Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2b: Adopt Ordinance 2269 to Rezone 728 West Huntington Drive from Professional Office to R-3 Multiple FamilyORDINANCE NO. 2269 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 09 -01 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 728 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM "C -O & D" (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) TO "R -3" (MULTIPLE FAMILY) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the approval of Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. SECTION 2. That Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 is consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the subject property as herein described, and is compatible with the zoning of the surrounding properties. SECTION 3. That the evaluation of Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 as set forth in the Initial Study is accurate and appropriate; that Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 will have any potential for adverse effect on the wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends; and therefore, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration that has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 to rezone the property located at 728 W. Huntington Drive from "C -O & D" Professional Office with a Design Overlay to "R -3" Multiple Family. SECTION 5. 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 , 2010. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4\-artid St hen P. Deitsch City Attorney 2 Mayor of the City of Arcadia March 16, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinance No. 2269 approving Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 to rezone the property located at 728 West Huntington Drive from "C -O & D" (Professional Office & Design Overlay) to "R -3" (Multiple Family). Recommended Action: Introduce SUMMARY The applicant, Mr. Charles Huang on behalf of the property owner Mr. Cheung, is requesting to rezone the subject property from C -O & D (Professional Office & Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential at 24 dwelling units per acre. On February 23, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the proposed zone change and recommended approval. BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT Development Services Department In 1996, the update to the General Plan changed the land use designation of the subject property from Commercial to Multiple Family (24 du /acre), however the zoning was not changed to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and surrounding development. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting to re -zone the subject property from C -O & D (Professional Office and Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential at a density of 24 dwelling units per acre. The R -3 zone permits multi - family housing at a density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, which is equivalent to 24 dwelling units per acre. Existing Multi- Family housing developments are located to the west and south of the property. The proposed rezone will be consistent with the General Plan Update, and with the multi - family residential properties to the west and south. The subject property is difficult to develop commercially because of its width and the zoning requirement that any commercial structure be setback 20 -feet and at a 45- degree angle from the adjacent residentially -zoned properties. It is Staffs opinion that a residential use of the subject property will be less intrusive and more compatible with the neighboring residential uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department completed an Initial Study for the proposed zone change. The 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. Staff has determined that 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, and the California Department of Fish and Game has issued a No Effect Determination. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2269 approving Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 to rezone the property located at 728 West Huntington Drive from "C -O & D" (Professional Office & Design Overlay) to "R -3" (Multiple Family) and adopt the Negative Declaration. Approved: c Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Ordinance No. 2269 Aerial Photo and Zoning Vicinity Map General Plan Land Use Map Photos of Site and Neighborhood Radius Map Negative Declaration Fish and Game No Effect Determination ZC 09 -01 March 16, 2010 Page 2 Subject Properly (722) 728 W Huntington Dr Arcadia Zone Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by. RS Gonzalez, February 2010 728 W Huntington Drive ZC 09 -01 Aerial Photo & Zoning 100 52) 0 (747) ( Development Services Department Engineering Division - Prepared by. R.S.Gonzalez February 2010 100 Feet (721) 01) HUNTINGTON DR (831 (85( (85( 728 W Huntington Drive ZC 09 -01 Vicinity Map Single Family Res 0.6 DU MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Commercial HUNTINGTON DR Multi Family Res 24DU /AC MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Land Use Commercial ® Horse Racing industrial Mixed Use Comercial Industrial Mixed Use- Comerclal Multi Fam MultiFamily Res 12DU /AC MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Public Facility Single Family Res 0-2 DU Single Family Res 0.4 DU Single Family Res 0-6 DU Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.Gonzale; February 2010 MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Commercial HUNTINGTON DR 728 W Huntington Drive zc o9 -o1 General Plan Land Use Map 'Mf )NI1NRH'M PZL .e4 N a 1 eesecec OLS XY4 is OOOLisIZ loge rii1 /0011 1/0 YlavDMv 'ol1 'CM ONIaO1oD emit 311'NOiONIINf1H 2131X30 rig iii s _ 4 tl - -- - - - -- _ tl - �`` J `=7\� 1 � i t � N .4:: !z: it II mil . \ 4 i 1Pi } Yt ill tl , 11 tri •auI'sa ;upossv 'IJa t1O!6 va 'triavaiv v mot 'avow olanalo KGttR'ft, InA ttt[1YPftf �Nl 1 1 -- 31 0 a 1 are rl[ — — — as NoiiNUNnH Survey Map di l dVW JWNIOIA I 'Mf )NI1NRH'M PZL .e4 N a 1 eesecec OLS XY4 is OOOLisIZ loge rii1 /0011 1/0 YlavDMv 'ol1 'CM ONIaO1oD emit 311'NOiONIINf1H 2131X30 rig iii s _ 4 tl - -- - - - -- _ tl - �`` J `=7\� 1 � i t � N .4:: !z: it II mil . \ 4 i 1Pi } Yt ill tl , 11 tri •auI'sa ;upossv 'IJa t1O!6 va 'triavaiv v mot 'avow olanalo KGttR'ft, InA ttt[1YPftf �Nl 1 1 -- 31 0 a 1 are rl[ — — — as NoiiNUNnH Survey Map Pro'ect Site: 728 W. Huntington Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 Bank. (Viewin; SE'ly on H _ • n Dr. Photo 2: Ex. Residential Buildin:. - • r: SW'1 on • •- on Dr: • Photo 3: Ex. Commercial Buildin:. iewin : NE'l on • : on Dr.) Photo 4: Ex. Commercial. Building. iewin N'l. on Hunt' on Dr. Photo 5: Ex. Commercial and Residential Buildin _ s. (Viewin _ NW'l on Huntin on Dr.) HUNTINGTON Q FA IRVIEW PROJECT INFORMAT[G.4 728 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA. 09-248 O LOTS albs NE. %% e m SCALE 1" = 200' v Radius Map) Date Received for Filing: Negative Declaration \City\2009 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Name or description of project: 2. Project Location — Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 728 W. Huntington Drive — The subject site is located between two major cross streets — Michillinda Avenue and Baldwin Avenue. A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: (2) Address: Charles Huang — Dexter Huntington, LLC 11819 Goldring Road #C The City Council /Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received during the comment period and the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the findings are as follows: The City Council /Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department / Community Development Division / Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Phone No.: (626) 574 -5445 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: Lisa 'Flores, Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department / Community Development Division / Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Phone No.: (626) 574 -5445 FORM "E" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Zone Chance No. ZC 09 -01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia — Development Services Deoartment/Plannina 240 W. Huntington Drive — P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia. CA 91066 -6021 Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: 728 W. Huntington Drive. Arcadia. CA Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dexter Huntington. LLC — Attn: Dexter Huana 11819 Goldrinp Road #C Arcadia. CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Multiple- Family, 7. Residential 3. 4. 5. 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.) To chance the zone of the subiect orooerty from C -O & D (Professional Office) to R -3 (Multiple Family) so the underlying zone will be consistent with the General Plan land use desianation. which is Multiple Family. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: 801 and 721 W. Huntington Drive; C -2 (Office Use) South: 727 Southview Road; R -3 (Multi- Family Residences) East: 700 W. Huntington Drive; C -2 (Chase Bank) West: 740 W. Huntington Drive; R -3 (Multi- Family Residences) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Department of Fish and Games ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project; involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ . Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services El Utilities / Service Systems Lisa L. Flores. Senior Planner — (626) 574 -5445 Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDBS\CITY\2008 Page 1 of 21 Zoning: C-O & D - Professional Office with pesian Overlay ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation / Traffic FORM "7" 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. O 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. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O 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. 0 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. ✓' January 27. 2010 Signature Date Lisa Flores. Senior Planner Jim Kasama. Community Development Administrator Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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). 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. 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. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies when 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). ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \ CITY \2008 Page 2 of 21 FORM "J" Earlier analyses may be used when an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources supporting the analysis (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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form,' and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected; Issues: 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The subject site is not located near a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project will not create any impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia.. The nearest designated state scenic highways it the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes complement the visual character and quality of the site and Its surroundings. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\ LA LARGE NPDE.S \CITY\2008 Page 3 of 21 FORM "3" Issues: Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. 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: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of'Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ® ❑ The Arcadia Municipal Code has a provision to prohibit glare upon any neighboring properties; any future changes in the lighting arrangements for the subject sites must comply with this provision. Therefore, the project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. ❑ ❑ ❑ There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract In the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above Impacts. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact CI There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the zone change will not convert farmland to non - agricultural use. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 4 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: 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 applicable air quality plan? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Arcadia Is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bemardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution No. 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recylcing. b) Violate any alr quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the City. The project will accommodate existing and approved uses on the subject site, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ o considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non - attainment area for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, Respirable Particulate matter, and Carbon Monoxide, and Is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide. The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. ❑ ❑ ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS'IDLA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Page 5 of 21 FORM "J" issues: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ 0 0 12:1 The subject property does not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the protect will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The subject properties are located within a fully - developed area that Is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources, and Is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the zone change will not create any impacts. 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject property is located within a fully developed area that is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not create any impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\L.A LARGE NPDES\CITy12008 Page 6 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject fully developed area that is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources. not create any impacts. 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? There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. In a significant adverse impact. 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? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTIIA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Potentially Significant Impact 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: There are no known historic resources on or adjacent to the site. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 0 The project will not conflict with that Therefore, the project will not result Less Than Significant No Impact Impact property is located within a Therefore, the project will 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ El Page 7 of 21 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The subject property is within a fully developed area and is not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified Archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? The subject property is within a fully developed area and is not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halt. Should any remain be encountered, the .County Coroner shall be contacted and has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the project would not result in impacts in disturbing human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST T LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 8 of 21 0 ❑ FORM "J" Issues: b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined In Table 181 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to the property when an area settles to different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The subject property is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor are they located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject property is located in a fully- developed area, the project will not have a significant impact or expose peole or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failures, and landslides. • ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to construction, soil studies are required to evaluate the potential impacts .of the construction upon the soil. ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project will not result in on- or off -site landslide as it does not include any excavation, grading, or fill. ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in the Uniform Building Code. The project will not result in a significant adverse impact. e) Have soils incapable of ❑ ❑ ❑ adequately supporting the use . of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject property is in a fully- developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Alternative waste water disposal system is not applicable to this project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISDLA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Page 9 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Govemment 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 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 forpeopie residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Thah Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTiLA LARGE NPDES \CITY 12008 Page 10 of 21 FORM "1" The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above impact. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably • foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The project does not involve hazardous materials and will not create a significant hazard to the public or release hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The project does not Involve hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The subject property is not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Issues: The subject property is not located within an airport land public use airport. Therefore, the project Will not result in a for people residing or working at the subject property. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands? a) During protect construction, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? b) After the project is completed, will It create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTiLA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact use plan or within two miles of a public airport or significant adverse impact related to safety hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 11 of 21 The subject property is to accommodate a new use, but it will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan and is not located near wiidlands where there is a high fire hazard. Therefore, there will be no Impact. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ FORM "J" Issues: c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are Impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportflshing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non - contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. e) Discharge stormwater so that signlficant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater. supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate, of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES\CITY12008 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact El 0 El ❑ El Page 12 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? m) n) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result In flooding on- or off -site? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a .100 - year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY \ 2008 Page 13 of 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant No Impact impact 0 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 FORM "7" Issues: p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Physically divide an established community? . Potentially Significant Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISI\L.A LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 14 of 21 Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ® ❑ the project is to accommodate a zone change to eventually allow a new multiple - family residential use. It will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and it will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the planned storm water drainage systems. Dam failure may be caused by a seismic event or an unprecedented intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of that portion of the project, but is highly unlikely to occur. Also, the City is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean, therefore there will be no impact. However, any future development on this property would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) requirements. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed zone change will make the zone consistent with the General Plan land use designation (Multiple Family), which is consistent with the surrounding uses, therefore, the project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The proposed zone change will be consistent with the Multiple Family land use designation and it will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ CA There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject property. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability ❑ ❑ ❑ El of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the Toss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There are no known mineral resources on .the subject property that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and the property is not designated as mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not create any impacts. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? A substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES\ CITY \2008 Page 15 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: 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 wltliln the vicinity of a private airstrip, would;the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Any future development of the site as a result from the proposed zone change could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction: Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Allowable uses from the proposed zone change would be limited to multiple family residential uses, and it would include any uses that would generate excessive ground bome vibration or ground boma noise levels. The site is not located within an airport land use plan; therefore the project will not result In a significant adverse impact related to noise. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? ❑ ® ❑ The project is to accommodate a new multiple family residential project, however the increase in growth will not Indirectly affect any of the Infrastructure since the existing General Plan land use designation, which Is Multiple Family Residential. (24 du /acre), already accounted for growth on this property. The project Is to make the zone consistent with the GP land use designation. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to population and housing. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ The site currently has an existing single - family residence. Therefore, no replacement is necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ El The site currently has an existing single - family residence. Therefore, no replacement is necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST \LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 16 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ . ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ • ❑ • ❑ El The project will not create any future development that would substantially create an adverse impact to any of the above public services. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will not increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional park or other recreational facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTILA. LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Page 17 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an Increase In traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 El g) Conflict with adopted policies, ,--, E plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? The City's Engineering Services has deemed this arterial servicing the subject site to be LOS C, and the increase in density on this property will not cause an increase in traffic in relation to the existing Toad and capacity of the street system. The project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services, and any future development will be required to provide adequate parking. Therefore, the project will not create any of the above impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL CHBCKLISTEA LARGE NPDES \CITY \2008 Page 18 of 21 FORM "1" Issues: XVI. 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 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 facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are hew or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Govemment Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY \2008 Page 19 of 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ .❑ The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. Based on the Basin Plan, the project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements and any future development will be subject to the requirements set forth in the Plan. ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FORM "1" Issues: f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The project will become consistent with'General Plan land use designation, will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will wildlife species since ft is located in a fully- developed area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? Potentially Significant Impact 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 20 of 21 ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ 0 The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, 6r the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Any future development on this property will be required to comply with-the requirements in the Basin Plan, therefore the protect will not create any impacts. • XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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? 0 Multiple - Family Residential, and it not reduce the habitat of a fish or The project will become consistent with General Plan land use designation, Multiple - Family Residential. Any future development will not create any impacts io the environment since the existing land use permits multiple - family residences. FORM "I" Issues: c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are significant 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact The project will become consistent with the General Plan land use designation, Multiple- Family Residential, and it will not have any negative impacts on the environment; neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully - developed area. ❑ ❑ ❑ The project will become consistent, with the General Plan land use designation, Multiple- Family Residential, and any future development on this property will not have any environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTLA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Page 21 of 21 FORM "J" Date Filed: t I (, 0 1 -- Project Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): /AKA r fr /A > h i rii ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Filing Fee: $75 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: �'. f t I t <Y► 1-1-C. ti o lc:(4 71 ,-vc 4'ia, 2. Address of project (Location): mot- (' Ir[ nitre 'c-w, 1 , Avl' i /.1 , (in Q (00 • 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted conceming this project ftyf e PI uan tl M'q 6444 A #c, (64) yts 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: NA Alyea° r o b16 5. Zoning: (',o Cowmei( a ,(,) - . 6. General Plan Designation: le (5 th f S (;on do y , i i twtty.) File No. ZC O q- Q ( PeCti l" 4 102422_ 03/09 8. Site Size: 1 q WO Sq. Ft. / /7 ( C Acre(s) 9. Square footage per building: N/A 10. Number of floors of construction: 11. Amount of off - street parking provided: 12. Proposed scheduling of project: NO 13. Associated projects: WA 14. Anticipated incremental development: • N/A 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: N /fi 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: EnvironlnfoForm -2- 03109 20. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO ❑ ❑ ❑ 30. 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 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Environmental Setting 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. . Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses EnvironlnfoForm 21. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives -3- or public 03/09 Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date OA 51.)-oo Related Fees • Certified Regulatory Program - $941.25 • Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declaration - $1,993.00 • Environmental Impact Report - $2,768.25 EnvironinfoFom (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set - backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. -4- (Sig ure) For bex1P.v 03/09 Environmental Setting: 35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structure on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs o the site. -�► The existing property contains one single - family house, detached garage, swimming pool, and pool house. There are no cultural or historical or scenic aspects. Please see attached photos. 36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.). intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage set - backs, rear yards, etc.). Attached photographs of the vicinity. The surrounding properties are multi- family residences and commercial buildings. No historical and cultural plants, animals or scenic aspects. Most of the single family house area one -story building. Please see attached photos for detail. CALIFORNItI California Natural ResoL:...ss Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Environmental Review and Permitting • 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1260 Sacramento, CA 95814 http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov Project Name: Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 ARNOLD S. .IVARZENEGGER. Governor CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Farm Applicant Name: Charles Huang Date Submitted: February 1, 2010 Applicant Address: 11819 Goldring Road #C, Arcadia, CA 91007 RECEIVED CEQA Lead Agency: City of Arcadia — Development Services Department PLANNING CEQA Document Type: (ND, MND, EIR) Negative Declaration SERVICES SCH Number and /or local agency ID number: N/A Project Location: 728 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia Brief Project Description: To change the zone of the subject property from C -O & D (Professional Office) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the General Plan land use designation — Multiple Family Residential (24 du /acre). Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F &G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: V..4 14.-A / _/ 6es1 /V - /'2,ced Date: 2 - 2010 Title: En wile rner, ial Sci en hs/- CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME 4949 SOUTH COAST AVENUE (Amen)* California's Wi1ilife Since 1870 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 -1662 FEB 7 €1 7010