. -••:,-,.'1.-- - --,:if t',,--..t.:, - .. - - -., . . :„.. _ ,.._.•- -• , .- .--, ..,....2--..-.4:-'....:•'----:•,•.,-, - - • --f--- ,---.......,61,",, -" ' ' '--."r--..L.,,,,,-,. „,; I ' -' ::-.2',,V.-•': -',-,'",••',g.. •."-• --",` , ,''',--' '._C.' r..,c. .2,-,2•7•0 .--".--",-•'`'.7,:-,3'-.,....,--A---=';:,,,,:.-".'--,--- ",..:."...,-,•- ••-...s-•,._tt,,: ------.4:-Z.-.-•,- -,,•,- -,-,---`7•"„-:'"z2, •••,....,--;...,,,,,.. - - ,-...,',..z..,-7-•--,,,,7:-. - ..c..':;...:,....z.',--•,(7.,4.,•••••:?,'-'4'•-•t•t '''.. 1-_,,,,,--_,-,..,,„,-...:,,.. ...•,-- ...,-, ----:,,,-;;;;&,,z1--.•--,...q....--••-c tt.,-`.•.,t".,2,...-- ,_ .`,...,,,..-,-••••w.. —-, -,-------.7,3=. . -1-"•-•••';e-•;.:,•;:-.'•-:,-;.--,■<_*--,----i-- --1/4.t.?st-•,4nr '"-",;-,;->.,":•14•15r:';"`*?•e•L';''-';'-;".''fr..t.fr" V47*;%--'1--'- 'Pt-.2,7• 4,- -.0.-•,--•,--J.,iliqi,----‘4.•*••tt,,t.'.':,-+•••-••-7---',•04 *1•reli'',-,:- •42 ,:k 4:r. ,1,20,37,,-„pr,z-,•-,„re,..;zri.,-1,40,..,4•Wv,,u•-;•.-4;1}-..**.-,,,,1•,• - •1,-4,,,,a...,,lt:.,,-„a-,g,...,,,,f.„1-T.L.;-..-.2,,t.tleit•,,t4.?...:.•,_,-"7.41'....-- ',••.7,4'1.,:•■is,V,..4.,,4.=7;;;;5-,`• c,..- •--; " .-Z.-.,-,,k .';,.. "1:,'-`- P,73;"•,74,•,.2,••••,';:-;;I:it::;,.4.,., - -,2V,te,±4,4,,liViiir..7.',.„-2 ,42,g1,12i'4,t •:1.' ''''74.41 ...--,,.-,1,-,0:.;;,,,5,...=-4..,,,,,,. ---,,,„-- :.s.,-....- -,,g-..,.,._41---- ,,,,,,....,,t,..r.,••th.,,`„,4,,f.,:,,,,,,-ir.---,._.---,,,,r,t,,,,,',..,,,,,. .„;;;Irr.v,r,,,..,...72;ivr,i.,,,,,,,q,!--r'rr-ti•-ir,-,„'",,,,,•.‘„,r,,r,.,1•-tt-,,,',,.,,,,;s,r-.r"---.,,r,,A:',,•!5•,-7,-_r0,T,„" ,... ,.,,,.,,,,074-,,,r2-,,,-1,-,,,,,.4 ---,"2,,,'-•.4•...:2.:,..,...,:-:,-t•-I,-•-_--,..,,-----,-1.',,4,.•tr,t3t.--,-7,4_-.7,..,,.--•••-•e_tt...,•-'•-•••:,-,...t,-..tti,,,,M,,b,..>11,•,••••-t,:•...r.,, ,,..-,,,,I.-,17,..,-,.•;.,•-•tt.-1.,_,-.I.te.:,..., •-,•-.... .. - ----•-• i-.•-••,,,:•••-1::-.:4,c.4..:---•14..:..--1-:,-,.,.,-.'.-.ftArnr.t.tf-W-.40;--,7---flr.,-7,-- -"' --:-.1,,W•":'"?,--T'A:4--.--1`4AC-•';',a,.."Vte:W.': --.7'1•-:- /.`•:-ri'ai;Z51•'/';7 ..W'''-71:1-:=---0;:-Fal71'1-64.3::i3-1,17:.,._•,11'1-;:i'^i.LT-t5.-AS-Aiv`4".-_,,t...'-i=4-4'•:•••;•)-4 •''''''.1-,..,-:=t--•=4•1:t•••-`,:':ti'-:-----, i'..±;&::-..--,"c...--'=::7---..-- •5,-,`.;-.----,--.-n-'••i*Va•ek 7- -;'-'rl..,, '.-2<-3L4`.:■70.-147-•-;,11-(2-..''V'fr-..r?1,-"'.-"V.‹Ir,S," -riAtiIi.. .L.i-42"---54-,--",==:-eZi-'''41.:1":4-•-''''''',11••rii,,.1-137",',-L:k",:*':.(1',.P, ',">•....-.S-.f. ,,,.. •,F',.".-,,,•1...:?,...P.,..,..,;,..5.2'.4',,..,....,-,......,..„.-.1.Fk,•,..=• •,`•...1`..,.71.4.:•:. -,.,,.....,....,......,01.2"iii-_,...•Ai-_-.:4',.•_,,,-.,,''gle.s-,"7",•.3.,....,:'-7-.1.-..,-...1 F..,L. .2..-0,-,-,-Ittti•;,,,,-,-1---.-..t'4'"'"1-,, '•••• :-•.: . '-.:‘"Ve..''.-:'-l.,,.t•,...-..-.;F...-'.;.i;•u....-....-'''':';...4'4-''--•'-:"4'''?'.-.'?::,--:.:'•'-.--'',-:-.•-.--.f-:,F--:,-..:-•-•„9.-•..:'.:..-1-..,'-:".r-t'-,.:.,---L.-„t--,;-.-•.:1---c1'-.r!-":-".-..,:.`--.r--L;.-,!.-.t;,-'7,..-.-c:sz'7:,.-,,'•'7,•::,-,4'..•"",.,•--.-...-.-:-•"",;,.:.',-2H.•.,•-1-,•-_•::A•z:•-V-'-,-.-.4....,4z-A.,'..1•-•V,4::•t•;•,--,--,,-i*-•.i„;•.-='.l-..••-...-.tT.-tx:W-t=;5--.-;..,.',.':1..,T-P--.-4'1.q.1-:.f-.-t,-'-1i_-Z-'.-Er.-,.----,----."-.--.-.--,.-';.,.,?,;.,::.-ftl3,.i.,;.-11--,2-').:..,1 :..,-.._,P,,,.,e_-rc...-,.,,.,",i,,„,•,„Z.:i,;ia;7-,-iv,i,,•s',:i,:it,7ye.;t.•e:-,',,:;.,,•_:,-M„.:•.-t,13,,..:._•,ff7-".-R-.-,t-1-;1.-.,,1;-7.,•.„..„.5:..,;.Z--,V:,-,"i-,-1c•:,r.-•4;j,7.t•1..-Z5e,14:t-,.,,2'..:.-..).t-:1-a.-145F...._4t,..q;',_•;,1..,...•.7:-'„-'?-,,,F1-p,--,7,t•4,,,-,.•.F,...1.zt.1,:...-,#iikg".t 1;t1'-1'.a,-,,•4:•,-•,-,:,w•-•=•le2.1:'e.7-,,-1---f;1:5',,•1:--.,-3,:-1.:4`1'4,e,="t-,7-=.42.,.='-N6,--'‘-.1,-4 2*.Y 4',r,,.i•V-4_.-',•r7,''3--4 t1;;:•j.,%".41”:,•g:1"•1-■-••;,"-••k•`t,fZ:-'".•S•-d.:;•-4:-•:Y-;•?-:4';,,.,E.••,M.-'•..•,.:,,-=;r---%,.•-=-,5l'',--,.,4-ii''..,1i,—.'•z-A.',"7,,,-t•:-e---•4-;.-.,A Phs7,,';o2,7;,•,.5",:,,'7,,;,:i„?Z,C1-;=--,:.;„-:t-3'P•-.,a.-Z.4,I...124ie.....,.i7.7-2!:15-),,•:,.,.?.-",ff,-1z,:,;.r 7'1•7,,P.,-.,',: .''',i-".-••.-•„,•'•:•:•1,'•1:.•,%.:,--:.•.!'4....t'.,,1.'"7.: '.-,--.7..,,.;-'..',: iir . 4;i4- - - . 7 =5Wik4c: - 4 - -; = _ rN 1 ,:- _ ; - :" , r, , -I ' • . , .•:;.-,'-..i.t-.•=.-` '-;.. --;•"--'''-'"--'•-•-1-'1''t."'-'f'7'.1..../,''-.':-.,.....'7,,Z.-4.•;,-,;•-••r--,,tra.,-.9.•,.:--.1...,,,..,—,....,,,,,.,-.....->--..--.- 1016 S. First Ave. I - (----., t ) /--- .` . - s " ) ■,,_ ,, • I L r; -, V ' 7-,..1...: ?.r•••-•-?_...,, -4-4 ::'• • --" -t-21:. .. ;or ,_er....- -- F........ ' .1.7-.'I10%,t4.1...L7„, -1.,''''.:7:., - -- ,-.."1,se],s-,,,:,..,...,, ,'"ri:-.1147-',"",:.,!- ,r_:,-; •X"-7-,.,,,,,-P,"'"":' -' 4-.'r 4: -f2 2,-;-',„' ,,,,..,'..?-71, ' - •°r•2:%1N;I:,'.......-. ._...4eZ136a.t. '•-r":,..-..% .",-' .-- - ,. ,,,...- - ,,,_; -•r, --q-,-.-._Ve-.A. -" ....• '-2. , , - ". - t It:-6--: ., ----- - - - 4,:7,--,-"' ', := . '.. '.1.- - ---...... ...? . , •,4 ..1-e:,......_ -3 ......6 .-• , ,. . F- ...4 r,, , . 05' . ' - • .57-.4-1.1.,.-,.-.10 ,40:-. X. 414,44''''tgi•--,--,,..-.., A kW -,._,,,4.,..' -0 • ... I...z. ,":4"-y‘•=45 y,..w. ..- .,....„4.----......- ....!•:._., ...--,-'4. . .5 . 3-- ..,■,, -t" ..3,-t',...p.,?" --1 4.N.3 '`'......,Y ,-, - - :y.. ,, .; .. • Sr,h.:'.. 47,,-- :-....."e--ir..,=!--.41.453.7.---":--',-,,-,;4---"Ayki ...P.4.z..- . --:...-' . ------ • • - 4.-v...&...,.e.r....- 1.kii,.---- __:.-- -.24,„_:„.„.4 ...--- 4,...„..-.. .-", '..-..*-;'',(1.....,...- -,--9.1,I',',.A.:.;,....4-- .4. . .. .. .....c-e. r"'-- -IA_ L -- ....-5, '.:--..-- . .,' ,-- .--,- ..L. 1-.:.-....3,1, . -.., t---,„..,-..-i..1...'.....;- --.._41;&.,. ._-_., ,_,A _ .--,.......... . ,. ..... .,...,7•52,..„7„ . ., it- 11---4:,------,73---n_h--,-----?...-1,- ...,_ _ ...._. -"_._. - -.-:-.M.....__ .., :1-,- -,....." ;-,,..,.-..,-"--.. ' ---3---,..— - -... ----------------- -- „k--;,4i0,-,,,, - -.-- - -;...."-: ----t- - . _ - ,,,,t-,---1 5....ii:=7-:_if.;:: , ----- -_ ,_,, .o.----,T...10.2e.,- --,.-4.-3- .;--t".` ''-'-'... -:-- 144i,-7.7-1'..",7-,;-,,,, --..,.... -,.- -ir-,,....,..-',P'--"Argivkl"'' ----'g''... ..,43'.f.a,:-Agg.it(-.R.,,..-..,&4Aft"-,s,',-',----42-%--.\:-,;:::`-,'-%,---1-,;-: ,:t-:-;--%:..:,.;.---.--'..,,,--- .=-"r■-----P.- --.7.1."-,',A,,,,i,4,-- 1:1„,,,:s",,-F--",• ••, ,„:.4.,,-,.., .,--..:,,•= --••,,-.--, -,-: - __■-• ,,,,,---•-::...—,-:,...,-t.-, ..:,, 11? f-4.;,1:;,.•-:,-4re3,,: r.*:;,Tri..=•,9A..t...k...VYzs,. ;,.".4:-..).;r,p,c ,54:t:-.',1 1-r.,ALcv.k.i.'S,---w..0-.'n41- -•.---13177;i75-1r -' 2----.1a,r,71;F:'-ii ;-44:- '1'4•.-Zr-r*-1,--1-,ii-_'7' .r.=;-•-fii.5f:GCVr-ir.`-:-..,;, -It•ti--.1.,,..g A-,,-44''-'05'&'"-,tir'-" ftAT-ff:Ynr+,-Tethrl''4`''''''-',..-Viiv•;1'',1=1 -tc4r..7."-`.1,:,-4:'W'rk-':`,,-:-T..„''-.•0,:,:.•.; '.1"•'1'1‘''''''' '"7''''''''-i''''''41"1"4/''''''-'''''''''''iti" ..4''''t4-.01-'''','i. '7.*?'"'i'II':'''-,‘I'Al-Mt": 11,,lii'-'ic, 4•"',"*''''?.:`:LiltIt--V,: =•A-tati::''TS.'•• '.:'1-2F it-,4-.1F4,2.P.:,4"-'.:1"-;..,t--,-;;':-i:ft?.t.•14--.44.--r):1214Falii‘44-'S-P4Pi.:"'1,1,,i4S.t=s.: 3145,-;•10.,4.,,,W.-;•-11,11„-*.....,0,,T.,,,,::„L„,g,..,-,,,,,,,,,..a2,,,, ,-..,---7.1.-,?.....,,,--1_:...„,,,-..,5„.„, -_,,,,,,-, .,---,,,,,...-,,,,,,,,,....g,...-:*,.,,,,,,,,I.,:,,,,,,p.,4,,,,qt,1-4,ttlf----•"--6-‘:,..-..--.........-eq3...-t,..,,,,...?,-A...7--....4.1„:„..s,..- ,.;,!--.„,:_-4.,:r.. 4-3....:7.---,-...rtz,-•:, t,,,.:f.,,T.,-2,_.-ri:•...J.,,,.7.-*:,.61;',"4•0`.,,j-171-‘,4,...-...'...1.-"=.!-1$3--_-..-4,-4-.2..4i344:.?..- 7.4.1-..'....7.A.14'56.04:4-.`t`.3-4.,0,"7-iiV410-:!-.7.1.:.-..---e,,-..s.ti.P.Q'x-,:::.A.-:44t--,-";:-.7--..1.17=Vg-:7;•';•.%-`--'.::-.--v...e.-1-Q :-.4.-0.15-r•°f•'-'7:SP--`-'•:;:-' -fie:-°,4-'43.--E-4:ati="1545-76.:41i-W.41,...-q.t7i.c'"-L,--1,411.V-4:2.5111.:-.4:7:470 - jzif":". . . m..-Ii=',-,V4:**7,41:-,A-z1,.'ewir.: 1:-.1.,,,,,,..f.:1„:4 ',2?=.1j",--L.•;.<--..--:.-...-'. ..4V-. .--7-',--r---.. .'4--:4-141t-,--;"24,1*,..7--;-;`-fi-=-...W.ZV`.•-..-NZ:4;iirjk.", , 41t3...v..:.712,11--4J-;:44:K.:.1•03,.-t...a,,?:s;!_-,14-.1.A• -,,,klf..-424,,V r*I14147.3 -7-- .:•-a:;7,..`"r:MQ0Eilf --2.4;z0=*--.1---,re;-,t4'',• ,-1 - - :5A-„:11.±7. -..-i•-4.,,,,,,,.* . 1----;;),':.7:1,-p----. t-„,...„-,;.4.-- !",-'-v-E..-4itt „---,, -,::,,, - .1.2,e--z--2..;t.„.-• .":..,_-5-;.;,,,,..-:;:l.7":-...;:-„:.,AFt.,,:.,--,...1:;_;75:1,,21 .4.5tv...11;-4.. .,,,,,--,1.,,,:w.x.45,4--,...,zit,s.:,.,„.7..z..,Z-.1.-.,,,,;.-4118-1:sz:z.k...-Ff!-,'"Z., „"--_,'",,-,A .-..•:. ',, - -.' ", . -,..-1_--_,..-:.:::1,,,,..4-,....e_:-„,:,-,_-.....:,.,-,:2.,„......---.--..-...-.7..;:z1-,r: -.-,. .,„4,,s-n..4.‘,K.,-,4„-mp,.., -- , -...,,, ,,,,,,--..,.,„,:,..,,,,,_-,,,,,,..„::.,....„ -4": 7"-- ; .., , ...,.--.•.:..,,. •-..,'----.,.:,_-,...,..,. .1,-, "4,- .:'1.::-.,r,---- ',-,:,-t-'-,-;;,-i-,:w..;,...=".S.,.--,-.V.AL...3%:-1;74.41'-'2'.e.....;:-. M.----.5-w.:..t.----1`-',$.."4"T:-,--4 - , _ s -,,,,._ .. ..,_,,,,..,,,r -k, ,,,-. , „..,---...,.. ---,-;,-_,.;,■-•.',....,;.......„-- •_,,r....,,_-1,-.-,-..,;,...---...,-,....,, -'4,-,-,,,,,...m...,,, ..6r;•eg-'''Z.,'''... .4 4 . :,^',.... .',./...'..-.,Z_t.,''''''X,-,;":"....1.n.1-..r-;.•,...'',--::',..-,. r r.'r'a'-'...7'77t,".t...,-,'.''''.f."="1'•`,,,'- '---'5'-'''S',4.....'-',71S7,-..-1,77TO.:;-.7 '''''''''-.....<,- , ..."'',: •- ''' ''..'-.. ."..."7----9.5''''..,':,..---:12;?----1....-1,'-'171-z-**4-.z... ,.;:-..,717F57.-viidi-a,-.. .;&.,.... ....,-,-..,.-..-.: ..._._.,. ---.- ,..-, - .. ' -•:::::'" '.--,:•:-.F.,•"-t....--4,-----..../ ::-.-...:-...,.A.n......-..- ....... View of Gas Station at the E./S Corner of ist Avenue and Duarte Rd. ' .., ,1 .... --- ....`i : -- "--Z-,,..7.. IT" -"---',;-4 2.. :4, ,.. - -IPCN:q *'..1g"'-_--' ifW1a--4--- -.1-1•,,,,z....L., _-- -- .--- -- sg4'''...-- 4.-Q.-m„,-.4..- ...,......,„...-„.-2,..44-,c,n.lith„ ,-,...,-, .i...,..- - .. .i. ,.. . .. ,,,,,,.,z,;;,-.-:•:„:,.4.1-r.:-......4,--k..,;!-3-4,..,.:-,---t-.."4,9.-.-... .....i- “."' •1 r&t.,,.--.-4.--,- --I- t__-,-,-----,...g -. ",- ,--t.,.. - .,.---7... , -. '-t,''''''... ',-,-e•s,,,,',4^,,,•1•:?•i,•-*-%•-■-',. 4:6-...: ,IN..,..s_•,,'"••%..,R44.7w„..gorArj_ , , ,, ,..,„.-Ve ,.,c,..,•,:"y•IV,.1,i r.:,.•.77-Zr`,-A,',W-i:V. ,,'4, 1•(...1.,1•0.1-0•-■'41:•41,,,iti,e,ahr 1 r":- 2,..ILI ghSt1_, ',4P',...g.W,.....W.-1,ta.' 'V ' ---"Z".1'.'04?-q:`Cli'b.f.'"'F!".:1,-IktreirRifri0 _1.-..A ._ , .t. 1 ,,,,r, ,....-0,,.r. ,...woe.----, ,--..--e:ir.,-3.,.; .,# ,rit., ---:121''' _..0,"..- a 1.1.1&'- r, -,,..-: ^ -.- ' L•1..,..,..4...-.5.,..,As.0..',. •,..-._. : ,,,..0,f7,1 ,r'4,44.?„.' '''''l• '-- .F._ ...,_-4/*•"4,0, '',-...11YRIV.■',..1701'fit7;.-' I; .*:,1t1 ---"VI...- "s: -.1t-*- - r - . ;',..''-"-2-XV01-.,.. 1Q-S-'64- 1,,,' . ,rtf"U9-'''■ i. ----z-.---1,--.- ....:!:“.':- .- IF- -..-- ''.1,•:3"."?-=:-2,-,v-1,-,--:- .i I ... M ,..r.•ti,*-:,01(6, --4.:-..„,. .. 4,; _L; . , .-; . :,1---,TP, "7",`....-. -: .,!-p, '- ' --":.1 :--- - -- -,-&-c.N._'..' _.','Citg.,..._... -. ,. .L.Vna,;!,.""' -----•-A k•--' •"-'-'r,,;1'''.7'—'''- '-..,..''''''N.: '•__t...-- ' • *--.- --'f--t-,-Th-- "-''-.-''''-- - ' ' --'-:. --"r : ',- ''''' '''.."---"--r-''"--'''•'.'-'-'''''t::`";7-'--•••`-,----•.•••-".'0-=-'•;.- ---ffs'.'X_W-„,-"•..... ..• .--•,,,,,,--,11-":,-?',-- •,..L.-07,y,A.-g".....N.,.,)N,-4 ...-.....,. ....- -. ,,. L...----... ...,,' .,:-.f.f, ----,-.„.„..-.-_„,..,-- :--- - ' ...:'---.,.'-'-•-' ..7.--s=.7..-r r ---------t-e,rt -_h-,...- ---- ,,,..---. „ ,--„, , i --•••••=5.5'.';T,„--.F- ---,-=.----,„,,...—: ..1„:,-pl..,.4.1..... .„A.,,..„.44,„,..rdw.,,..,„_... -„,,-....\....„--.. -.- ---rE,674.--- - - -4,,,,,., t-..?3,:sv :s.„ _ ..)...,,,.-1,...,---,5,,--„,.. . '-.N _.........A.,n,:- ..... ,,,,:--.,,,...,..,,,...,%-,...--.';'-.-.3c.-7::;1 .,,,•i...-if.t--- ;;-:,- ..,--4. ...--s---- .2•----;---J- .-4.1"--- ?:-2 --Zi;V:'----15'.i'`-` "1" „, , ''' i,--.21.4-547,k2,- --A-:.R*-fP;,.:,..,LR,..;.:,-..,4):1-:,:_...,,,- k.z7.„, ,...c-,, .f.;,-.;5;, .,,,,,,,,,,:z; s.;,,..... gci . _. , , ..-nf- t %:!---..-:-.- •i!-. '' -'t-4544..., ,-j-4- ‘- 7 :i•"'r4,-;V441`4k." -4--'`-;:7r4POa.t.Vir. .,-4.AEt...--1.T.C.r.. .1:-.1:.A.•4-;.act:-6.y-;:,7.....,.,44,4!g-,.-Fi- -t-s.. : , ....'''':.5.t 447;14"r-7.4-XsziWOzt--` 2:14k.T .:2;g:-...-4-',3-,f- ,4 *--z, "---_-,-- -,,--A3,;i".'-'-',--.:'-4:,..=::3. 71,:-5-„.-,1, .._.. .?„..et.*;'fMt4P..., 44;,k., :'.---4:-4:,,,..6'W4-4t041-- - _ .. , 5:4- .; ,,, "--.;".1,4 *-:i',".--,- .* ..- -pigi -,.-f-f-g-14---.4F:,==,v-lr,4.1);:,;_-. ...1f-z-e:!:,,,,-,:_-''• ,-':;:-...". .-s„;;L-'--.,-. ,,, tp.-1,,:_;1-,_?-:7,,c7.47-4,..g,...'„tft---;.4":,,-,51--,V4A—TW4i112-",,kt,-%:=.,--;:1?-::`,.-5-'371iW. -- -;-.:.:...--;;;:-.K.:-.,..,-4---:-.:2-,E,-:1,;s4;.,--. 7.”;- - „. --,r2-,,,,..,?&A.,-/zdt,?1,2-fir-,:,,,--t-,,---;---e-,,,s.--,,*_,„,:ca,,,._,--- -,-2.,„.„,--,-„;;;- ..-:-.„4-,4-„Ef-..5.7.,%3/....:.62.....„...,,,- -„,_,.:,-...-..,-,..„,;"," ,',.., -.;-.._.. •,,k,:_-..., --t.. ;1,-c,,,i.:1;•X-_Tf,.'1,4-fxr---si&Z:7:%$;-.1,1P4?-';- - C.-'="--'7:-.4-,---',"---""*...4-.-"."--".1 .--%;--'4; ---1---".',:."..4-..-.:,'-'''• ,--",-'4:.=..-2----.=•'„ " - - - ,,,--A-s-,-...*:..4.,""0.z,--,..1"i7:4-.,ZP.:v..A.,'--- --,•-'"1-,e.,-,:=?.,.7.-'--:.-- '.:-:"-=7-:-=',:-.:,----, --, ,.-_-,.1--:-.,.,, ....r.;.,',1:;"1-,::,7---;.-.... -,'...".....-.4.' :- -ps.s7-,..f.7.-„,,..,,,-;tt,1-,,,. ..7-.:,-,:.-=::„..--;a-i-7,.t.,--F,:---,":-;,-_-:-.-.--7-7,-7.--.:-.:-.5-,',.L;_,,,-,----:..,-,-7",,,,,P-- , vc ,'-'-'•-f':'="m=-,'L'11•-'':;-':-.1.-;'==7-,-,., '_._.-•-,'L,-...-,r---- 4A',,--,-.------,,,..,,,-,,.....,-,...,-; ..,--- -.-.-r.''- -7-,"-', '-'„;;-',,,4. ----• ,- -,'-..', 4•--!----,--,,r,,,,,. '.7.,-".".:..77,cr..I's,--.--..%lrr'ge'--fikr•'-'tSV',.t..;Tgq -•:•,..•;:-- ..;..- .. E.-:-...1pr'44'''''.‘ , _ 1-3-''-1.7..2.r7s:,' --7-7-7.;-.7-7..7:;''t .,-.'----'''" A..: - ".••=-,.'." 4'.',"".:',,A,-1'. ,,,,-"-'''..r.p7.',-.-- .'" ';".."-;:q"'',..-.'.., '''.."';',,.- .--:„.:7-, ,,-.7., .:_r_..t,.. ..---,-.,-_-_- .„'Kegt.„.-.70,,,.%:1; ..:--- -.'. ..-.1........-r-':..-'4-,.:.--'2')-';''--;,::... . ...,,,,,F,...rsga44-*.§,3.-,.., -,-------,.....______- ..,.....- ,, ,,,,1 ,,-,,..5.1...,-,- -. , --,- - - • .. - ------- • _-----,-,----..-.--.----7,-,-.. ,-, ., :,,-.,-.,-,,_.-.._- , View of Health Club West of the proposed General Plan Amendment .1 • t '' 1 • • ` a t 1,..r= F,. 'z Y''"S°'� tea,. r tea- -r' sx x� s - rs .f:44 .SVA S .AI ro. zx..,1s-a+. xt ..,.aL"` 3 rl `'k,G y-s-1 t -.,;" Y'�At.t•T-44- a �/"•,s.-'-s,rte' x v z ...Ti ct T '° t.,.,",,.;., �—.,-.`.^,ea gar' ;-a' •P .''t...,, si 7N4� t �' .: ;�-.ffi -K�� 3J`y", "1 `,, tc aS�` �' a� - .r- '4„r , J '� 3c .117 ti ,. k �r" �w.J.. -t.i+' -• d ,aE •r cxc A J a'ki" i4, .E 3n - 24 to v r ,tAg yam„-`-.,rte C ' r';, },•. �Y ,4" 4.t., S.fi j,* aF - 3r 4444«. x' a _y -at . =- �.y i7' = •z L'+r z. .r.�,�, it;: �} ,-. ,v. r a r'h.r i # m ti *. �- a-,a'''�•-,� .,4��-'� '�3'''�-er j ^' � r-'.�h yak�1 r��.c '�'.�r-r-�;t {:f r"��.>~ -fir' ,�. • � i„ k ,�- � ..,�mss_ �,��J.� .a.• r -r C J � -;#a (et �_ ` t 4 - at` x r�,��'J'��y-a-r.� d �-rf �j+F x x�" x t '.x.c�'!J" � 5�. -'�-. - r - em - ? -+ _r - 'a -; ' ' � s tr„,c - L - S " 41 dr ' f -Z . • fit. `„ ';',1= :.• . r F -� � I 4:• t •SC ��,. Lt"r hlt � 3 N ,....aura. • l,Fc„w �4L�? 4 am -sYz i• r • r_ 5a^, j y�t i•V• ?_ 4 •fir }} -.. zr •s = °f��......i n <` s f -a t; Wi” ; .. •�r,,w?^.5.; °.:— r. yr �s- —c. ; ._' _ s .x'^ Y - • • VIEW OF SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT SITE • t tj • 4... s <` # a ...�.. .g f , ` try�1+ , 4w, -fi -t ,. N aa- .-n,. p b*• i? - " ° -r x `, � 4 rmww.,c,x .y c , ... 5„ r sF t X04. " -- .° "'��z • ` � , -, J +y�5` ''` ¢ t ' :F 'Y�g r r � . '+ 1 .f r :g J ° r +r-rd� i ' � 2, Q F te� k� ry � Cl r..,:a.1. w x„-i N � 3”.-V.- � -4 �Y? Y' 4W„ " � V-i r -;•.. .X.- 14.- 7 } .4 � -F�y� `. -- v x-r 4 a g� - ..' '■4dtjx o� f _Ft .i r,F'=.{ + � .� . •t ' Mk °i "� - s" 'rk IQ4 is - ' � 4-p :` " •45�-2 s F '$ 4§a . ,f mot e a a'�+- = �k ,t - c b - .. � r x- p-"` F M * a ?ai,k b r TI-i ^ •t � ,,, 4, � `y z ` �. ;.;..a a -' l r terra• ' -3 " 't "cw=- �..r" gi x `=" .} ._.,s 2 .r } 4� r r.'. , ; r ,:�T: va.C x �z .n:r- .,. brs,c.._.--._ VIEW OF CHURCH WEST OF • • THE SUBJECT SITE A • LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXHIBIT 2 13 i'" • r'=� •. t_ • \ ■ >t 4 • . Nfi�1 7,I . _ Va. '� i Hi . : . . 01311L. P"T-'1 • 0. 3' I Cl1&7 ,.z=.?,a2,'. (' ) (' } , Taco• -Lita lShoppingdentE ,� 4� a' 76 Gas Station OFFICE �, r�adia rub , �,( " - L'L spa i ■ A t*,c5 G1 Ts S _ 1 ,-, • • A ,., i A 2 * 10,_ \\.1 (1) . _illi--Lt__ 1 ' 14:?,. ,.7 . ..r \ \ a o ` :f Q • f 1� R \ \ 150.0 9 Ilk( I '` r : . S (----- ; . / ,7„.., . .- ._..2 , (--,,, , • • CHURCH ` C 3~-11 �a�-i I r�. f/•ry �- 1 tc: i-?1 �-1-"r0=`��---J � r. -'=";\ !` _ 1 01 Vi 1 ILO G !q , . : I ; / r+r%' s 3. - 1 of `n'j ..........IL-v2... — i _ J ice "sty jam-fit ��/^�(�^'�:; r-v�2• � n - `1• CHRISTINA ST. „( `i`.> � ,s)�'3'i, — - if 4' 1 j. • .\'''''(.46-...--^"... --,mrawar \\C -2‘r gal (---) -, ,, : •4 ..,__----_ „IL:. , , . \.__.,, ,.,_ - • _ , , , i : ---,--, _ i ,,- -, . r7o \ , / 1 I Sta.aGkt y p-=a Ad!! s: ` 1 J s \ �/�/ ' �t=-.., t i °� ( ) ce\ LAND USE & ZONING MAP • . 1020-26 S. First Avenue T NORTH ; GP 01-0.01 • 1 inch = 200.feet / I • - • • • 4 PROJFCT DATA _ OWNER: '� +— ,44.:k . WILSON AND SON DEVELOPMENT,INC. MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORY-35' ; a 4u c '6-° , . . , . .-. . • ' . . . . ,. 15 • . ......... rY i] [0 741 15 El 16 9] Ell [5 La 21 1 El Di 1.5 il ,,,, . m • --.........-..........--. -'491 .:....: -....=".... ' - . a 1 . ..0„,...„..... ..:: . _...... .....1=1:........_-.-_,._ ..._,==_ --:,--...., Mr.t.0=F...,exi--- A ••••• ., ,......=r,..-_.;__.- ,....._.=_.. .. .-...... • ' '''-' iiI".... . -... 7.7 "-1......--............-.-.1 , - -....... E....1!el ------ . . Ig;,,,, -•■■•■■■•■■••a■mo.■•■,4%,t. • '...... .... ■■•■•■•"Mll= . .....•■•••••■•■=1■••■•— 0,111 11-•N. II—- • 11111 Ill [il Ill rill . 7-----1 , ---] 1 1. , L . — — . ,I3 • . .—, 1 auk i Vr- i. . _ m.!1111.10111M 14111111 V 0< . ;..RUA r • ''' 0 [I 1 _141 Mut •rt 0 limi■li .. ._7._ =MOUE! 1 0 [III , ;.• an ______1, . _ .Il EOM MOOD i FL L 111111 Vint' mill ti, .ipipoirmEDD i.f.s4 • ,..., ...._.■11 ..,,fi Eil ill . r /- EMIR MOD E°11-" ' . - wrd ' .■.......7..riging...., .....2L, — -- — — r g.,:, • Isl.. , DI DI] "Npr,iir,j11119 • 111 [2] 12] 1 6 2 I I .5112 13 • 2 fi.3 01 . " 11■114111.1r.h i .1,0 ft A.1 gm SOUTHERN ELEVATION-UNIT"C'' - EASTERN ELEVATION-UNIT"C° 111'1111111ljg' ...L.)--W.....• — _ it3.\,- ......, 1/C-1," — hiadill1111111;111 14 41 n 3 ti Di . Li1-4- [1] El 3 ' 8 3 [3'56 . . 1..._=_„--,,....- ..,,, .._— _ ........ ....-- ----=...... Mr L.,.„...,,.„,„,,•I.M....m=M..I..■,--..•.I..-M-e•■■_._1 I,1.. 9 ...-.- ....4^...........-="'".r.e'9_...1_...•_-•■..■-■=....__m"=•'-..'._..-_...—_....a.;_.-.r...-„.... ....„....„...-..-.....,..1.-1.....7.._.,T,....:..,.......- .,,.-.,,...,........ <0 j • .. TN I I '111 III J2 n illfil 1 L , t. riur.i.— ,.., iiii rill ,...,. , 0 MIK , NM _ _ ___ _1111 ___ ____ .51/mac, ,_,.. 1 il it @ 19111 Ill -- 1 .11. 11i IINHI li _ Mi [Al li . di. ill E1 - 1 • 1 F_Li 2 1111 6 thi • - cf) ' NORTHERN ELEVATION-UNIT"C” . WESTERN ELEVATION-UNIT''C'' z -c3 . 15-‘ — • -- - o \,..j 1/e-r.cf--- C.D.-IF.Fi— P ,Cn . . . . 0< 0 T1 • • .• ------- _ -.... .., __ ... ..___ MATERIAL LEGEND _._..............._................_.. _. ..........____ . _ . I WM.RAVER•1/8"SruCCo. 4 Aruc(cm.IC! M kiNeo.18 201C DOA 1/285(6 CUSS• II 11101011 ilia Rata UAW ' . D w D.-- . ... . .......---..-..____....._—.._-.._. .. .._ _ ... . 'IA 19811.1.71 MAIN 1315C WC.MAI,AI mai/01 1 G 5 A..8.111 rASIC A/MAI 1011. II P11:1A/9110110 LIA001 WOOir. 17 MAXI u(lAt Rua Wit CP/T/DARA 111113.- ___ • U mat 1.26 WOO BAY RV al MAL 01 az.0 A 8 I mai 01(131 6/*010136-501-4015 PAM II Mit 110.1/5 111141 iiiii-2C X it ! CE'?`..fl'.!P raP! •1!6110S 'MIA MAI 51155 MCC Ca(11.. II SIM(HIM•UAW.raal.015 01 rOun %`...... 171110190 —- .._.. ... _--.....- . . . • . . . • IA 1101A 1.73 Kafti Da 100'01 Mal Al LOIS 1 WISED-Ma Ma IMI-410.0.0•35 MI thROLai1 ROI(•Mei 5..9SICer Pr Nal A.ex kCi ' '•--'' ._..._--... . . ____ _._ __-.— . . 1 101 1)11 altiCsItit WA 111• 'III MO W(SW ir on M. . VACUA 10111.8-CaC11 1.511,05-AI Lai'...sac . ... ___ _.....—. . . - '-•-• — ' - •••••••-.•••._• - Irma•pill Lilidia WNW 01 WM.11 UM a,a,All a Imo 1850*•ma[WEI.rt,.aasE • i IA RIAMDtit.DX u3.11214"1855 COME MR' -.- 9,9n.i.s - .__ __. _._.. -- ... • "' A-7 • brEm•in9 0.11/1 MAO'Of(0._AI Mr 1i.13 I C 9 1 1/7'UM REV(A17•PoilIG 1/I 11/1Di Ri5119 r9—.0,1r 9,911913 0/1.....1,..15/.1.1.15.1i .. ---_ .... . . . • , . . . , . • . . ,, . %. . . . 1. . . • . \ • . , . - _ ......_ _ — ___—,— _________ a• • l • • • 10 • • ..tiregaill011:4110...7 AA 1.11 . IVAN.1, --- Imo graw..t....a...1.4...scat.v......x..."..;- • CiNartihwEilids761,1110 -L., ItattfiEfAR" 'ImargliciraNfr 7:4--- ••• ____----. __ ____.„.: 3. 3,.. I 171"11 fail 1 P-'''''.. g iii inn Ill 1 , h 0-iial itilIZI r,HIM E.,• . • • • • 111:1111,11• .P.T.■11 -------'.--"•-•r,-, -,- • ! • 11111•11 --.2:1! .,. .,_ -......■, „,.----`•----, MI , '''V'''-'1 1 HU .-7---..--",-----,r--'-'• :4- Ir■-- . ---1. - ...._ - ,102 • ..---f-,.._.--.--, .-mODZ -long ii M 1 1 ii No I IA% - - ', ' .Lill ,•-•,,' Eli::1 Fr-rffir__,,,,- - i_i at le bums-3 till fill, if',II''.- '111% ;-- lig -17.:TNII.:'4 Hill I ■ 1E WESTERN ELEVATION E , 3/16"=.1.-0- . . . • . . -.6.73r•••••3r•••""r"."Ige:3"r&VVP.13. Welt.- - --1".19.V."1-....„.,. -.1...), ...po,. -,--------''''' "--471:::::0101?-mk.0.0*--L-exigivam.-.- icemyiy..56. ...4:e--4- ----!•1..4:-.6}4-... .....0... -w.vor.a.v.vamay...5.3 m.-....116"6•111 - raFiP"- ..?.............................. .._. ..,.. -- .. ___ ___ _ , ___ __-- -- _-----. illii _ ._-i 119 o 1 la ria I . I .--Vint ff: Wise 71 riii J 0.11:4 moo , ,0.3..m • TER:111 ,_ II I --='!•- •'- --•''2-2-' 't.....-2'...• .t...MIOl• .1 ._111 - ,4111125.M.•• I tr. • =7.-4 -,=-----7 Tagil __=, -F41_ AR..., _ ..-- - -...0.1.„.. .., „-. ............,....._,_-._...-- • 01 `'- 1-....01* ---' - T.' 0 El ... ....-..____■ ..... ----- r ......- ---3.- --- 3311111.3_33_11 - 1 - MI EIDOCIDO M ........ !p.m ,,ift 1 suing r in ..••...., _ ..., !--iiiiiiii ,ii•......,_._.".•_ t.,..i ,..1....... ,._., , ... __ , • - , ,,,.....„...,...,..,•,,,.._„.....,.....„.,..,1..00001. .=pi 3C.pi ig 1p.gm ig ip pi:„„-13.....2- -.,EYE.1......r.... -.4.w. ...I .„......E.ENI 0 In PO•1111 IN.P11+ --- - • - ,: /. . —.. ,— _ ' ' -' • . . . .•. ' ,' . ' • ' • .... . . . . . • .•• - . . - . • -. , •-.-- . . -, '' . . . SOUTHERN ELEVATION • . . .........___ ......_.. .. . _______----- . . , . . . FRENCH' GARDEN VILLA 1020 FIRST AVE. ARCADIA, CA • . • . . • : . . 1 • . . - 1 . . . . . . i . . . . I ! . .... 1 . • _ . .. .. •• • •• • - -- -- _-- _. . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 1637 EXHIBITS • • A F 4 • RESOLUTION NO. 1637 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP 01-001 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (12 DU/AC MAXIMUM) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012-1026. S. FIRST AVENUE. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2001, Mr. Hank Jong of EGL. Associates, Inc. filed an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple-Family Residential, (12 DU/AC Maximum) for the property located at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Tract 10532, City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 117, Pages 21 and 22 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 27, 2001 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, E 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 March 27, 20 1 are true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds: 1. That the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation change to Multiple amity Residential is consistent with the current R-2 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential) zoning of the subject properties. In addition, the properties are a transition site; the General Plan Land Use designation to the south is Single Family Residential and the Gener I Plan designation to the north is Commercial. ' Property to the south is developed with single amity homes and property to the north is developed with commercial uses. 2.- That the requested General Plan Amendment does not conflict with the General Plan Land Use Designations of any surrounding or nearby properties. 3. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the Initial Study is 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 1 f A 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 01-001 based upon the information submitted by the.Applicant to the City as of the date of this Resolution. Section 4. 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. 1637 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on March 27, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: ' Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Olson NOES: ABSENT: Murphy ABSTAIN: ' Chairm` n,-Planning Commission • City of rcadia ATTEST: • Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steph n P. Deitsch, City Attorney • City of Arcadia • • • -2' k • • • I . PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2001 EXHIBIT4 • 7 4 - 3. PUBLIC HEARING GP 01-001 1012-1026 S. First Ave. Hank Jong Consideration of a General Plan amenment to change the General Plan designation om Single- Family Residential (0-6 du/ac)to Multiple-Family Residential(12 du/ac). • RESOLUTION NO. 1637 A resolution of the Planning Commission, of the City of Arcadia, recommending approval of GP 01-001 to change the General Plan designation from Single-Family Residential (0.16 du/ac) to Multiple-Family Residential(12 du/ac) at 1012-1026 S. First Ave. to the City Council. The staff report was presented. Ms. Butler explained that the properties are zoned R-2 and could be developed with apart ents. The general plan amendment allows the owner to subdivide and sell as condominiums. Staff said that modifications have already been granted to develop the two most southerly loi s with a 6- unit project. The applicant did notify the owners of the two northerly properties but they did •ot. The public hearing was opened. Hank Jong, 11823 Slauson, Santa Fe Springs, confirmed sending letters to the property o ers to the north but they never responded. The properties have been zoned R-2 since 1954. The owne has a right to develop and sell the properties as R-2. Sonja Williams, 130 Greenfield, objected to the way the City caters to the developer instea• of existing homeowners. The City needs to be more proactive in preserving single-family homes instead of appealing to the developer. The area is zoned R-1 even if these lots are not. The Planning Commission needs to keep the interest of most of the homeowners in the area in mind. The new owners ohhe homes on Crystal Ct. do not want condominium units backing up to their properties. The traffic patterns will be negatively impacted. Dana Jr. High is only 1/2 a mile away. Cars back up to Duarte Rd. during school drop off and pick up times. There are children walking to school. This will cause problems for the owners along First Ave. Two residents along Greenfield have already lost their privacy and. now they will have these new condos built 10' from their property lines. Since the church sold their harking lot, on Sundays, First Ave. is parked with all the churchgoers and on weekdays the daycare use First Ave. as parking. She suggested rezoning the property as R-1. This is definitely undesirable and unacceptable. Condominiums should be along Huntington Dr. and Duarte Rd. and not on First Ave. She also submitted a petition signed by 110 interested parties against the proposal. Jack Munson, 120 Greenfield, said they have already lost their privacy as a result of the million dollar mansions that have been built on Crystal Ct. The Planning Commission is disregarding the needs of the long time residents and caving in to developers flashing their money. There is no consideration for residents. He reminded the Planning Commission that these developers are not City residents. When Crystal Ct. was being built he talked with the contractor and asked to have provisions be made so they could keep some privacy and the contractor did not care. He has seen nothing but disregard for owners. - This situation has gotten out of hand. Although, he does not reside at this location he is very concerned Arcadia City Planning Comission 5 3/27/01 ' - for his tenants who will lose their privacy. How could they consider this as a buffer or a transition? This is unacceptable. Chairman Pro Tem Kalemkiarian said that it is very likely that the homes on Crystal Ct.were developed under the old R-1 code. The new regulations have been designed to eliminate mansionization. Robert.Toben, 1110 Greenfield, said they moved in their home many years ago because they liked the neighborhood. This is,a"Community of Homes" and the Planning Commission needs to remember that. All of the neighbors are here tonight to voice their opposition and. their discontent. He said that undoubtedly they will construct 2-story homes. As an engineer, he did not believe that they could properly support them and felt that could be a seismic hazard. Erica Williams, 130 Greenfield, said that there is inconsistency with the General Plan and the Zoning.' Changes should be made to the zoning to make it consistent with the GP and not as how it has been presented tonight. The reasons for approval stated in the staff report are weak. It is a poor argument to amend the GP when the area is predominantly single-family. There are no similar situations along Duarte.Rd. Most of the homes in the area are single-story. They should not be down zoning. She felt an emergency moratorium should be adopted to study this inconsistency. They should not allow spot zoning nor should it have been recommended by staff. This promotes and fosters poor planning. She was able to find at least 6-7 inconsistencies south of Duarte_Rd. and north of Live Oak. She questioned the Env. Checklist and asked staff to review the Geological and Noise sections. . Louise Sola, 1120 Greenfield, said that First Ave. is extremely busy street, with the middle school down the street, they should consider the traffic, both foot and car,that would be generated. Chairman Pro Tern Kalemkiarian said that a"Negative Declaration"was prepared for this project. Ms. Butler said that said document was advertised and is available for review in Planning. • Jane Bailey,130 Ilene, said that it is ridiculous to have condominiums here. Arcadia has approved and allowed tacky homes and businesses. Their neighborhood is very well maintained and attractive. It is very difficult to go down First Ave. to get to her street. She felt sorry for the new homeowners along Crystal Ct. who have purchased million dollar homes that will now have condominiums next to them. Francis Chang, 108 Crystal Ct., said he purchased his home and moved here because of the excellent public school system. Undoubtedly, these new units will affect the schools. The city may think that they would be getting additional tax dollars from these homes but they will be spending it on building new schools. Gerald Mies, 1037 Louise, said that traffic in south Arcadia is lousy along Santa Anita, Duarte and all the side streets. He did not think they should deviate from the City's Master Plan. He was against a multiple-family development here. Currently, the homes there are all single-family but they will soon have two-story monstrosities towering and looking over their properties. There is a parking problem and there are cars parked all along First Ave. and the side streets from the church. In rebuttal, Mr. Jong, reiterated the property owner's right to develop his property. They will have to comply with Building Codes that address seismic issues. This process is to'make the zoning consistent with the GP. Arcadia City Planning Col`nmission 6 3/27/01 I N8 one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Pro Tem Kalemkiarian closed the public hearing. For the benefit of the audience, he said that the Planning Commission is only an advisory body. The City Council will have the final decision on this issue. A public hearing would be scheduled before them and he urged the audience to att nd. Ms. Butler explained the density requirements in R-2. She said that GP became effective in the 1970's in California. Prior to that cities did not have GP. She said that Planning Commi sion could recommend approval of the GP as presented or recommend that the property be rezoned. Ash a "Charter City", the GP and zoning do not have to be consistent. There are other inconsistencies in the city and each will be dealt when issues arise or as time permits. . Bruckner felt that the development would be consistent with the surrounding area. He t Zought that condominiums would be appropriate. Commissioner Huang said that the GP amendment is a mechanism to make corrections and this is a proper use of said mechanism. He thought the location was appropriate for what is being projosed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Bruckner, seconded by Commissioner Huang to recommend approval of GP 01-001 to the City Council and adopt Reso. 1637 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Olson, Kalemkiarian NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Murphy • • Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 3/27/01 LETTERS AND PETITION IN OPPOSITION EXHIBIT 5 • 4 - • 130 Greenfield Pla e Arcadia, CA 910 6 23 April, 20 1 • Arcadia City Council Members Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006 Dear Arcadia City Council Members: Re: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 01-001 1012-1026 South First Avenue It has been suggested I write the Arcadia City Council Members with my concerns before the upcoming Public Hearing at the May 1, 2001.City Council Meeting. As the leader of a Petition drive, I now represent more than 140 residents in opposition to the proposed GP Amendment to change the Genera Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6-DU/AC) to Multiple Familyl Residential (12 DU/AC) for the above site. I enclose a Petition duly signed by these residents in opposition to this change. I would like to report on the Planning Commission Meeting of 27 March, 2001 which I attended together with more than 20 or so residents who signed the Petition.. We all left that meeting feeling we were not listened to and that the Planning Commission had already decided before the meeting to make their advisory recommendation to the City Council for approval of the proposed Amendment. I also attended the late September, 2000 Public Hearing related to the above issue. - • There are at least four(4) reasons for our neighborhood's disappointment and disapproval of the Planning Commission proceedings: . 1) Our Petition was disregarded. . 2) Public input was not acknowledged. 3) The Planning Commission made an advisory recommendation not based on any of the evidence submitted at the Hearing. 4) No attorney was present. I enclose a copy of the Minutes, transcribed verbatim, at my expense, for your review. I would also like to bring to your attention two important matters that were discussed and unfortunately not recorded in the "official" Minutes. a) I read a two page statement in opposition of the proposed amendment on behalf of the 100 plus residents who had signed the Petition. I handed in the statement and Petition at the end of my speech. I asked it be given to the I • Commissioners. It was left sitting on the table. No mention of any of this • was recorded in the Minutes. b) After a STAFFmember read their Report, the Chairman asked a question to the effect "Why are we reviewing this again? STAFF member Kenneth Phung replied "I can check my file for the exact date, but it went through modification. It was an oversight. I looked at the General Plan and ,was confused by the street I was looking at originally and it was an oversight by me". (See page 2, middle of page in Verbatim Minutes enclosed in Package). Assistant Planner, Kenneth Phung originally thought the area on the General Map was R2. - The Planning Department obviously found out about this oversight some six (6) months after the developer had been given approval in September 2000 to go ahead with the project..In early March, to correct this error, the developer was - advised to apply for a GP Amendment, to make the maps consistent, hence the Planning Commission meeting of.March 27. Everyone can make an error, but this should not be compounded by intentionally omitting statements of opposition in the Minutes and then issuing Permits, (be they for apartments or condominiums), for the Developer to start going ahead with the project, March 29, immediately after the Planning Commission Meeting of March 27. Mr. Hank Jong did not have final approval from the City Council for the Amendment change. I do not believe these Permits should have been issued. This makes us feel our attendance at the Planning Commission meeting was a sham and a complete waste of time. What is at stake here, is our wonderful, very important GENERAL PLAN, which our forefathers had the foresight to put together in the 1960's. This is the blueprint, the foundation —our master plan for this great city of Arcadia. We must not allow spot zoning changes at the whim of this or that developer. People are moving in, because of the fine City layout, the mostly single family residential homes, excellent schools and all the other amenities. We also must never forget the involvement and input of the community in making this such a great place in which to reside. LETS UPHOLD OUR GENERAL PLAN. This is pivotal to the. continued well thought out development, maintenance, and success of the city. A mistake is a mistake, but this spot zoning change of the General Plan can jeopodise ourentire City. What happens here, can happen citywide. We have to be honest. There is integrity involved here. The City should tell the developer, Mr. Hank Jong, "We made a mistake. We are sorry. We cannot allow you to go ahead with this condominium project". The lots 1012-1026 S. First Ave. are.R1 on the General Plan and should remain that way. We had and have single family dwellings on them and it would not be in the city's best interests to allow a buffer zone of 12 high density condominiums right next to a very recently completed project of 6,elite mansions in the $850,000 - $1,000,000 plus price range. • r 4 This would definitely be hodgepodge, band-aid planning. A large area, in the eP • is allocated for. condominiums. This area extends.between Duarte Road and • Huntington Drive. Many lots, including open land, remain available in this section of Arcadia • The City Council needs to listen to the majority of the people in this case, not cater to one developer whose sole goals are profit, moving on to his next proje t and certainly not residing in this city. Please include a copy of this letter and the Petition for the review by the City Council Members at their meeting on May 1, 2001. Thanking you, Sincerely, • Sonia B. Williams Resident cc: Mr. William Kelly, City Manager Mayor Segal • Mayor Pro Tern Marshall Councilman Kovacic Councilman Chandler Councilman Chang • Encl. Statement read at the March 27 P.C. Meeting • jg w 2-24-01 Dear Mayor Mickey Segal, I live at 150 Greenfield place, in Arcadia. I have lived at this residence for 22 years. I am very proud of our single family residence community. My family and I ask that the city uphold it's general plan for R1 single family residences in our neighborhood. We strongly object to: General plan A Apartment/Condominiums Records GPA 01-001 1012-1026 South First Avenue We ask that you to re-send the builders permits. Regards, Thee-Mejia family 97" 17171 Carbon copy to all council members r g 2 -24- 1 Dear M a yo-r M Cc ke/y I lwe-at150 Cyr placer, &vArcadca. 0 w fa shay haw lvved<at thi/k r for 25 yeae < We'cw vary proud/of our rfle'family r ' My fcxmlay avid/I a that the-cc ty uphold/Lt's ge vtera i pla ty for 21 ktvtgle.famay r ivy,cn r ho-o-cL. We/strongly o je,ctto: Cie nera.L plan/4 74pavtme 'tt/C• 01 -oo1 1012-1026 So-uth.Fi rstAv- - We/iwrplore'you.to-rep-ce .d.theyU kperwu S&An careZy, Mr. ca vtd/Mrs Marl L •�, /7 Carbory copy to-all cthkrtoil inemithors, 1 .1 ' 4. Erica H. Williams 130 Greenfield Place Arcadia, California 91006 April 23, 2001 William Kelly, City Manager City Council City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive - Arcadia CA 91007 . . RE: .GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 01-001' Attn: Mr. Kelly and Arcadia City Council: I am writing in response to the March 27, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing regarding consideration of a proposed General Plan Amendment at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, which, in approved, would re-designate the property from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential.. At the public hearing, I was disappointed to witness the actions of the Planning Commission and the manner in which the meeting was conducted regarding the handling of the case and the recommendation of approval for the proposed amendment. I was disappointed for the following reasons: 1. Upon review of the minutes from the March 27, 2001 meeting before the Planning Commission, important information relative to the General Plan Amendment was omitted from the minutes. I found that the minutes did • not accurately portray the events that transpired during that evening and did. not mention the pertinent issues that were discussed. 2. Specifically, a signed petition was submitted to the Planning Commission at the beginning of the public hearing relative to this item. The petition was handed to Kenneth Phung and was not distributed to the Planning Commission for their review and evaluation as requested. The Planning Commission provided little, if any, discussion relative to the General Plan Amendment and unanimously voted for approval. The signed petition, containing over 120 signatures in opposition to the application was not even considered prior to their approval. The Planning Commission acted as if input from the residents in the affected area(s) was not acknowledged nor was it accurately reflected in the minutes. The minutes read as if no germane input from the public was received, thus creating a false impression. (Meeting minutes, whether it is a board meeting, a City Council or a Planning Commission meeting are taken to provide an accurate public record'as to what was said and transpired at the meeting. 0 City of Arcadia-City Cou - Page 2 April 23, 2001 These minutes do not accurately reflect what transpired at the meeting nd left out vital information relative to this matter. ) 3. On March 27, 2001, Kenneth Phung stated at the public hearing that he ad looked at the wrong map and made a mistake when the application ca e in. Staff thereafter advised the applicant to apply for a General Plan Amendment. This statement was also omitted from the minutes. SUMMARY Proposed development within the City should always reflect the General Plan. Th General Plan is the master plan for a community or blueprint and is much more indicative of the existing area. The dominant land use in the immediate and surrounding area is Single-Family (R-1) Residential. Instead of a reactive approach to the application, the City should take a proactive approach and update the Zoning to be consistent with the General Plan — not change the General Plan to'be consistent wi h the Zoning. This point seemed to become lost in the shuffle at the Planning Commission level, which is something they should have addressed, but didn't. Changing the Zoning to be in-sync with the General Plan would not only bring about an element of residential consistency to the area, but perhaps most importantly, consistency with the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment should be done with the intention of achieving a result that yields the greates consistency with the General Plan. Approval of this General Plan Amendment would allow for a multiple family development which would adversely impact the surrounding and abutting sin•le family residences. It addition, the approval would also result-in essentially a "spot zone" of R-2, an overall loss of property value and an encroachment of igh density residential into a low-density neighborhood. CONCLUSION • I would like the City Council to seriously consider the background information I hav- submitted, as well as the testimony and input from the residents at the May 1st ,200 City Council meeting relative to this matter. The City of Arcadia has a good General Plan, with the exception of several areas of inconsistencies with the City's Zoning. he subject site at 1012-1026 South First Avenue represents one of those incorlsistenci-s. The overall issue of inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning is th- most important element with this case. This appears to have been overlooked oy the Planning Commission. I am asking that the City Council not overlook this matt-r and uphold the City's General Plan by re-zoning the property to be consistent with t e General Plan which designates the area as Single Family (R-1) Residential. I City of Arcadia-City Council Page 3 . April 23, 2001 I am requesting that a copy of this letter be attached to the City Council for their consideration at the public hearing(s) scheduled for May 1, 2001. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. Sincerely, 16(iliik MP Ail Erica H. Williams, AICP • Cc: City Council Members City Clerk • • • • I ROBERT E. TOBIN c ;, ' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 1 v 4 I CONCRETE CONSULTANT 1110 Greenfield Av . • Arcadia, CA 91006-414. Phone: (818) .447-100 New Area Code: (626) • April 23, 2001 . • RECEIVED To All Members CITY OF/ACA IA The City Council City of Arcadia APR 2 3 20 1 Council Offices, City Hall • CITY• Arcadia, California 91006 COUNC L Subject: Property on East Side of First Ave. and South of Duarte Road • Dear Council Members: As a resident of Arcadia for 47 years and still occupying the same horn on Greenfield Ave., I am transmitting this letter for your careful consideration a the Council meeting on May 1, 2001. . It is my understanding that the property described above will be, or has rec ntly • been designated, as Zone R2. It is further understood that this change' of Z ning would permit the construction of multiple family dwellings which are repo edly planned as condominium apartments. Since we live on Greenfield Ave. which is outh • and to the rear of this proposed development, we respectfully request that this a ove described property remain in Zone R1 as it was originally designated. • When we moved to Arcadia we were assured that the lots in this area, with the exception of some commercial property fronting on Duarte Road, would remai as single family dwellings. To.change this zoning now, after more than 50 years n its present form, is a most serious breach of faith in the ordinances formulate by previous•City Counci' Members. Spot changes that are now being promulgat d in these originally . adopted' Zones by a single developer could quickly lead o a • hodgepodge of diverse structures all over town. As a believer in the demo,ratic philosphy that the majority should rule, Arcadia should remain as the '"Ci of Homes." . Respectfully submitted, . Vafeiti-C-7-5114:1 Robert E. Tobin Licensed Civil and Structural Engineer . Copy to All City Council Members • I. • 1 . 9 4 VERBATIM MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 2001. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Item number 3 is public hearing#GP1-001 staff report please. Kenneth Phung-Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission, Mr. Hank Jong filed an application for a general plan change from single family residential to multiple family residential for the property at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. The four lots that are included in the general plan amendment are R.zone R2 2 family. Proposed general plan change will allow the zoning designation to be consistent with the general plan designation. The inconsistency between the general plan and the zoning came to light when a proposed six unit residential condominium project was submitted to the city for development of the properties at 1020 to 1026 S. First Avenue. Tie-proposed project was designed in accordance with the City's R2 regulations. Although the subject properties are zoned R2 the general plan designation for the property is single family residential. The property was zoned R2 in 1954 which was consistent with R2 zoning to the properties to the north and west of the properties. As a result of the discrepancy between the zoning and general plan, a tentative map for condominium purposes cannot be approved at this location. The applicant was informed of the inconsistency and was advised by staff to request a general plan amendment from single family residential to multiple family residential for the site. In addition to the two lots west of the subject site to provide a transition zone commercial to multiple family residential. Generally the development services staff does not encourage or support general plan changes. However the development staff supports this proposal for the following reasons. One, the zoning designations are R2 2 family. Two, one of the four lots from 1024-1026 on First Avenue is developed with two single family dwellings. Three, properties on the west side of First Avenue across the street from the subject property are zoned C2 PR1, which is a parking lot for a health club and R2 development with a church. Four, general plan amendment would create a transition between the commercial development to the north and a single family residential development to the south. R2 zoning is a more desirable transition between a service station and health club and a church and an R1 zone. The proposed general plan change would make the subject properties consistent with the current zoning designation. Pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, a negative declaration has been prepared for this project. The Development Services Department recommends that the general plan designation for the subject site be changed to a single family residential. This concludes my presentation. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Any questions for staff? Commissioner Huang- (Asian speaker, can't understand beginning of what he says)the proposed project,meets the R2 requirement. This a, what exactly what they proposal is a condo, or apartment? I 2 Kenneth Phung-'Their original proposal when they came in for their tentative map is for a condo project, six unit condominium, but we found out that general plan designation wasn't multiple family so we had to tell them that they had to apply for a general plan amendment. Commissioner Huang-I guess my question, what exactly the proposal to condo project, right? It not apartment project? Kenneth Phung-No. Administrator Butler-It's six detached units that the applicant had ap , on two of 'the lots. • Commissioner Bruckner- Yeah, that.was my question, didn't we, we reviewed this and, unless I'm mistaken, I thought we did approve it with some modifications in terms of landscaping, some trees at the back of the people. Because I know there's some opposition from some of the Rl lots on, ah, off of Greenfield at that time, and I'm just kind of curious which lots were involved. Kenneth Phung-OK, the two lots, to the, I believe, to the south of the site is being proposed for the condominiums and this project did go through modification. I can check my file for the exact date, but it went through modification, it was an oversight by the staff. I looked at the general plan and, was confused by the street I was looking at originally and it was an oversight by, by me. Commissioner Bruckner- OK, so and, but cause I know we did see this before,but what we saw was just the development on the two most southerly properties of these four properties that we're looking at tonight? Kenneth Phung- That's correct. Commissioner Bruckner- And, is there any proposal existing or anything else in the proposal, being proposed at this time? On the first two lots that, to the north that are, you know, right next to the 76 gas station? Kenneth Phung -No, there hasn't been any. Commissioner Bruckner- OK, thank you. Administrator Butler- Just to further your, there was additional landscaping required along the rear property line to mitigate the two units on that side. Chairman Kalemkiarian- questions for staff. Commissioner Bruckner-Now, I'm sorry, I'm confused now. The six units are on the 2 parcels? I • • 3 .4 Administrator Butler- Correct. Commissioner Bruckner- And the northerly two parcels can probably accept another six units? Or somewhere in that range? Administrator Butler- Possibly yes, yes. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Any other questions? Administrator Butler- Oh, I was going to say, they could potentiallyput in a cul-de-sac in this area that would probably accommodate five to six lots, depending, at least: five lots. Commissioner Bruckner- But there's a proposal for six units on just . . . - Administrator Butler- Six on the two, on the two southerly units that are across from the alley and the parking.area. Commissioner Bruckner.-OK, thank you. Administrator Butler- Two southerly lots, excuse me. Commissioner Bruckner or Commissioner Olson- And there's one common owner, or common owner,maybe in escrow for the two southerly lots at this point in time. Administrator Butler- 'Correct. - Commissioner Bruckner-Because of the proposal that we already saw. And we've absolutely had any word from the owners of the property at ah, is it 1012? Or the two most northerly properties. Any comments from the owner's of the property there? Kenneth Phung -No, they didn't respond. I asked the applicant to send letters to the two properties to the north and they didn't respond to any of the, they didn't respond to the letter. Commissioner Bruckner- So we know it's not.common ownership at this point in time? Kenneth Phung-I'm assuming so,but I don't know for sure. Chairman Kalemkiarian-If I pull a title report on this, it's going to show R2,as far as the . County is concerned.' Chairman Kalemkiarian- As far as the county is.concerned. Administrator Butler—As far as the zoning is concerned- yes. 4 v 4 Chairman Kalemkiarian- OK, any questions? I'll open a public hearing, is the applicant here? Please state your name and address and then sign after you're finished. Hank Jong-My name is Hank Jong, address 11823 Slauson, Unit 18, Santa Fe Springs. I'm a civil engineer for the project. Just want to mention that the Kenneth has asked me to send letters to the property owners of the two lots of our project site and we wrote the letters saying that we will provide the application fee which is $2,000 for the general plan change. We waited 30 days and there's no response, so we, I guess we just cannot wait any longer. That we will proceed with this application. Other than that, I would say that the staff has done a good job in going back to the history that the property was zoned R2 in 1954 and we, the property owner has the right to develop the property as R2. Otherwise, if there is any question, I can answer here. Chairman Kalemkiarian - Any questions for Mr. Jong? Commissioner Bruckner- Let me just, maybe this is more for staff They could build R2 density but they couldn't subdivide. Administrator Butler- That is correct. Commissioner Bruckner- So it isn't a question of what they can build, it's a question of making it condos or apartments. Administrator Butler-That's exactly. Commissioner Bruckner- Is that really the question here? Administrator Butler- That's exactly. They could go in currently under the existing code and build apartment units. Commissioner Bruckner- OK, I just want to get it right, we're not talking about the number of units they could build,we're talking about whether they're condos, where they're for sale or they're rentals. Administrator Butler- Right. The general plan would allow them to sell them as condominiums. Commissioner Bruckner- It's really the change we're talking about here. Administrator Butler- That is correct. Commissioner Bruckner- Thank you, I was just trying to be clear on that. I 5 Commissioner Huang- I would like to follow up with a question. Right now we know, on the southerly portion, the two lots on the southerly portion, they're proposing a 6-unit detached condo. Assuming, if they've offered or if the owner wanted to put apartment, how many unit it can build? Administrator Butler-It would be the same. Commissioner Huang - Same, ok. • Chairman Kalemkiarian- But they could be attached. Administrator Butler- They could be attached. Chairman Kalemkiarian—Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this application? Please state you name, you have a five-minute time limit... (end of side one of tape) (beginning of side 2) Sonia Williams - . . . plan amendment at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia. I am here to represent the community that surrounds and would be affected by the proposed general Plan Amendment (Application G P01-001). We object to the way the city is catering to the developer rather than considering the needs of the people already living in the area, some for as long as 50 years. I spearheaded a petition drive and have the signatures of over 110 residents against the proposed amendment. We feel the city is not using a pro-active, pro-neighborhood approach to this matter. It is, instead, reacting to the pressure of the developer whose goal is to potentially build as many as 12 condominiums on the property, rather than meet the desires of the residents who would prefer to remain in a neighborhood of single family homes. The area is designated Rl in the General Plan. Even though the four lots are zoned R2, only one can be singled out as R2 given that it has two small houses on it. It seems strange that the City would move DOWN in their standards to R2 rather than look UP and make all the houses R1. The four properties in question are consistent with this zoning as lots are on the order of 11,000 square feet each. Thus, any individual lot is quite capable of containing a large, single-family home and should be zoned R1. The City Planner may not have driven down First Avenue or made a study of the traffic pattern and every day business conducted in our neighborhood. Allow me to paint a picture of our area: To the South- Is the recently completed Crystal Court cul-de-sac with six new homes valued from$800,000 to over$1M. These buyers do not want condos next to them as a"buffer zone"between themselves and the Union 76 Gas Station. Their properties would be immediately devalued. Next to the house (north) is a gas station with a 30 foot setback from the existing 6 7 single family dwelling fence. This space provides a quite adequate buffer between the commercial zone and the first home. This is the northern home. Dana Junior High School is a half-mile down the road. Children are picked up and dropped off six days a week including Saturday school, with cars backing up from the school right into Duarte Road. These cause big problems for residents wishing to turn into their homes on Christina, Magna Vista, Louise, Greenfield Avenue and Greenfield Place. The only sidewalk on the west side of First Avenue is also crowded with young students spilling over and walking on the road at times. To the East- Greenfield Place cut de sac: Two residences right behind the proposed 12 or so condominiums would lose all privacy with the proposed approved plan for 6 condos only allowing a set back of 10 feet. One residence already has no privacy from the mansion on Crystal Court completely overlooking the property. To the West - We have a church, an athletic club (with a surrounding parking lot) and an alley behind Duarte Road. The church sold off its parking lot years ago and has only on street parking. It is a growing enterprise and is used daily for Day Care, the meetings held during the day and evenings. On Sundays, cars are lined up on both sides of First Avenue, now overflowing into Christina, and into Crystal Court. The alley feeds behind the existing apartments on Christina, businesses and customers using the Athletic Club. All go in and out from First Avenue right across from the proposed condos. This heavy traffic, along with the additional flow from the proposed 12 condominiums, creates traffic and congestion that negatively affects the West and other surrounding areas. I had no problem asking residents within the immediate area to consider this matter. Without exception, they all unhesitatingly signed in opposition. The consensus of opinion was IN NO WAY DO WE DESIRE HIGH DENSITY CONDOS on First Avenue, replacing the three single Rl and one, two family R2 dwellings. These would devalue our properties, make for increased traffic flow and congestion and negatively impact our environment. The proposed amendment is therefore undesirable and unacceptable in the neighborhood. Condos should be contained and built between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, not springing up south of Duarte Road in a spot Planning change. Neighbors want the areas to remain a single family designated residential area. We have a city of fine homes— single family residences,particularly south of Duarte Road to Live Oak and extending from First to Fifth Avenues. Let's keep it that way. If the City makes a spot change on First Avenue just to suit a developer, there is no accountability or saying where the quality of Planning will end up in Arcadia. Arcadia is known as a community of homes—we do not want a community of condos. I have copies of our statement for the Planning Commission Members. Also attached are copies of the signatures opposed to the amendment for your review. We urge you to consider the wishes of the surrounding community. Thank you for your time in this matter. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you Ms. Williams. Any questions for Ms. Williams? Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak in opposition? Don't be shy. 1 7 4 Jack Munson- Good evening,my name is Jack Munson. I, council members, I own the property, my wife and I own the property depicted on map 10,right behind the massive homes that were built overlooking our backyard, which I don't know who built them,but I have no privacy in the backyard at all. I have two homes looking right down on us. I personally and my family has lived in Arcadia since 1951 and I've seen a tremendous disregard for the lack of the single family resident in this area, year after year going unattended, you know, and unconsiderate, there's no consideration for people that want to throw the big money out here and get the big bucks for Arcadia City Council at the expense of single family residents. Now, I am not the resident of this property, I'm the owner and I have a renter that's lived there for over 10 years. And I can't understand how you consider putting a condo project overlooking a residential project where we've already gotten our privacy taken away from us. The homes on the south side of this development even have a worse situation because the property level was raised and the actual almost the foundation overlooks the person's fence on the property south of these six or these five homes that are already built. And I'm referring back to this because I watched this being built and I talked to the contractor and I asked him, at least could you put up some, some, this property right here on the, where the five single family monster homes were built and there was no reaction from the owner other than, well, we might consider putting cypress trees or something up there like that. But, in the years I've lived in Arcadia since 1968, I've seen seen nothing but, how do I put it, nothing but disregard for the single family owner and the interest being into the big contractor and the mega size homes where we seem to get multiple generation types of residents in these areas and it just seems to be getting out of hand. And the condo project that you're projecting behind my house and behind my neighbor's house is total in disregard for our privacy. We've owned our property since 1968 and I just can't understand how you can even consider using that as a, to be an example of a buffer zone from an industrial property or corner gas station, use that rationale to build a condo to work your way into monster homes which are still overlooking my property. And I.don't think this is acceptable, I don't think the responsibility is really taken seriously by the council and they continue to beg under,to get, to allow big contractors to come in here for the big money and flash the dollars around and I sound upset and I am. And I'm open for questions, but I don't understand how this keeps going on in Arcadia. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Any questions for Mr. Munson? Would you give us your. address before you step down? Jack Munson- 120 Greenfield Place. Chairman Kalemkiarian- And you said number, I didn't catch which property was . . . Jack Munson- Oh, well, according to a little property map, mine is #10, I'm at the key lot on Greenfield. I 8 N .0 Chairman Kalemkiarian-I see, OK. Jack Munson-And, the neighbor next door is#11. And I'm already looking at five new homes that are, two of them are looking right down on my backyard at the pool area which has totally robbed me of privacy and no attempts by the builder has been made to plant any trees or any privacy, you know, consideration, and when you build these condo, I understand they might be as large as 2700 square feet. Is that a case in point? Chairman Kalemkiarian - I don't have the plans here but . . . Jack Munson-They're also not going to be subterranean parking either, I understand their parking is going to be on the same grade, that means these are going to exceed or be right at the 30' limit. So,then the actual condos will be sitting right up like a massive mountain overlooking our property. So I am vehemently opposed to it. And, again, I grew up in Arcadia, my kids went to Arcadia, I grew up with prominent people like the Lojeski's, I'm very close friends with them. They were members of the mayor, of the council and are in the politics. And I know it may not mean anything to you, but you got to start taking, start looking at what you're doing to the people that have built this city and lived in the city for years and not cave into the big guy with the big bucks. That's all I have to say. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you, thank you very much. I want to just say one thing before we continue with the oppositions. The R1 zoning has changed and the "mansionization" quote unquote of Arcadia has been through in 1999 of October of 1999 has been changed. So, those concerns for Rl specifically need not be addressed because they already have changed and the types of homes you'll see on Rl properties will be different in the future than what you've-seen in the past. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this application? Robert Tobin- My name is Robert Tobin. 'I live on Greenfield Avenue. Just between First and Second Avenue here in Arcadia. I've been a resident of this community for 45 years, lived in the same house, our kids went to school here. When we first bought this house,we were very pleased with the neighborhood and at that time it was classified as an R1 zone. I understand from what you just said that this has now been changed to an R2 of which of that bit of information came to me new tonight. I do feel that Arcadia is a community of homes and I would like to keep it that way and it is my understanding that all of the neighbors in the vicinity of this proposed construction have voiced their discontent with this particular arrangement. As a taxpayer and a long resident of Arcadia, I plead with you to deny this proposal. Thank you. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Thank you, any questions for Mr. Tobin? No. Please sign the clip board, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? 9 Erica Williams - Good evening,my name is Erica Williams and I reside at 130 Greenfield Place, Arcadia, California 91006. What you have before you tonight is really an inconsistency with the General Plan and the zoning. The General Plan is the fundamental foundation and guideline for development in any city and the zoning serves simply as a tool in which to implement it. The two should be internally consistent but in this case aren't. If changes are made to one, then they must be made to the other. In other words, if changes are made, they must be consistent with the General Plan,not the zoning. The General Plan carries much more weight and significance than the zoning does. The decision for this application should be easy and clear cut,yet it isn't. In the staff report,the report indicates that although the staff does not encourage or support General Plan changes, it could find in favor for this application. In a mere three page report the staff is able to summarize their application and provide four reasons of support to grant approval. Four weak reasons. Of those reasons there is really very little to substantially support their request for General Plan amendment. The staff argues that a transition zone or buffer is needed between the single family residential and commercial. There are no other similar neighborhood south of Duarte Road with buffers and/or transition zones between designated commercial areas and residential. It is a poor argument to amend a General Plan from R1 to R2 when the surrounding area is predominantly single family residential. Staff argues that one of four lots is developed with two single family dwellings. In actuality,the remaining three lots or 75% are improved with single family residential homes similar to the surrounding single family areas or neighborhoods along Christina Street, Magna Vista Avenue, Louise Avenue, Greenfield Avenue and Greenfield Place. All of these areas already conform to the existing general plan which is Ri. Staff argues that the zoning designation is R2, 2 family. This statement is not justification to change the General Plan to R2. Staff argues that the parking lot and the church to the west are existing. The church is a legal non-conforming use that happens to be in an R3 zone, not in an R2, if the copy of the General Plan I,have is correct. As a resident, the decision should be simple and should be to uphold the general plan and down zone the site to be consistent with the General Plan, not the other way around. One possible solution is to impose a moratorium at the site to bring about a temporary halt to development so that no entitlement permits, not tract maps, no parcel maps, no building permits,no demolition permits are issued until such time that the city undertakes a study to revise the General Plan and bring about consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. Good planning shouldn't allow spot zoning. Good planning shouldn't alter the general plan, nor recommend such action through a request from a developer. Good planning should include the evaluation and review of development proposals to ensure that they are not contrary to the goals, objectives and vision of the General Plan. If approved,this is what this proposal would represent. It promotes and fosters, in my opinion,poor planning. From where I stand as a resident,the city has an invalid General Plan and should take a pro- active approach to rectify the situation first before hearing requests on a case-by- case basis to amend it. Upon review of the city's General Plan and zoning map myself, I could find six to seven other different areas north of Live Oak Avenue • 10 . w .W on the zoning that were inconsistent also with the General Plan. There is a time and place for this type of development and if an area wants it and legally permits it, then it should be allowed. In this instance, there is much more evidence to not support it. To not allow it, an even greater reason to update the General Plan and fix a greater issue to bring about consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. I urge the planning commission tonight to deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and uphold the General Plan as it stands and not allow it to be changed in an arbitrary manner. Let it be the fundamental foundation to guide the development within the city of Arcadia as it is with the cities all around the U.S. as it is supposed to be. I'd also like to make two comments on the negative declaration. One being under geology and soils, there is a reference to, under letter B result and substantial soil erosion or the loss of top soil. It goes on to further describe the proposal is for office purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation. And also under noise, the same comment, it makes a reference to an.office building should not be adversely impacted to any of the neighboring properties. It's probably a boilerplate that's used from application to application, but nonetheless I'd like that noted in the minutes. Chairman Kalemkiarian -Thank you Ms. Williams, any questions for Ms. Williams? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Louis Sola-My name is Louis Sola. I live on Greenfield Avenue, a neighbor of Bob Tobin who spoke earlier. I would like to know if an impact, environmental impact statement is required for this type of thing. And if it is,has the traffic department of the city of Arcadia made its, made an evaluation. First Avenue is an extremely busy street. It has the Dana Middle School on the south side of Duarte and it has the First Avenue school on the north side of Duarte. There is considerable traffic both foot and car traffic in the mornings and afternoons and I can tell because being on Greenfield people are cutting from Second Avenue over through Greenfield to Magna Vista onto First Avenue and it's a heavily loaded area. And I think this would just,between the church, the schools, and everything else,will just detract,well, it will waive issues of safety and it will detract from Arcadia's well being. So, I'd like to cite my voice in against this proposal to rezone it. - Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you Mr. Sola, any questions for Mr. Sola? To answer your question, yes, there is an environmental impact report that was done. And, yes, (something said by someone on the board but too quietly to understand) Chairman Kalemkiarian- . . there's not? A negative declaration, I'm sorry. Administrator Butler-It is a negative declaration, it is not an environmental impact report. The negative declaration was advertised and it is available for review in the Planning offices. • i . 11 Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you. Any other questions, or anyone else speaking in opposition to this? Jane Bailey- My name is Jane Bailey. I've lived in Arcadia since 1950. Started out at La Cadena and Fairview, an R1 zone which was promptly made R3, even though we had a petition of all residents who signed against it. We moved to Ilene and Greenfield, 130 Ilene. I live at 130 Ilene. This is ridiculous to have condominiums spot here and there. During the years we've noticed all the changes in Arcadia, many for the good,but lots not so good. You have allowed tacky business and mini-malls south of Duarte, adjacent to very nice homes. True,we don't have million dollar homes,but we have nice homes. Our neighborhood, fortunately,has remained very attractive and well maintained over the years. Now it is difficult to get down First Avenue,to get into Greenfield and I feel that it's very poor planning to try to change in the middle of the stream. I feel sorry for the people who have bought million dollar homes on First Avenue, because would you like to have a condominium next door if you spent a million dollars? I don't think so. I think that this should be denied. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you, Ms. Bailey. Any questions for Ms. Bailey. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition, please step forward. Francis Chang- Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Francis Chang, 108 Crystal Court. When we first moved to Arcadia, the main attraction is the education system here. It is clearly stated nationwide this is#1, not just for California also in nation. By putting more families in here, we're looking at our school system oversized. Right now, you now we are actually is full capacity in our school system. If you pass this one tonight, I think you're going to pass more later on. What it brings down to is, we need new school. And you guys have to find the money to buy from the people that was the resident in Arcadia. Which means that we taxpayer is going to wind up spending more money instead of just enjoying the money that you're bringing in tonight. So, I urge you, gentlemen, sitting up there, while you're thinking that you're actually bringing in money, you're probably costing us. If we have to spend money, please spend it wisely. Not long ago you guys passed a law or ruling preventing a house to be built, has to be less than 35 degrees from the front lot, other than 45 degrees. That's a very good action, you're promoting Arcadia to a more single family,more value to the single family house. Passing tonight,you're actually going backwards. You have a problem, ladies and gentlemen up there, let's fix the problem,not work the problem, causing another mistake which will cost our money. Thank you. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you very much. Any questions? Any other speakers? Gerald Mesigan-My name is Gerald Mesigan at 1037 Louise Avenue. I have lived at that same address since 1960 and just in the last few years, the traffic and the parking has become abominable. The traffic coming up First Avenue,the traffic • 12 4 - coming up Louise Avenue, traffic coming up Santa Anita. Traffic coming across Duarte Road, almost every morning it will back up from Santa Anita to First Avenue. The traffic around that area is just out of hand. The high school and the junior high down,Dana Junior High are really causing this overload. I'm against this proposal. I think there are three general issues to be talked about here. One major one is the deviation from your Master Plan. I think you should continue to adhere to that. I'm not in favor of multiple family residences being put into this project. People would argue, oh, yes,but there's we have multiple units, we have an R2, two homes on a lot now and so,that's not so bad so let's do it with the rest. The thing is, is those are single story units and I don't think that they pose any privacy problems to anybody the way they exist now. On Louise, there's a house just across the street from me, I believe it's zoned R2, they have a little house in the back. It's single story, it doesn't overlook anything. In my, across, in my rear, rear property line, the neighbor to the west of me, that I believe also must be an R2. They have a house on the back, it's single story. It doesn't overlook anything. But if you go ahead and if this proposal is approved and you're going to approve R2 multiple family properties,they're, I doubt whether they're going • to be single story. They'll be two story units and they're gonna, they're gonna overlook the adjacent properties. And I, for this reason, I think it's a big mistake if you were to approve this. The other issues are parking and the traffic. I briefly talked about the traffic problems. The parking is a big problem. On the weekends, it's, all the streets, Santa Anita, ah, First Avenue, Christina and even spilling over down into Louise,parking for the church. The church has no parking. And,we have on Christina we have rental units, maybe 4-unit apartments that have garages along the alley in back of them and you might say, well,that's adequate parking for those apartment units, but Christina is routinely parked up with cars that there are no parking spaces for. And I think it would be a shame to see a parking problem created on First Avenue as a result of these condos going in. I guess I can't speak strongly enough to urge you not to approve this proposal. Thanks again. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Mesigan? Thank you. Did you sign the? OK. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Robert Tobin-Been up before, Tobin. I didn't use up all my time so I'll use two more minutes. (laughter) Chairman Kalemkiarian-Well, I got my stop watch right here, we're going to start. Robert Tobin-In addition to being a licensed civil engineer, I also have a license as a structural engineer. It is my understanding from the remarks here tonight that this would be grade level parking which, if there is to be any living space, it would have to be a second story deal, the bottom parking would probably be open, supported on maybe 4 x 4's or 6 x 6's,which makes a very dangerous seismic problem. I hope that the developers have incorporated that thinking. But it's what we in the structural engineering field call an inverted pendulum, and it's 1 13 j 4 very prone to complete destruction in an earthquake. I only have to refer to the most recent one looking at the damage to the one where people were killed and it was that exact same type of structure. And it is extremely difficult to design a structure, two stories with an open garage: That's the end of my remarks. Thank you. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you. You're still under your five minutes. (laughter) Robert Tobin-I might be back. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Jong, you have five minutes to rebut. Hank Jong- I really don't have much to say. I just want to mention that I believe the property owner has his right to develop the property and basically this process is just to make the zoning map to be inconsistent with the General Plan. And in regarding to the gentleman about the structural engineering, the issue, I guess the, we all design structures according to the building code. And, as we know,the building code that's been updated regularly and has been become more and more stringent because of the new knowledges and then from the earthquakes hazards, so I really don't see any problem in designing two story buildings. That's all I want to say. Thanks. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Thank you very much. OK, I'll close the public hearing. I do want to advise everybody that has spoken, thank you for speaking and being here and voicing your concerns. We in this particular type of transaction are just recommenders. So whatever we say here or decide here, only goes to the City Council for a decision. It is not a decision of the city, it is strictly a recommendation to the City Council, so I would recommend both the applicant, of course,would be here and anyone else that wants to speak for or against this to attend the City Council hearing, which will be also notified in the mail,right? Yes. So, we will now refer to ourselves for discussion and proceed with the resolution. So, say you? Commissioner Olson-Well, I got,my first question would be if there is no change here, what could be built on these four properties? If I understood from Mr. Bruckner's questions before the public hearing opened, that it would, you can still be building essentially three units per every single one of these properties. Is that correct? Administrator Butler-Currently, under the R2 zoning designation,which it has been zoned since 1954,property could be developed with apartments. They could be attached or detached and they're allowed, the density is one unit per 3,750 square , feet of lot area. So, each lot could be developed. They could combine all the lots. 14 They could develop them individually. You cannot, though, you.would not be able to use it for condominium purposes. Commissioner Olson- You could build essentially the same product, it's a question of whether it is for sale or for rent? Administrator Butler- Correct. Commissioner Olson-That's the • Commissioner Olson- OK, so, yeah, so you'd have, you could only have one owner per property or you could,'or one owner for all four, if you combined them, you could have 12 units total and all under the control of one property owner, they could look identical to what we saw here two months ago,but then they would not be separate ownership. Administrator Butler-That's correct. Chairman Kalemkiarian- I got one fundamental question. How many general plan updates have been done since 1954? I know we did one here. Administrator Butler- Since 1954? Commissioner Bruckner- Way before Donna was born. (laughter). Administrator Butler-The general plan, the general plan actually became effective early 70's, you might, I think it was like 70 or 71, so prior to that time cities did not have general plans. I mean the commission has a couple of options. They can recommend to the city council approval as it exists. They could recommend that the property, that the zoning of the property be changed. That's the other option to be consistent with the general plans. So, there's Chairman Kalemkiarian-How did they get this way, I mean, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I mean, we just did this General Plan update about a year ago. Administrator Butler- Well, it's been this way in the General Plan and what we can tell since about 1970. Because we are a charter city as Ms. Williams noted, generally speaking the law states that the General Plan and zoning have to be consistent. We are a charter city,we are exempt from that requirement. However, if you want to build condominiums,you have to have.consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. That is a requirement of the State Subdivision Map Act. So, we have tried to, there are many areas in the City that still are inconsistent with the General Plan. The zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. Periodically, when time permits we have changed some of these things. However, in many cases, the few that are still existing until something happens,to be honest with you, that's not high priority on our list. `\1 15 Chairman Kalemkiarian- So like when we just did this when we were with the consultants, we knew that this condition existed. Administrator Butler-Actually, I don't think that we paid much attention to this to be honest with you. They just,when we updated the General Plan in 1996, they, really with the exception of changing some commercial properties to mixed-use commercial,we didn't change any of the,we didn't touch any of the residential areas, we just stayed with what was existing. Commissioner Bruckner- I can easily see how this would happen and there could be actually a mis-interpretation or an oversight staff's part, but I also look at the. surrounding uses and with the exception of the rear yards on Greenfield which I could understand from the property owners a significant issue, the frontage along First, an R2 designation would be appropriate. So, I, quite frankly I don't have a problem with the R2 and I think the owner bought it with good intentions and understanding of the R2. I think the condition of the properties facing First are also an indication of how soon a family reacts next to a gas station. And I think we see that throughout the city so, I do have sympathy for those on Greenfield, but it has been zoned this way since probably before most of them bought their properties. I'm prepared to support the staff recommendation but would also look at, as was pointed out, mistakes in the negative declaration, and ask if we go forward We make those corrections. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Thank you. Commissioner Huang- Alright, I feel the plan amendment, general plan amendment is a mechanism for us to make corrections whenever we find it. I think this is a perfect use of the mechanism to make the general plan and the zoning consistent and I also agree to a what Richard has said in terms of the actual location and the environment it is appropriate for a R2 development for the subject site. So I am ready to support this project and change as well. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Sounds like we're ready f o r a resol . . . a recommendation and adoption of a resolution. Commissioner Bruckner-Let's see. Administrator Butler-Perhaps I can read the title of the resolution if you so wish. It's resolution 1637, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California recommending to the City Council, approval, excuse me, approval of General Plan Amendment#GP01-001 to change the General Plan designation from single family residential to multiple family residential, a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre for the property located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. I 16 Commissioner Bruckner- I make that motion with the added condition that the negative dec be corrected. Commissioner Huang- Second. Chairman Kalemkiarian-A motion and a second. Roll call please. Secretary—Commissioner Bruckner—Yes. Commissioner Huang—Yes. Commissioner Olson-Yes. Chairman Kalemkiarian- Yes. Chairman Kalemkiarian-Folks, the resolution has passed. You will, do you know when Administrator Butler-Urn, you will be given notice of the public hearing, we don't know when that will bp scheduled. Probably either the first or second meeting in May. Notices will be sent to property owners. Chairman Kalemkiarian- I would encourage you all to be there to voice your concerns. Jack Munson-Will it do any good? Chairman Kalemkiarian- Yes, because that's, that's the decision making body. OK, Number 4 on the agenda is public hearing TM5330. Staff report please. • • 4 • 4 Sonia Bell Williams 130 Greenfield Place Arcadia, Ca. 91006 April 19, 2001 City Manager Mr. William Kelly cry OF ARCADIA City of Arcadia Arcadia City Hall APP.1 9 2001 240 Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 CITY MANAGER Dear Mr. Kelly I attended the Planning Commission Public Hearing on March 27, 2001 regarding consideration of a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Single Family Residential (06-du/ac)to Multiple-Family Residential(12 (duc/ac) at 1012-1026 First Avenue, Arcadia. I represented 110 residents who signed a petition opposing this project. I read a two page statement and submitted a petition as testament to this opposition. As I understand it the developer does not have final approval for the construction of six detached condominium units. This approval/denial is to be finalized on May 1 at the Arcadia City Council meeting. Permits should not have been issued by the city until after May 1, 2001. I request that all construction work be stopped until the issue of the General Plan Amendment at this location is resolved. Yours sincerely, Sonia Bell Williams Resident 1 • .. Leo • CITY OF ARCADIA APR 2 3 2001 April 23,2001 CITY MANAGER Bill Kelly, City Manager • Arcadia, California Dear Mr.Kelly, We feel the property on South First Ave,just south of Duarte Rd.on the east side of the Street should be restricted to R1-residential use only, and the General(Master) Plan Upheld . Sincerely, Lle"U/ A1144491--,z) Kelly & Sharon Lookabaugh 1108 Louise Ave Arcadia, California, 91006 • • (626)446-4245 I • iTY • OE�RCADIA '2 • Bill Kelly,SOCity Manager t; Arcadia City Hall (l1y MAN A 240 W Huntington Drive f Arcadia, CA 91007 RE: Arcadia City Council Meeting-May 1, 2001 Agenda Item-1012-1026 First Avenue Condominiums We are opposed to the approval of the application for the development of six condominium units on the above parcels, a deviation from the Master Plan designation of R-1, single family residential,for the following reasons: A. The Master Plan was adopted in 1996/7 down zoning the subject property to a lower density zone (R-1 single-family residential) south of Duarte Road The Master Plan took effect and all zoning should have been changed to reflect the Master Plan. Even though the subject property had been zoned R-2 in 1954, the usage was single-family residential with single-story construction B. Allowing six family condominiums on these two properties increases the density, increases the height(at least two-stories), increases the traffic on First Avenue and encroaches on the R-1, single-family residential character of this neighborhood C Immediately to the south of this proposed development, three lots were developed into six two-story, single-family residential lots with a cul de sac street. This development has doubled the density, added another dimension to the intersection of First Avenue, Christina and Crystal Court. Now, within the distance between Duarte Road and Camino Real we have an alley, Christina Street/Crystal Court intersection, Magna Vista Street and Dana Middle school multiple ingress/egress. First.Avenue south of Duarte Road is much narrower and allows for vehicle parking on both sides of the street. . D. Traffic is already a problem because of parents, school buses and youth vans picking up/dropping off at Dana Middle School Several times traffic backs up north of the Christina intersection. E. By approving this change to the Master Plan you will also be approving an additional six condominiums on the two adjoining parcels to the north. For the above reasons we ask that you deny the approval of this development and S proceed to change the zoning to reflect the R-1, single family residential designation of the Master Plan. Questions to be answered: 1, Was the applicant given any assurance that his application would be approved prior to the public hearing on March 27, 2001? 2. Why was the City of Arcadia Fire Department using these properties for fire fighting exercises both prior to and after the public hearing and before this hearing by the City Council? 3. Why were building permits issued before this hearing by the City Council? -.Att 14. . 4. Why hasn't the City changed all zoning to comply with the Master Plan? 5. Didn't this very thing happen in the southeast section of Arcadia on Eighth Avenue about a year ago? At the meeting of March 27, 2001 of the Planning.Commission, Ms Donna Butler said that to change the zoning to comply with the Master Plan has not been a priority in the past nor is it one today. 6. Why did we go through all the hearings prior to the adoption of the Master Plan if the Planning Commission doesn't defend it? The Master Plan was approved by the Council and should be upheld 7. Why wasn't an Environmental Impact Report required prior to-approval of this project, especially in light of the existing traffic problems? 8. How many other properties in Arcadia have zoning inconsistent with the Master Plan? Isn't this going to keep happening as developers search out properties to build on? . At the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2001, mention was made of the hardship on the owner to have to seek the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. This developer is based in Arcadia, has extensive experience through prior developments within the City and certainly was aware of the necessity to check any future development with the Planning Department, the Master Plan and not to rely on a pr.operty profile from the Assessor's records from a Title company. He cannot claim hardship because of the destruction of the improvements prior to seeking all approvals from the City. We again strongly urge you to deny the approval of this development and maintain the R-1, single-family designation of the Master Plan. This developer is not concerned with the problems his project creates for the neighborhood, as his concern is to build and sell quickly for a profit Our neighborhood of R-1, single family homes is in jeopardy and the line should be drawn at Duarte Road The City of Arcadia affords many other areas designated on the Master Plan for development of condominiums. Thank tou for your consideration. . ..� , i "i Gerald A. Mies Donna W. Mies 1037 Louise Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 4 • Page 1 of 2 • • Silva Vergel 4 From: Frank& Kris[fklllc @pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday,April 25, 2001 12:53 AM • To: svergel @ci.arcadia.ca.us Subject: To city council: Opposition to general plan zoning change case GP 01- To Members of the Arcadia City Council, • I would like to bring to your attention our strong opposition to the amendment to the general plan s designation of 1012 - 1026 S First Avenue from Single-Family Residential to Multiple- Family Residential (Application GP 01-001)to be heard on May 15t,2001 at 7:00 pm. The proposal of increasing number of family units that can be reside in the said parcel will cause several immediate impact to the general surrounding neighborhood as well as city of Arcadia in general.Our up most concerns are many folds:from public traffic,school system,city utility planning,privacy,housing value of the surrounding single family properties,as well as pedestrian safety on the impacted neighborhood. By allowing such zoning change to increase the number of families per parcel will certainly increase the number of school age population in the area,which will cause the already crowded Camino Grove Elementary School,Dana Middle School, and Arcadia High School to burst from its currently over populated capacity.That,in turn,will dramatically decrease the quality of education that Arcadia is most proud of.Otherwise,"new schools must be planned with sufficient land,and funding to accommodate such increase which will be very difficult to accomplished in already scarce Arcadia land resource. Further more,with increase number of families per parcel,the flow of automobile traffic will impact the already congested traffic pattern in the surrounding neighborhood that accommodating a church without parking lot,a middle school few hundred feet down the street,and another middle school half mile up the street.Mix that with the student pedestrian traffic, you can see the student pedestrian accident is almost sure to happen. The city's general plan is one that all aspects of city management are planned into.It represents all the thoughts and detailed strategy and planning and it is a well-balanced blueprint for city planning.The proposed zoning change to increase number of families per parcel,will create not only the immediate impact to the surrounding neighborhood but also create utilities,such as power,water,and sewer,overload and quality of life in the Community of Homes,Arcadia,to decrease.Not upholding to maintain the city's general plan design will also impact the overall consistent presentation of the city image such that degrading and devaluation of the properties within the city and the city itself is bound to occur. It is unfortunate to learn that the Planning Department's Public Hearing does.not need to follow and represent people's will where strong opposition was represented on March 27th regarding this matter.We strongly believe you,the city council members,will have different focus and will truly demonstrate how democracy should really work.We urge you to take strong consideration of the above oppositions when you evaluate this application. cc:Mayor Mickey Segal . Mr.Roger Chandler Mr.Sheng Chen • Mr.Gary Kovacic Ms.Gail Marshall 4/25/01 1 • 1 Date: March 27, 2001 Attention: The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia. Regarding: Opposition to the proposed general plan amendment at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia (application GP01-001). From: The affected community that surrounds the named area. Statement of Purpose • I am here to represent the community that surrounds and would be affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment (Application GP01-001). We object to the way the city is catering to the developer rather than considering the needs of the people already living in the area, some for as long as 50 years. I spearheaded a petition drive and have the signatures of over 100 residents against the proposed amendment. We feel the city is not using a pro-active, pro-neighborhood approach to this matter. It is, instead, reacting to the pressure of the developer whose goal is to potentially build as many as 12 condominiums on the property, rather than meet the desires of the residents who would prefer to remain in a neighborhood of single family homes. The area is designated Rl in the General Plan. Even though the four lots are zoned R2, only one can be singled out as R2 given that it has two small houses on it. It seems strange that the City would move DOWN in their standards to.R2 rather than look UP and make all the houses Rl. The four properties in question are consistent with this zoning as lots are on the order of 11,000 square feet each. Thus, any individual lot is quite capable of containing a large, single-family home and should be zoned R1. Discussion The City Planner may not have driven down First Avenue or made a study of the traffic pattern and every day business conducted in our neighborhood. Allow me to paint a picture of our area: To the South: Here is the recently completed Crystal Court cul-de-sac with six new homes valued from $800,000 to over $1M. These buyers do not want condos next to them as a"buffer zone" between themselves and the Union 76 Gas Station. Their properties would be immediately devalued. Next to the first house (north) is a gas station with a 30 foot setback from the existing single family dwelling fence. This space provides a quite adequate buffer between the commercial zone and the first home. Dana Junior High School is a half-mile down the road. Children are picked up and dropped off six days a week including Saturday school, with cars backing up from the school right into Duarte Road. These cause big problems for residents wishing to turn into their homes on Christina, Magna Vista, Louise, Greenfield Avenue and Greenfield Place. The only sidewalk on the west side of First Avenue is also crowded with young students spilling over and walking on the road at times. • To the East: Greenfield Place cul de sac: Two residences right behind the proposed 12 or so condominiums would lose all privacy with the proposed approved plan for 6 condos only allowing a set back of 10 feet. One residence already has no privacy from the mansion on Crystal Court completely overlooking the property. To the West: We have a church, an athletic club (with surrounding parking lot) and an - alleybehind Duarte Road. The church sold off its parking lot years ago and has only on street parking. It is a growing enterprise and is used daily for Day Care, and meetings held during the day and evenings. On Sundays, cars are lined up on both sides of First Avenue, now overflowing into Christina, and into Crystal Court. The alley feeds behind existing apartments on Christina, businesses and customers using the Athletic Club. All go in and out from First Avenue across from the proposed condos. This heavy traffic, along with the additional flow from the proposed 12 condominiums, creates traffic and congestion that negatively affects the West and other surrounding areas. Conclusion I had no problem asking residents within the immediate area to consider this matter. Without exception, they all unhesitatingly signed in opposition. The consensus of opinion was IN NO WAY DO WE DESIRE IUGH DENSITY CONDOS on First Avenue, replacing the three single Rl and one, two family R2 dwellings. These would devalue our properties, make for increased traffic flow and congestion and negatively impact our environment. The proposed amendment is therefore undesirable and unacceptable in the neighborhood. Condos should be contained and built between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, not spring up south of Duarte Road in a spot Planning change. The neighbors want the area to remain a single family designated residential area. We have a city of fine homes single family residences, particularly south of Duarte Road to Live Oak and extending from First to Fifth Avenues. Let's keep it that way. If the City makes a spot change on First Avenue just to suit a developer, there is no accountability or saying where the quality of Planning will end up in Arcadia. Arcadia is known as a community of homes— we do not want a community of condos. I have copies of our statement for the Planning Commission Members. Also attached are copies of signatures opposed to the amendment for your review. We urge you to consider. the wishes of the surrounding community. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sonia Williams 130 Greenfield Place r Arcadia, CA 91006 626-446-3527 • Erica H. Williams 130 Greenfield Place Arcadia, California 9100. March 15, 200 City of Arcadia Development Services Department . _ Community Development Division/Planning Services Attn: Donna Butler ti Community Development Administrator 240 West Huntington Drive. - - - Arcadia, CA 91007 RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 01-001 Dear Ms. Butler: This letter is written in opposition to the pending General Plan application which would re-designate 1012-1026 South First Avenue from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential. This application is "reactive" rather than "proactive" to the extent that it is in response to a developer application rather than a comprehensive effort on the part of the City to achieve consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning. More specifically, I am strongly opposed to this General Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 1. The General Plan should not be changed in an arbitrary and capricious • fashion to simply accommodate the wishes of an outside developer. The General Plan should be a comprehensive, long-range plan for the future, which reflects the community's vision. Inconsistencies, which may exist between a General Plan designation and the Zoning should be resolved after an extensive public review, not on a case by case basis in response to an individual application. A reasonable approach would be to impose a moratorium on development in this area until such time as the inconsistency between the General Plan and Zoning is resolved. 2. The public notice advised that no zone change would be considered; however, it may be more appropriate to change the zoning to be consistent with the land use designation than vice versa. Essentially zoning should be the implementation tool rather than the tail that wags the proverbial dog. I City of Arcadia Page 1 of 2 3. Virtually all the residential properties south of Duarte Road are designated as Single-Family Residential; this General Plan Amendment would validate spot zoning; Conversely, re-zoning the property to a Single-Family Residential category would more appropriately bring the zoning into line with the General Plan. 4. Approval of this General Plan Amendment would allow for a multiple family development which would adversely impact thasurrounding and abutting single family residences. It would result in a loss of property value, a loss of privacy and an encroachment of high density residential in a low-density area. In conclusion, I strongly oppose this General Plan Amendment and respectfully suggest that consideration be given to re-zoning the property to R-1 rather than,amending the - General Plan. Until such time as a re-zoning option can be noticed for a public hearing, a moratorium should be put in place to prohibit the issuance of any building permits or other entitlements until such time as the inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning is resolved. Please provide a copy of this letter to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration at the public hearing(s). Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns about this proposal. • Sincerely, ‘-tOtite bi4 Erica H. Williams, AICP • March 26, 2001 The following petition submitted to the Planning Commission from the residents and property owners within the immediate and neighboring areas of the subject site, represents strong and united OPPOSITION to the proposed General Plan Amendment at 1012- 1026 S. First Avenue. • ' .• , . , . ..,• ....ffr .4, . . • , PETITION ' . . . We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a.proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). • • rt ,ii Nare . Address /W11 6,(1,r( . ' /3-- f -ee• `€/c/ f r. )k 1/ l vA ft .5 ( E� Y. 7il.-t1 t- . d1. /2 . i. Q.: �....' �,,�..L,'(•' '_';.� l 1 (^.,,.'� ,-,.., . .. ; Cam't �•f. ." l r rivi kP. Pad .1 t:1 i 5c, ("i e_ F i;. 1 x - 1' . 1 1 � � a r Cru' ,/ 1SU ~ � , _• . " C. - 121186111r e /''. _, , r ✓ fi . \S },,.(,: AS,..1..',.. �3 2,z,,•,,J•c--3,`Q".,t ,,o.}:,„) 1_i E _+'Q.r:>_, .,_(..„).},J L--f` 7P7. -/--.------' /1 / _' F L.....1 �--- fa -�✓ tJ J J/ ..e-7--- y f!7/� ry f(j �((�#(� E P'ijj'y•. ii., 1 .1,-..1.A:C. ,, �7 li .t Jt ;.v°;:';liT i .o1'J. , °'.!1/L,,,, .• t c:. z�r = .c t- Ai L7 . i t) Z..7- 6 i".1----e44 '(-I c r' • • 6.3),/,,,,,,,,,,;, r1 ( ,:) ( 4 ‘-/ ^^ . y*4 ,A..'s . v (GLLV. V_.//A✓t . rr c ze A..r , A afL'. . •_ t ! e , .,�,, -' . C e �' Z< �` ik.,:t. �E A f_ (A l • a i.—L`L: t 4 ;Ai 1.+' L..-F' t'c / AL;' 1 WI 7—i / ^. ' ."1',.�'J. L.J. ( C'L✓V ?7zi„ 7 .r J J t _t � :: � ii,/,'(.: Ai Ni;.. t 1,c t \ Tr. t.A.. ,.} /,.f 0 / 6 i .i..Lt-t-1',.,,/i,.j , ✓,'�. r a C- 7,4?i-7r11,( 76'6/ja /t l a • i r 4 • `: t-. ,..-..: 'r:;r> ----c/,-• ,-,-....,,,L2• ',... - --('• „, ;c•J "'v. . • • A • PETITION We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the Generai Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). , Name Address ,:..e.474,-1 1%1%,..?4--„..-, /3 3 67—eP---,-‘17 L(/ 1 t'- // L..e...--t—. a\di\ -S ,4 130 .-•, M-rroc■-b___E- A )1---- 14.4./7,, / ---------,,---,1 -----' Gl A/I t ( - I A --,;.- P'' A , . • ___ """molowira-5-- . , 1,A. .. •e_—, 1A) ,AA,,r—et2C,z.,--1_ 1- '3(..,-\ 6" 61.1,16.47 / / , , ze, Al i'' 1 -- 0 ,) /,/ ,te,g&-__ /0./,. , • , ., i i . i,1 zi 1/7 /F 1`,/,g/t-if bi5:1; 4 7K--v.'i)A 1- . ., f-(2--. ',. 7 ‹:.`t"'j 7Z- ez.--7L-:,,s.-1 cf7-!2-- ---;;-.C1L, —1 if At F ii).6. t-U • P , ('7 (vie /d L ,,,c. wiAld ‘lisik 4/- wic441,1. k, /Ar I . 25"."-Thi 7 .-,- r, '■&11:. i2,. . za. rtLi_ize..2u.2_az- ... 5 ,../ i,,rm 1 /, /A Mr - 4 l c LI r, P .;_ )-7.s-- ir ,z_i__I iog ( -,..2..<4 / (i. 1 ry417/4- (Aet,of 1 e.? 614-• <?-7 ) '/: (17(-• 1- ._, ,,-. I') - 1 r (--=1 ) f'-5 ,i--A...-14-2,1--& -.1.-t.--2 n ei-ar?"4:\- S 1 6 37 5 ( -Le A / ) ,s.e ' - em..—e_i4.448 1/09 c7. Ai, ci-d- 74u / ...:, / E. &vkii,e;40, 62z-g) a - ,.- ...., -- - ....... . 1/J3D ) i,"_)-z.be- - 2,1 ( 6-. Q.,41.44.--t-:k-c.2 "2-2i.52‘14f--5z ac=r* / '- egZf (Z14V Jo '33 .,4 ) 4417 — --- 1 ior ievc-r/ 443-A- t \ D-s-- 5', 6- yc-f• Ave, 2); 4._5-,:-,2"I /AAA. ilAe . I . #1" S A P AlIVAIYUci P7 GP-kW/4;61A f 1 x /.1 (1111. 0141, MIVIA AEI -t---- 1/ // I) 1 1 , . . , "4. PETITION • We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). Name I Address OviA„, Gi - 'Y A17 A • (/ . J S G vi--/d- , 7/ :7. )* C7- (1 ¢cP S50v t tZ .‘4`7 A. / - /- --6 12E— 6i- . ) _ U 0 0 C5 6C1s. - _'" L,(a, 7fltt,6 ( 7 - 14,,/__ HD- ,a, 19711-bp A 1/S)-7 4,. )11-i-a40b4 `.). ,t f i 11z 6 . 01A-6N1; L/ Ste, 4-441P/4 1 /03 7 -� 6 ,&/(,,--c,6,-(01 iki-(--e --/ ,/03 y --7,--(„4, L,(„_)-5 g/t..e.a--,67, _ ''' -•- (" _.C,( III (b,z t, sue'.(�c ( (2i.".„L2 -6 �, .) -:- /( : Pc)---/ t.1 " . ' I r 'z S S 4Cv- Ci'ay uAA. 1132 U0u∎se li.c/TP/A /� 4U f.rr" t4 -9 1C. �` j.? .ill/ n ' ` ( 1 Ail.Ci, _ ILDv -•oc.il5e.4 e Ar`t a f 711 i�`C 019 71--- o-rf- Gnu/5r::". -G•`7 i: ,, .=-1,: 7‘-r2ca-L-j<• V,c5-)^'kb - . \l'il--( ,Z1-1-1-4--1-Q, ce-4--e. 44-c...,,Ii< ./.- .fe ..z./■/ i)4F4 • /(•7. ufr , /--dityAi /7G(//, / 7106-F-icip ,04 -1/r../Pie ,i 77/7 . ,.-_,./.._ -,-0 - c , i A _ _ „:7 .....-- .4 PETITION f c We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Pan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). Name Address 111,./.</,,z___MIWill,, xr..../ .#.,. ' iir.. ..,4• PainiffilliiiiMPLIMIMMEIMI zU INIERMW41...11111 o-) " 4---1 ' .4 1°V- of , .a 111WALIMBEINIM ,)-e)-1, ‘,"-e.e.4,./(?),_, I,--e_ . /c!v‘ hif � WiffffigneralliffliMMIA., . _e., ��e, c sir - _ ' ic , giormarlinEEMEMENEMMIf(1116 ' "; . ,-, ., -o 4' - AMIE 1M- ' d---Jr- AMEMINIMENEELWIMEallail4M9,z_JO c 7/2 z- ji(41),..° MMIPWAISIIMINI / e-1 i)-I-46e al(k4i � � _ / 3o Go ism. -$,^ems 9/0-06 _ '\./_ _ _ L/ - Ai 7 � , 3/ • N ,. 0: '‘, if 9/0 0 1 1 MISMFAMMIN.,(C3 .... _., ' iffir,JIM5_ /il f 11... e i 6-06; IINIEMINIMEIMIMMail) ' ' e, ,&, WNW ,_ /, • J6z-k_. 4A; . c-/ c7 - "NM-MIROW411117ffire - 2 I - _All /;-.1./ / ° - 666 t. 4 . • . . .. -. . ., PETITION . We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). Name Address r ' \ /7 /c) Lc,- rs ./ ( C i/9t . E.e i/1f9 /9/ X r'. I)G / 2---e)r4 /- / . f c/ i:4:a r 141,7 e ; 0 k -L'' C/L L2 (. °: ( 1 Y st. .. c-, - J log 6-;tee./end ,4er!J 3i 6 /" H i. ,r.g,, I . 14,1 AA N,...„ / / -L /4/1. A y.-^ ' n C a1 o 1.�' �ci t. 1 ( C T1-e; e Dr c d -t" - (-z;s(' ;c:3 i s€-_ cam' — , (--- .--- -,-,,c„,!4ite ' 41--- i i/L cz ._._ __,, /5 +/s % / - t ,f. , /.. f 1. /' I % : _0 # , i ' 065eX,1 MLOM .Afq ' ial '-' it r�. _1�' 4,-ti , . , /?...± ,f)-(/ __ 1---17-2--'' 0 - I-F/9-m 5 / 69 ii/ii-e-,-03A—Ursrin- is - - � _ -V-Y T-2. - 1 SD TO '"ilF''-I�4 AA S- l - 6/U 0 'Ai:I^Y.Cr l v v ..-iris �0 , ' /‘-e5- C-�C q.. l9 G d i ;- / tz 7 av /. J 6 PETITION We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Aven e, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). aope )i tA° /Z6 A-) , 16i -*" 9 ,t, , „ _ - — ■ r. L0/9 16412'7/11/e, • t .47I L_%_entcf 4797 ) _ _ /kb,' C 14 giien/ 6_60 6L16,‘It (stile (24C-a6-'{, S. cr-C-CO,'14 ( 6) 61 / (0a4,64 Ayed;(2 Cnuilt 74,-ycAza cA VA-6 j 4, 6re4, /quo Gr CA (CO Q'aid Te 4/ dapi (03 akplq, c't 1-. 46-1,1e( e4 g c vut,9 f 74)-cacqcc t ree.„-\-1(;c0 7 4 PETITION We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). Name Address C -- G / i4- 2A/ 7 i 5 i r . D , , 4-1 (:7xt2v4f )(A--0 i /Z. 5..1�,c. ' „goo /..• .tat." Xr-AC/4)• PETITION • We, the following residents, are AGAINST the request at 1012-1026 South First Ave ue, Arcadia, CA 91006 for a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC). Name Address D .f;E /t • 6 (7 -11 , C4- Woo =�! /1i 1/ ) ! 27(3- .7 % 3I � 4 z , % 4.DO 4 7 • • 4 if 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT 6 • • i.0 File No.: GP 01-001 • CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA,CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLAMATION A. Title and Description of Project: • GP 01-001 . A General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Maximum) for the subject property. B. Location of Project: 1012-1026 S. First Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Applicant: Hank Jong, Engineer Contact: Same 11823 Slauson Ave. #18 (562) 945-0689 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: None • Date: March 1, 2001 By: — Date Posted: March 1, 2001 Kenneth Phiing, Assistant Planner • • • d? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM '%.S'11i�vc 1. Project Title: Application No. GP 01-001 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division/Planning Services 240 W.Huntington Drive P.O.Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kenneth Phung(626) 574-5447 4. Project Location: 1012-1026 S.First Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Hank Jong,Engineer 11823 Slauson Avenue#18 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) 7. Zoning: R-2 (Two-Family) 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.): General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Single Family Residential (0-6 DU/AC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DU/AC Maximum). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: "76 Gas Station", commercial buildings;and non-conforming single-family dwellings; zoned C-2 South: Single-family dwellings; zoned R-1 East: Single-family dwellings; zoned R-1 West: Church and apartment buildings; zoned R-2 and R-3 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval, or participation agreement): City Engineering Division/City Maintenance Department/City Water Division/Los Angeles County Engineer CEQAFORMS/CHECKLIST 04/18/01 Page 1 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least • one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. — Aesthetics -- Agriculture Resources -- Air Quality — Biological Resources --- Cultural Resources -- Geology/Soils — Hazards &Hazardous — Hydrology/Water Quality — Land Use/Planning Materials — Noise -- Population/Housing — Mineral Resources -V Recreation — Transportation/Traffic — Public Services — Mandatory Findings of - Utilities/Service Systems Significance • • DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been Made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. -- I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. — I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. • 3/1/2001 Signature Date Kenneth Phung CITY OF ARCADIA Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FOR J„ M « 4 Page 2 of 4 ' I , V 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant; less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or.more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are availablelor 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. CITY/RVPUB/2001/313785 FORM "J" Page3of4 • 4 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 form 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. • • CITY/RVPUB/2001/313785 FORM "7" Page4of4 a ss Than Significant Issues: , Potentially With Less Than ' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ' Impact Incorporated Impact . I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? — - — X The proposed General Plan Amendment is located adjacent to commercial buildings,single-family dwellings,a church,and apartment buildings. The. . proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards, and will not effect scenic vista. -- .- -- -- X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to, tress,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? • The proposed General Plan Amendment is located . adjacent to commercial buildings,single-family dwellings, a church, and apartment buildings. The proposal will not effect any of the above impacts. X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed General Plan Amendment is located adjacent to commercial buildings,single-family . dwellings, a church, and apartment buildings. The proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards and will not effect any of the above impacts. . X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposal will be required to comply with local architectural standards and illumination limits. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: . CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" • II , Page 1of19 Less Than Issues: Significant 4 Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or ,.. _ — X 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? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not impact agricultural farmland. The surrounding uses are commercial buildings,single-family dwellings, a - church, and apartment buildings,which is required to comply the regulations and other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations. X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The proposed General Plan Amendment will make it _ consistent with the multiple-family zoning designation of the subject site. The subject site is not located in area zoned for agricultural uses. 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? The proposed General Plan Amendment will make it consistent with the multiple-family zoning designation of the subject site. The subject site is not located in area zoned for agricultural uses. III. 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 _ X applicable air quality plan? The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J ' I Page 2 of 19 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact • Incorporated Impact • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute _ — _ X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 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)? The proposed General Plan Amendment is for • condominium purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions,or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic conditions,or • result in objectionable odors. The development of the • site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,alter climatic conditions,or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. • IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "7" I Page 3 of 19 Less Than Issues: Significant $ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or — _ X 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? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family development uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. -- — — X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. 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? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. 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? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 4 of 19 -ess Than • Issues: Significant * • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact • Impact Incorporated Impact -- X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources. • • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM " "J Il Page 5 of 19 , • - ss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ... — X of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on historical resources. -- X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The proposed General PIan Amendment is within a - populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. The proposal will not have any impacts on archaeological resources. • - -- -- X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. None of the above resources have been identified at the subject area. -- — X d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed General Plan Amendment is within a populated area zoned for multiple-family uses in which similar projects have been developed. None of the above resources have been identified at the subject • area. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial _. ... _ X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 6 of 19 :ess Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on _ ... X 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. While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. -- X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? • While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation,subsidence, or expansion of soils. X iiii) Landslides? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land,and is not within an area subject • to inundation,subsidence,or expansion of soils. X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land,and is not within an area subject to inundation,subsidence,or expansion of soils. The proposal is for condominium purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation,grading or filling. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 7 of 19 • ,ess Than issues Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ,., X 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? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation,subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for office purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation,grading or filling. No unique geological or physical features have been identified at the site. ... — 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? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land, and is not within an area subject to inundation,subsidence, or expansion of soils. X 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? While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity,the subject location has not been determined to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. Waste water will be disposed of by the Arcadia sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: X a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed General Plan Amendment does not involve hazardous substances,nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" 4 Page 8 of 19 __ss Than Significant Issues:. Potentially With Less Than ip 44. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the _ _ X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and • accident conditions involving the release of hazardous , materials into the environment? The General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and does not involve'hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. 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? The General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or expose people to health hazards. _.. 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? The subject has site no known hazardous material pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. -- -- 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? The General Plan Amendment is not located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has been adopted. d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The General Plan Amendment is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. e) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with _ _ X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The General Plan Amendment will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. • I, CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I . Page 9 of 19 Less Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, _ X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes. The proposal does not involve hazardous substances,nor will it create or expose people to health hazardous. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety regulations. VIII: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: • a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge .., X requirements? The General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere — X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The proposal is for condominium purposes,and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" // Page 10 of 19 ss Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than 1p R Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the X 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 proposal is for condominium purposes,and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the _ _ X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? The proposal is for condominium purposes, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage patter of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed X the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposal is for condominium purposes, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage patter of the subject site. The • project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? _ — — X The proposal is for condominium purposes,and will not degrade water quality. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as _ X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood • Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The General Plan Amendment is located adjacent to commercial buildings,single-family dwellings, a church,and apartment buildings and is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 11 of 19 Less Than Is ueS: Significant - Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures _ X which would impede or redirect flood flows? The General Plan Amendment is located adjacent to commercial buildings,single-family dwellings, a church, and apartment buildings and is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of _ X loss, injury or death involving flooding, including . flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The General Plan Amendment will not affect any of the above impacts. h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? _ — X The proposed General Plan Amendment is for condominium purposes;and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in accordance with the City's Code requirements,and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? _ X The proposed General Plan Amendment will not disrupt or divide any established community. The surrounding uses are commercial buildings,single- family dwellings, a church, and apartment buildings. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ... ... ._ X 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 proposed General Plan Amendment will make the General Plan designation consistent with the zoning designation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ... — — X or natural community conservation plan? • The proposed General Plan Amendment would not create a significant impact on the environment. - X.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 12 of 19 _ess Than • Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral _ • _ X • resource that would be of value.to the region and the residents of the state? There has been no evidence of mineral resources in the past; therefore the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in the loss of available known mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There has been no evidence of mineral resources in the past; therefore the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in the loss of available known mineral resources. • XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in — X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is completed the noise generated from the condominiums should not adversely impact any of the neighboring properties. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive _ — X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? There could be a short term increase in the generation of groundborne vibration due to construction on the site. Once the construction is completed,the residential condominium will not generate groundborne vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise _ _ X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? There will be a short term increase in the ambient noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is completed, it is anticipated that the addition six (6) residential condominium units should not generate adverse amount of ambient noise. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "3" I Page 13 of 19 • 3 . i,ess Than Issues:' Significant a� ++ Potentially With Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in — _ X • ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? There will be a short term increase in the ambient noise levels due to construction on the site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, _ X 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 proposed General Plan Amendment is not in an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, _ X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed General Plan Amendment is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either _ X directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow the subject properties to be developed with up to twelve (12) residential condominiums. The proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in the area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The 4 lots are presently developed five (5)single- family dwelling units located in an area surrounded by commercial buildings,single-family dwellings,a church, and apartment buildings. A total of five (5) homes may eventually be displaced,but could be replaced with up to twelve (12) residential condominiums. CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 14 of 19 ;ss Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating _ _ X — the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The 4 lots are presently developed five(5)single- family dwelling units located in an area surrounded by ' commercial buildings,single-family dwellings,a church,and apartment buildings. A total of five(5) homes may eventually be displaced,but could be replaced with up to twelve (12) residential condominiums. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? -- — X The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. Police protection? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. Schools? - -- -- X The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 15 of 19 . , • • Less Than Issues: Significant • # » • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? _ _ X The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The • project will not create any significant impact upon public services. Other public facilities? — The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which • such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: • a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional _ - X parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a • populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational services. b). Does the project include recreational facilities or _ _ _ X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposal is for residential condominium purposes and does not include the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities, which may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in .. _ X — 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)? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not substantially increase the existing traffic load and capacity. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" 1 Page 16 of 19 • __ss Than Significant Issues: f Potentially With Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of — _ - X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect any of the above impacts. The project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related impacts arise. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including — - X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect any of the above impacts. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature _ X (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect any of the above impacts. The project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related impacts arise. . e) Result in inadequate emergency access? .� ._ -- X The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect emergency access. The project may be subject to mitigation measures should any impacts arise. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? — — — X The proposed General Plan Amendment will not affect any of the above impacts. The project may be subject to mitigation measures should any traffic or parking related impacts arise. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs ,_ _ _. X supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed General Plan Amendment will not conflict with adopted policies or plans adopted by the City supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYS'T'EMS. Would the project: CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" Page 17 of 19 L I 1 L Less Than Issues: Significant IN Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the x applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause • significant environmental effects? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The _ project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm _ X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The • project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the _ X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment _ — X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which • such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" I Page 18 of 19 :_,ess Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted. _. _ X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste. disposal needs? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and • _ X regulations related to solid waste? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The. project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and service systems. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the _ - X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above mentioned effects or impacts. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually . — -- X 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 project, and the effects of probable future projects.) The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above mentioned effects or impacts. S CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J" II Page 19of19 4 I I Less Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than �. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects _ _ X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The proposal is for residential condominiums in a populated area zoned for residential uses in which such projects have already been developed. The project will not have any of the above mentioned • effects or impacts. . • • • • CITY/RVPUB/20002001/546265 FORM "J' • 4 Page 20 of 19 Y . '•, File No: Cu ,r,t 4 di_ ....„.. .,.:, ., I CITY OF ARCADIA ' :fti 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ` /3' ARCADIA, CA 91007 • 8PpA1TYD- ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM e Filed: /[2161 ., . I i ❑eral Information . Applicant's Name: Hank Jong •Address: -11823 Slauson Ave. , 7 18 , Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Property Addrs.(Location): 1 020 —1026 S . First Ave. , Arcadia CA 91 007 • Assessor's Number: 5781 -006-007 , 5781 -007-016 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 . 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: N/A . • Zone Classification: R-2 • 6. General Plan Designation: Residential -oiect Description . '. Proposed use of site (project description); Building 6 unit condominiums . Site size: 22 , 054 S .F. ). Square footage per building: Type A: 2728 S .F . Tyne B: 2689 S .F. T -oe C: 274 F. ). Number of floors of construction: 2 . Amount of off-street parking provided: 12 (residential) y 3 (guest) Proposed scheduling of project: 8 months . Anticipated incremental development: N/A ▪ If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 6 unit condominiums, average si'e = 2720 S .F. , sale prices depend on I market condition/ for single family use only • • • YES NO Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. E3 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? A significantly environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of storm water 0 El runoff? A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion ofthe project site or surrounding areas? • Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters 0 or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? Harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? rironmental Setting • Describe (on a separate sheet). the project site as it exists before the project, including informa ion 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. 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, depaitiluent 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. -tifIcatlo n . reby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and -ect to the best of my knowledge and belief. -15-lb 1 (r tt ---;\ - e Signature U ``` • . r E.I.R. 04/12/00 • If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and , loadirr'g cilities,`ho rs of operation: a N/A • • If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 7. 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 • 0. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A kre the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional heets as necessary). YES NO • 9. Change in existing_features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or publiclands or roads El Change in pattern, scale or character of.general area of project. D '2. Siglificant amounts of solid waste or litter. • .3. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. .4. Change in round water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage pattersn. S. . Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. • o. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. C 7. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. s £.I.R 04/12/00 De+a '? O-CYO /my \� 7i. aGv, —o v/ ire" `cs I ARCADIA 4pazti9 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.DEPARTMENT May 1, 2001 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: on Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator ; == SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT 2001-001 AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 BY DELETING CREMATORIES FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS AND INTRODUCTION =OF -ORDINANCE 2132 AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE DELETING "CREMATORIES"- FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS SUMMARY This text amendment was initiated by the Development Services Department at the direction of the City Council. The purpose of this Text Amendment is to amend Section 9275.1.51 by deleting "Crematories" from the list of Permitted Uses subject to the Conditional Use Permit Process. The Planning Commission at its March 27, 2001 meeting voted 4-0 with one member absent to recommend approval of this text amendment. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of this text amendment as set forth in the staff report and introduction of Ordinance 2132: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia approving Text Amendment T.A. 001-01 amending Section 9275.1.51 by deleting "Crematories" from the list of Permitted Uses subject to the Conditional Use Permit process Textamendment-TA01-001CCrpt ER IMAGED T.A 2001-001 L May 1, Page 1 9 - yam. BACKGROUND In June, ..2000 a text amendment was filed ` by the Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance to allow crematories as permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process in the C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone. Prior to September 5, 2000, only mortuaries and funeral parlors were permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process; crematories were not a permitted use in any zone. The City Council approved this Text Amendment on September 5, 2000 and adopted Ordinance 2128 approving, said use subject to the CUP process. Currently Section 9275.1 .51 reads: "MORTUARIES AND CREMATORIES. a-0' or any less restrictive , commercial or industrial.zone." On January 9, 2001, the Planning Commission considered Conditional Use Permit 00-017 submitted by Jim. Larkin of the Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance to construct a 3,949 sq. ft. two-story mixed-use crematory facility with a• second floor apartment unit at the existing mortuary located at 500,S. First Avenue. The Development Services Department recommended approval _of the applicant's proposal. After considerable public testimony in opposition to the proposed crematory, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the request based on the findings set forth in Resolution 1628 noting among other things that the proposed crematory facility was incompatible with the adjoining residential property, the middle school and other commercial uses in the area. The applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission's denial. The City Council at its February 6, 2001 meeting directed staff to prepare a text amendment amending 9275.1 .51. of the Arcadia Municipal Code by deleting crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. DISCUSSION As noted, crematories are currently permitted through the Conditional Use Permit process in the C-O or any less restrictive zone in conjunction with a mortuary use. Currently the only mortuary located. in Arcadia is at 500 South First Avenue and is zoned C-2. Per the direction of the City Council, staff recommended that Section 9275.1.51 be amended to delete crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the Textamendment-TA01-001CCrpt T.A 2001-001 May 1 , 2001 Page 2 • conditional use permit process. Based upon the potential negative impacts of a crematory it is felt that-'a crematory is not a compatible land. use. with other permitted uses in the-City and, therefore, should not be permitted. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission at its March 27 meeting received testimony from one person speaking in favor of the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one member absent to recommend approval of text amendment 2001-01 as set forth above. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed text amendment. 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 prepared for this text amendment. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that Section 9275.1.51 be amended to read: • 9275.1.51. MORTUARIES !—_ - C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone. If the City Council determines that this text amendment is appropriate, the Council should adopt the Negative Declaration and move to approve text amendment T.A. 001-001 as set forth above or as amended by the City Council, and introduce Ordinance 2132: Textamendment-TA01-001 CCrpt T.A 2001-001 May 1, 2001 Page 3 AN ORDINANCE.,OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING. TEXT AMENDMENT. T.A:_001-01 AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 BY DELETING "CREMATORIES" FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS Approved by: Appr William R. Kelly, City Manager Enclosures: Ordinance 2132 March 27 PC Minutes Environmental Documents Textamendment-TA01-001CCrpt T:A 2001-001 May 1, 2001 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO: 2132 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCAD'IA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT T.A. 2.001=01 AMENDING SECTION 927.5.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA.MUNI-CIPAL CODE,. BY DELETING "CREMATORIES" FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WHEREAS, this text amendment (T.A. 2001-01) was initiated by the Development Services Department-at the direction of the City Council to amend Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code by deleting crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the Conditional Use Permit process;. and WHEREAS, on March' 27, 2001, 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 voted• 4 to 0 with one member absent to recommend to the City Council approval of Text Amendment 2001-01; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2001 , the City Council held a public hearing on said text amendment; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department to the City Council; 2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing regarding Text Amendment T.A.-001-001; 3. All information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing on May 1, 2001, including the staff report, the environmental documents, including the Negative Declaration and all documentation presented at the public hearing; and. WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. -1- 2132 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That,,the factual data- submitted by the Development-Services Department in the attached report true and correct. Section 2. That the City Council finds that crematories are not an appropriate use because they are not compatible with other land uses permitted in the City and, therefore, that crematories should be deleted from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process. Section 3. That Section 9275.1 .51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code_is amended to read: _ "9275.1.51 . MORTUARIES. C-O or any less•restrictive commercial or industrial zone." Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day Of ,2001. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney ..2- 2132 • S iTY Op, File No.: TA 01-001 : , CITY'OF ARCADIA _.4xcania 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION • A. Title and Description of Project: Text Amendment 01-001 amending Section 9275.1.51 by deleting "crematories"froth the list of Permitted Use subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. B. Location of Project: Entire City • C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: City of Arcadia . 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca 91007 D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially-significant effects: No impact / Date Prepared: March 1, 2001 By. • Date Posted: March 1, 2001 Donna Butler, Cornmunny Development • • File_a T.4.. No.: TA 01-001 . • is , (c_-)_ 6„,:_,,.,;::,4-7 ,: , - ayAk CITY OF ARCADIA I ARCADIA :-..,?4, -,C � £ �,, 240 WEST HUN 1ThI TON DRIVE poR3TS0 ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: TA 2001-001. - - 2. Project Address: Y NA 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address & Telephone Number: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 PV. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 (626) 574-5423 • 4. Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department Community Development Division -- Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 5. Lead Agency Contact Person & Telephone Number: ` Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator (626) 574-5442 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning Classification: N/A 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 sheets if necessary.) Proposal to amend Section 9275.1.51 by deleting crematories to the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process. -1- CEQA Checklist 7/95 n File No.: TA 01-001 • 9. Other public agencies whose approval'is-required: Norge 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. [ ] Land Use & Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population & Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ "] Jtil ties and:$ervice Systems [ ] Air Quality [_ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/ Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finding of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by she 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect on the environment, but that at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and has. been addressed by mitigation measures based on that earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, and if any remaining effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it only needs to analyze the effects that have not yet been addressed. • -2- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • File No.: TA 01-001 • [ ] 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 all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report pursuant to applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. • By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator For: The City of Arcadia -- Development Services Department • = Date: March 1, 2001 Signature • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show'that the impact simply does not apply to projects such as the one involved (e.g., the project is not within 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 related as well as operational impacts. 3. "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 Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17"Earlier Analyses" may be cross-referenced).- 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Environmental Impact Report, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration {Section 15063(c)(3)(D)}. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. • 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. -3- CEQA Checklist 7/95 • File No.: T.A. 01-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No • Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS—Would the project . • a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑/ b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ❑ n ❑ ❑/ rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ (� ❑_ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ 0/ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • The proposed text amendment to eliminate crematories from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process will not have any affect on the aesthetics of the City.. - 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Er Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The • Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) �- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ Act contract? • - • CEQA Checklist 4 -3/01/01 • • File No.: T.A. 01-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No . Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ 7 ❑ their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? There are no farmlands or agricultural uses within the City. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to ❑ ❑ E 0' an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the ❑ ❑ ❑ Er- 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)? d) Create or contribute to a non-stationary source "hot spot" ❑ ( ❑ n (primarily carbon monoxide)? e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant L n n Er concentrations? �/ f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ti ❑ ❑ u people? The proposal is for a text amendment to eliminate "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process. The text amendment will not have any impact on air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: • l a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, ❑ ❑ ❑ Erz any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or - 17.12)? CEQA Checklist 5 -3/01/01 File No.: T.A. 01-01 Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation b) 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? c) 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? d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not U n ❑ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other • activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery:- sites? f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ n ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ j Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposal is for a text amendment to eliminate "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the ti conditional use permit process. The text amendment will not have any impact on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a n ❑ ❑ historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or"site • about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and . CEQA Checklist 6 -3/01/01 File No.: T.A. 01.01 • Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation • particular quality such as being the oldest or best, available example of its type, or is directly associated-with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? ❑ ❑ • I 1 LlI d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ • ❑ ❑ E1 • formal cemeteries? The proposed project is a text amendment to delete "crematories" - from the list of existing uses subject to the CUP process and will not have any impact on cultural resources. . 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ n most recent Alquisf-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? I I ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ I� iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I I ❑ ❑ [� v) Landslides? ❑ I U I l vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ Li H Er- urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ I I topsoil? c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� d) Is the project located on strata 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? f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is ❑ ❑ ❑ CEQA Checklist 7 -3/01/01 • • File No.: T.A. 01-01 • Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than • Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation the soil capable of supporting the use •of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? The proposal being considered is a text amendment and has no impact on the environment. 7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ } • I n through the routine transport, use,,-,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ n ❑ j. through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or ❑ n ❑ �' handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ fl 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? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where n ❑ 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the n ❑ / C ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ fl ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ E involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposal being considered is a text amendment and has no impact on the environment. CEQA Checklist 8 -3/01/01 File No.: T.A. 01.01 . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No . Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality C1 ❑ LJ EY standards or waste discharge requirements? / b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere E. ❑ -r_i 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ Li 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? • d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ n 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? �,/ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the n L E LJ capacity of existing or planned stormwater. drainage systems to control? f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a E ❑ n Er federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑ ❑ n zr , or redirect flood flows? The proposal being considered is a text amendment and has no • impact on the environment. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? H ❑ ❑ Erz 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? CEQA Checklist 9 -3/01/01 • • • File No.: T.A. 01-01 • . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural n fl Lj communities conservation plan? - The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the environment. • 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: • a) Result in the loss of availability of'a- known mineral resource •• ❑ ❑ n classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist 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 ❑ LJ ❑ ❑ resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific • plan or other land use plan? The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the- • conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the- • 11. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 171 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ n ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the f-1 ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise n ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the L( ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to • excessive noise levels? • CEQA Checklist 10 -3/01/01 File No.: T.A. 01;01 • Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No . . Impact Mitigation • Impact Impact ' Incorporation The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process and will not have an_impact on.the environment. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly . (-1 ❑ 'E (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) -or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ a ] aI the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? . / ,, c) Displace substantial numbers of people, .necessitating the D. E IT 7' construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete.. "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the environment. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts Lf E ❑ ❑ 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 N service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for . any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ F Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ n ❑ 12 Parks?. ❑ ❑ ❑ LI Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 .. The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete • . "crematories" from the list of permitted uses -subject to the ... conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the CEQA Checklist 11 -3/01/01 • File No.: T.A. 01-01 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation environment. 14. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ � regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 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? The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the environment. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the I I I I 1 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an I-I n ❑ [� increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ n ❑ [� curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ �( ❑ ❑ • f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ L� ❑ /❑�/ g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting-alternative transportation n I I ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the CEQA Checklist 12 -3/01/01 • File No.: T.A. 01:01 . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the environment. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? • b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater - ❑.- .F1 ❑ [� treatment facilities or expansion :of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage n ❑ ❑ [� facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ U ❑ L existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded.. entitlements needed? • e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may ❑ n ❑ 1�1 serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity I to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The proposal being considered is a text amendment to delete "crematories" from the list of permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process and will not have an impact on the environment. • 17. 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? • b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ ❑ °❑ disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? CEQA Checklist 13 -3/01/01 File No.: T.A. 01-01 Less Than • Potentially Significant Less Thah Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation • c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but [ ❑ 1 i Er 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)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause : 0 n 1 1 substantial adverse effects on human:beings, either directly or - indirectly? • • CEQA Checklist 14 -3/01/01 File No.T a01-001 • ��.SLTY OFD " t)* CITY OF ARCADIA ( a e Boni : 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE I'ARCeDia ARCADIA, CA 91007 ORpORaTEO" ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM General Information • 1. Applicant's Name: City of Arcadia Address: 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 • 2. Property Address (Location): Citywide - 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator Development Services Department City of Arcadia _ 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca 91007 (626) 574-5423 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: None 5. Zone Classification: N/A 6. General Plan Designation: N/A Project Description. • 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Text amendment to amend Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code by deleting "Crematories" from the list of Permitted Uses subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. 8. Site size: N/A 9. Square footage per building: N/A 10. Number of floors of construction: N/A 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A 12. Proposed scheduling of project: N/A 12. . 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: N/A. 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: N/A 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 alteration of ground L _ contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public ❑ E lands or roads. 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. J �' 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing Li drainage patterns. 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. L 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 21' 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. Police Facility-E.I.R. 1/4/00 Page 2 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. Environmental Setting 31. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural,,strucituroes.al Attach any the site. structures on the site, and the use of the Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. N/A = 32. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants, i cammeryicul cultural, ), historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, 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. N/A 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 ybe ability, of myand knowledge facts, and statements, and information presented are true and correct to the belief. IC 3/1/01 , ( Date 'Signature (' f • Police Facility-E.I.R. 1/4/00 Page 3