Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: June 25, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 11 -02 (71182), RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RM 11 -01, AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A 90.25 -ACRE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FOR TWO (2) PARCELS TO EACH BE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2111 -2125 CANYON ROAD. Recommended Actions: Deny Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02, deny Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01, and not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. SUMMARY The applicant, Ms. Wendy Wu of Nevis Capital, LLC, submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02, Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed subdivision and grading of a 90.25 - acre undeveloped property in the foothills of Arcadia for two (2) parcels to each be developed with a single- family residence at 2111 -2125 Canyon Road — see the attached plans, aerial photo and photos of the site. Because the proposed project does not meet the findings for approval of an R -M Development Permit, and its unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny these applications, and not certify the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Ms. Wendy Wu, representative of property owner, Nevis Capital, LLC. LOCATION: 2111 -2125 Canyon Road REQUEST: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02 (71182), Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01, and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed subdivision and grading of a 90.25 -acre undeveloped property in the foothills of Arcadia for two (2) parcels to each be developed with a single - family residence. SITE AREA: The total size of the property is 90.25 acres; the area proposed for development is approximately 3.9 acres in area. FRONTAGE: Approximately 679 feet along Canyon Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject site is currently vacant and mostly undisturbed hillside /mountainous area containing native vegetation and wildlife. Santa Anita Canyon Road runs diagonally through the property from the southwest to the northeast. The zoning of the property is R -M & D, Residential Mountainous Single- Family and Architectural Design Overlay for the Highlands Homeowners' Association. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Angeles National Forest — Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain consisting of relatively undisturbed native vegetation and wildlife. South: Existing low- density single - family residential neighborhoods East: Arcadia Wildemess Park and existing low- density single - family residential neighborhoods West: Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain and existing low - density single - family residential neighborhoods GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Estate (up to 2 du /ac) — The Residential Estates designation accommodates low- density single - family residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lot, detached single - family residences on estate -type lots of 22,000 square feet or larger. Permitted uses include single - family residences on a single lot and private tennis courts and similar facilities. The subject property is currently an undisturbed mountainous hillside area containing native vegetation and wildlife. In September 1977, the Planning Commission recommended a zone change of the subject property and surrounding area from R -1 & D 10,000 — Single - Family Residential and Architectural Design Overly with minimum 10,000 square-foot lots to R -M & D — Residential Mountainous Single- Family and Architectural Design Overlay (Resolution No. 1009). The zone change was subsequently approved and enacted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1614 on October 18, 1977. In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide the subject property into 11 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 00 -01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 2 of 12 051941) but withdrew the applications before they could be considered by the Planning Commission. In 2003, Nevis Homes submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the property into 7 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 03-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 051941). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (see attached Resolution No. 1717) and the City Council subsequently denied the applications (see attached Resolution No. 6466). In 2007, Nevis Homes submitted another proposal for two (2) developable Tots and a third remainder parcel. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776 (attached) on August 26, 2008, to conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07 -05 (069775), Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01, Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08-04, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. These entitlements were to subdivide the subject property into three parcels with Parcels 1 and 2 to be developed with new single- family residences along Canyon Road, and Parcel 3 (80.33 acres) to remain undeveloped and be dedicated as open space. As a condition of approval, a mitigation measure required a non - refundable $200,000 payment to the City to endow the maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land that was to be dedicated as open space. The developer determined that this project was not feasible and submitted TPM 09-08 for a two -lot subdivision with requests to eliminate the mitigation measure for the maintenance endowment for the open space parcel, and renewal of Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01. This proposal was to eliminate the open space parcel and divide the property into two parcels with the owners to be responsible for the maintenance of their respective undeveloped hillside areas, which were to be designated and rezoned for open space. On February 23, 2010, the Planning Commission approved this revised proposal (see attached Resolution No. 1814). Since no subsequent action was taken on this proposal within two years of its effective date, the approvals expired on March 8, 2012. It is the applicants assertion that there is no market support for this lot configuration with the building pads fronting on Canyon Road. DISCUSSION This latest proposal is to subdivide the subject 90.25 -acre property into two parcels that are to be developed with a new single - family residence on each lot with a tennis court situated on top of a filled ravine on the westerly portion of the property. An access road is being proposed as a driveway for the building pads that will be situated approximately 90 feet and 140 feet above the access point at Canyon Road. The development will require substantial grading that will impact approximately 3.9 acres of the property. The rest of the site will be dedicated as open space under a conservation easement. Because the subject property is zoned R -M, Residential Mountainous Single Family, a development permit is required for the proposed grading work. The proposal includes the removal of 45 healthy oak trees and 4 dead oak trees, and the encroachment into the protected zone of 35 oak trees. Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that an TPM 11 -02 and RM 11-01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 3 of 12 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. Because the EIR would include evaluation of the impacts to the oak trees, a separate oak tree permit was not required. Tentative Parcel Mao No. TPM 11 -02 (071182) According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9117.1, a Tentative Parcel Map shall be processed for all proposed divisions of land resulting in four or fewer parcels. Implementation of the subject Tentative Parcel Map will result in two parcels. Parcels 1 and 2 will contain approximately 45.20 and 45.05 acres, respectively, and will be developed with a single - family dwelling on each lot The two Tots will be situated on the west side of Canyon Road, between two existing single - family lots at 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Residential Estate at up to two (2) dwelling units per acre, and the zoning is R -M & D, Residential Mountainous with an Architectural Design Overlay, which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) per lot and Architectural Design Review approval for any significant improvements by the Architectural Design Review Board of the Highland Homeowners' Association. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision Code, and Zoning Code. Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01 According to the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC), no person shall grade, excavate, or fill in the R -M zone without a development permit from the Planning Commission if such grading, excavation, or filling is in excess of 15 cubic meters. The following are the evaluation criteria for an R -M Development Permit Application per AMC Section 9250.5.9: A. The following criteria shall be considered in assessing the application for a development permit: 1. Extent of grading required for the reasonable use of the property. 2. Visual impact of the proposed project. 3. Relationship of the proposed project to adjoining properties and/or structures. 4. Adequacy of proposed landscaped areas, drainage facilities, erosion control devices and other protective devices. 5. Adequacy of fire equipment access. 6. Extent of preservation of existing ridge and crest lines. 7. Extent of attempt to have roads follow existing contours. 8. Developability of sites. B. An application shall be denied if, in the judgment of the City, based upon the purpose of this Division, the proposed work or design of the lots and streets in the development would: TPM 11 -02 and RM 11-01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 4 of 12 1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or 2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; or 3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or 4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone; or 5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of this Division. C. In granting a development permit, the City may impose conditions which may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to public or private property or to prevent the operation from being conducted in a manner likely to create a nuisance. No person shall violate any conditions so imposed in said permit by the City of Arcadia. Such conditions may include but not be limited to any of the aforementioned requirements of this Division. The City Engineer or a designated altemate may issue a permit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent danger to public or private property. R -M Analysis The proposed project involves 28,707 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill. The portion of the site that will be graded is approximately 3.9 acres in area. In accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC), all cut and fill slopes will not exceed a 2:1 slope. The grading will include catch basins, planters, retaining walls, and drain inlets to minimize erosion and runoff. Engineering Services has reviewed the grading plan and found it technically acceptable. However, there are concerns about the extensive amount of grading required for the two building pads, which involves 20 to 30 feet of cut in some areas, and significantly lengthy retaining walls, particularly along the driveway, and up to 50 feet of fill that will be deposited in a ravine on the west side of the property to balance the cut. It is their opinion that fill slopes are generally very difficult to re- landscape, and that it will have a significant visual impact. Future development of the proposed building pads will be highly visible from the neighboring properties because the proposed building pads will be situated 90 feet to 140 feet above the street, and are located along the ridgeline of the hill. The proposed layout will be inconsistent with the existing adjoining developments, which are closer to the street level along Canyon Road. Based on the criteria for an R -M Development Permit, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 11 -01. The proposed project will cause excessive scarring of the natural terrain and landscape, cause unnecessary alteration of a crest line, unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites, and would adversely affect the existing developments. TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 5 of 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was completed of the proposal. The study identified potential significant impacts on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared as a result. An EIR consultant, Mr. Sid Lindmark completed the attached draft EIR for a thorough analysis of the impacts. The EIR discusses significant impacts on Biological Resources, Oak Tree Preservation, Soils and Geology, Hydrology and Water Quality, Wildland Fire Hazards, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Construction Noise and Vibration, and Cultural Resources. Each of these impacts is analyzed beginning on page 45 of Volume 1 of the EIR. The proposal is found not to have significant impacts on the following: Agricultural Resources, Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Population /Housing, Public Services, Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Parks, Other City Public Facilities, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The discussion on these issues begins on page 175 of Volume 1 of the EIR. Certified Arborist, Mr. Jan C. Scow, reviewed the subject proposal and determined that of the 128 oak trees on the subject site, 45 healthy oak trees, and 4 dead oak trees, will be removed as a result of the proposal. In addition, this project will encroach into the protected zone of 35 oak trees. Forty -four (44) oak trees are to be undisturbed. To determine the conditions of the oak trees at the time development is to commerce, the applicant is to submit an Oak Tree Permit Application with an updated arborist's report prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Based on the analysis, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is part of the EIR in Appendix C of the Response to Public Comments. The MMRP outlines the mitigation measures for reducing the impacts to Tess than significant levels. However, staff is concerned about the practicality of the limited timeframe for grading activity to avoid impacts on wildlife. The bird nesting season from March 1st to August 15th, and the bat maternity season from March 1st to September 30th, overlaps with most of the non -rainy season from April 1st to October 31 St, when grading and trenching are to take place. This leaves a one month window when grading could take place without the potential need to set up multiple large protective buffers to shield potential wildlife habitat from the grading activities. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Aesthetic impacts of the proposed project cannot be mitigated, and therefore is considered an Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The analysis of this impact begins on page 183 in Volume 1 of the EIR. Because the building pads are to be at the upper portions of the two new lots, the removal of all existing vegetation in the graded areas and the landform modifications will be highly visible offsite, even at great distances. And, even when the area is fully vegetated, the siting of the two new residences will not be consistent with the existing developments along Canyon Road. TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 6 of 12 Mature trees and landscaping appropriate for a hillside location are being proposed to mitigate the long -term visual impacts of the grading and the two residences. However, the effectiveness of this mitigation measure will greatly depend on the future property owners' maintenance of the landscaping. Alternatives to the Proiect As required per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines; beginning on page 187 in Volume 1 of the EIR is a discussion that identifies and analyzes the potential impacts of five (5) altematives to the proposed project. The alternatives are as follows: 1) No- build/Existing Conditions; 2) Contiguous Development with Eastern Access; 3) Contiguous Development with Western Access; 4) Open Space — Resource Protection; and, 5) Previously Approved Two Unit Subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09 -08. A Project Altemative Matrix, attached at Table 5.6.1 on page 203 in Volume 1 of the EIR, summarizes the impacts of each altemative. The subject proposal is ranked number 5 in Environmental Ranking when compared to the altematives, which means that of the five (5) altematives, only number 3 would have a more significant impact to the environment. Based on the analysis of the altematives, the previously approved two -unit subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09 -08) or Alternative 5, is a preferred altemative. It will attain the objectives of the project, and will avoid and substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the project. Certification of the Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR) The final EIR must be certified in order to approve the project. Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the following criteria for certification of the EIR: (a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that: (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision - making body of the lead agency, and that the decision - making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. (b) When an EIR is certified by a non - elected decision- making body within a local lead agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency's elected decision - making body, if one exists. For example, certification of an EIR for a tentative subdivision map by a city's planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals. TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 7 of 12 Statement of Facts and Findings In addition to the above criteria, the decision- making body must make a Statement of Facts and Findings prior to approving a project. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final ERR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (t) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. TPM 11 -02 and RM 11-01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 8 of 12 The Statement of Facts and Findings will be drafted to be part of the Resolution for the approval /denial of R -M Development Permit Application No. RM 11 -01. The Statement of Facts and Findings will be based on the Planning Commission's determinations, statements, and discussion in arriving at its decision. Statement of Overriding Consideration When an EIR discloses an unavoidable adverse impact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must be made by the decision- making body in order to certify the EIR. The Statement must cite benefits of the proposed project that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following: (a) CEQA requires the decision- making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Based on these CEQA Guidelines, in order the certify an EIR with unavoidable adverse impacts, the Planning Commission must find substantial evidence in the record to balance specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. PUBLIC COMMENTS/NOTICE The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated locally for public review for a period of 45 days from March 18, 2013 to May 2, 2013. The DEIR was also filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and was reviewed by responsible agencies from March 15, 2013 to April 29, 2013. Comments were received from the Gas Company, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the United States Department of the TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 9 of 12 Interior /Fish and Wildlife Service. Response to Public Comments were issued on June 11, 2013, and are attached to this report. Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02, Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11-01, and the Notice of Availability of a DEIR were mailed on May 7, 2013, with a revised notice mailed on May 16, 2013, to the property owners, tenants, and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). The revised notice was issued for a revised hearing date to allow additional time to prepare the Response to Comments. Mr. Ralph Bicker, Chairman of the Architectural Design Review Board of the Highlands Homeowners' Association, submitted the attached letter of opposition on June 19, 2013. The Association is concerned about the potential forest fire hazard, and the alignment of the proposed building pads. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02, Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01, and reject the certification of the EIR. If the Planning Commission intends to approve the subject applications and certify the EIR, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall agree to and execute the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) thereby agreeing to pay the City any applicable fees and expenses to implement the mitigation measures in the design, construction, and maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of approval. 2. All structures shall be sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Single and Multi - Family Dwelling Sprinkler Standard. 3. All structures shall comply with Chapter 7A of the 2010 California Building Code or as amended. 4. All landscaping within 30 feet of all structures shall be fire resistant and provided with means of irrigation. Landscaping within a distance of 30 to 100 feet of all structures shall be cleared of all dead and /or non -fire resistant vegetation. A detailed landscaping plan showing compliance with these requirements shall be provided upon building permit application. 5. Maximum grade of the access road shall be 12 %. 6. A fire hydrant shall be provided adjacent to the access road entry off of Canyon Road, subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 7. An approved SUSMP report must be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. TPM 11 -02 and RM 11-01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 10 of 12 8. A General Construction permit must be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the City Engineer and /or Public Works Services Director for utility and /or public maintenance activities. 10. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the existing facility may be subject to having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check review and approval, and to Building Permits. 11. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. 12. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Govemment Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attomey to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 13. Approval of TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant(s), and business owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form with the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should move to approve TPM 11 -02 (71182) and RM 11-01; certify the final Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 2111-2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 11 of 12 including a Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move to deny TPM 11 -02 (71182) and RM 11-01; and not certify the final Environmental Impact Report; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. An R -M Development Permit shall be denied if the Commission finds that it would: 1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; 2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; 3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; 4. Adversely affect existing development or retard future development in the R -M zone; or 5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of the R -M zone. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the June 25, 2013 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447 or at tIk ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim Kasama Community Development Administrator Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11-02 (71182) Vicinity Map Photographs of Subject Property PC Resolution No. 1717 CC Resolution No. 6466 PC Resolution No. 1776 Letter of Opposition Memorandum from Engineering Services Memorandum from the Fire Department Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 — Draft EIR Volume 2 — Appendices Response to Public Comments TPM 11 -02 and RM 11-01 2111 -2125 Canyon Road June 25, 2013 — Page 12 of 12 vD 'vlav3av 3A18a NOANVD NOISIAIGBns .101 -2 64%- C9t-(I 9) '0/ 99SC-(41-19.9) NI I '){1.` 90016 '0 utb)j,► t. I - Inm '0°0V IN 11204.7) 6101. 'OM 1311/130SSV193 1 2111 -2125 Canyon Road TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -01 View of the subject property from Canyon Road View of the subject property on Canyon Road northeast from the lot frontage • • RESOLUTION NO. 1717 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN (S.P. 2003 -001) FOR A PROPOSED 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA. WHEREAS, Nevis Construction, Inc. filed an application for a specific plan to establish development and maintenance regulations for a proposed 7-lot residential hillside development, Community Development Division Case No. S.P. 2003 -001, to be located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and Northwest of Canyon Road, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 23.2004, 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 HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report, dated November 23, 2004, is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds for the reasons set forth in the above report: 1. That based on the environmental analysis contained throughout the project's Final Environmental Impact Report, and the attached Specific Plan Review by the hillside - consulting firm of TRG Land, Inc. the implementation of the applicant's Specific Plan would necessitate mass grading of the subject property to the extent that the proposed project would not be in compliance with the City's General Plan Hillside Management Strategies CD -17 thru CD -20, as addressed In the attached staff report. 2. That the proposed Specific Plan is inadequate because, if adopted, it would establish modified development standards that would encourage the potential size of the new homes to be substantially larger than the neighboring and 1717 surrounding homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association area, which is inconsistent with the Land Use and Community Identity Strategy CD -21 of the Arcadia General Plan. . SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the proposed Highland Oaks Specific Plan as submitted by the applicant to the City as of the date of this Resolution. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's direction at its meeting of November 23, 2004, and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu SECTION S. 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 forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of December, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian NOES: None ABSENT: None ecretary, Plann g Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: fgtiFk-- P. c-edtit4 Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attomey City of Arcadia 2 Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia 1717 RESOLUTION NO. 6466 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE HIGHLAND OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN (S.P. 2003 -001) FOR A PROPOSED 7 -LOT RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA. WHEREAS, Nevis Construction, Inc. filed an application for a specific plan to establish development and maintenance regulations for a proposed 7 -lot residential hillside development, Community Development Division Case No. S.P. 2003 -001, to be located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and Northwest of Canyon Road, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on November 23, 2004, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to review the Specific Plan and make a recommendation on said plan to the City Council at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to adopt Resolution 1717 ratifying the Commission's findings and actions in recommending to the City Council denial of the Highland Oaks Specific Plan; and i 6466 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on February 15, 2005, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2005, the City Council voted 5 to 0 to deny the Highland Oaks Specific Plan, and directed staff to prepare this Resolution to ratify the Council's decision and specific findings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted ` by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report, dated February 15, 2005, is true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council finds for the reasons set forth in the above report: 1. That based on the environmental analysis contained throughout the project's Final Environmental Impact Report, and the attached Specific Plan Review by the hillside - consulting firm of TRG Land, Inc. the implementation of the applicant's Specific Plan would necessitate mass grading of the subject property to the extent that the proposed project would not be in compliance with 2 6466 the City's General Plan Hillside Management Strategies CD -17 thru CD -20, as addressed in the attached staff report. 2. The proposed Specific Plan is inadequate because, if adopted, it would establish modified development standards that would encourage the potential size of the new homes to be substantially larger than the neighboring and surrounding homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association area, which is inconsistent with the Land Use and Community Identity Strategy CD -2I of the Arcadia General Plan. 3. The proposed Specific Plan does not adequately address how the site's remaining oak trees would be preserved; and that the largest oak tree (a 74 -inch diameter Coast Live Oak) which exists in the vicinity of the project's access road entrance, is not likely to survive due to the amount of construction that would occur around the base of the tree, as advised by the hillside- consulting firm of TRG Land, lnc.; and 4. The development standards in the Specific Plan do not adequately address the preservation of the hillsides within the project area. For example, the Specific Plan does not require a minimum building setback from top of slope areas to prevent potentially invasive stem wall or projecting post and beam construction upon a slope, nor is there an adequate maximum building pad area requirement to 3 6466 prohibit the expansion of the building pad configurations, as established by a final grading plan, for erosion control purposes. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the City Council denies the proposed Highland Oaks Specific Plan. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 15'h day of March 2005. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: 6-eA/K,4 Stephen Deitsch City Attorney 4 Mayor of the City of Arcadia 6466 RESOLUTION NO. 1776 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'Tt OF ARC S D RESIDENTIAL -MOUNT OU DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RM 07 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07 -05 (69775), AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. TR 08 -04 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AL�NY LOCATED 83 -ACRE PROPERTY OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTH AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD. WHEREAS, on October 1., 2007, a Residential- Mountainous Development Permit application was filed by Studio R, Inc. on behalf of Nevis Homes, for approval of two, new, single` - family residences, Development Services Department Case No. RM 07 -01, in conjunction with • the related subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08 -04 for an approximately 83 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road;;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA "), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Residential- Mountainous Development Permit Application No. 410 RM 07 -01, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07 -05 (69775), and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2008, at which time all intlrrested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COM1VIISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of such Residential- Mountainous Development Pennit will not result in any of the following: a. Excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or b. Unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crestline; or c. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or d. Adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone; or -2- 1776 e. Be inconsistent with the provisions of Division 0 of Part 5 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 2. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigatiort measures, and that based upon the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project, if implemented in accordance with the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts that certain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07 -05 (69775) Residential- Mountainous Development Permit Application No, RM 07 -01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04. SECTION 4t That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves Residential- Mountainous Development Pernnit No. RM 07 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07 -05 (69775), and Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04, for the subdivision and development of an approximately 83 -acre site generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road, subject to the following conditions: -3- 1776 1. The applicant shall sign the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), thereby agreeing to pay the City monitoring fees and implement the mitigation measures at a minilFnum in the design, construction, and maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the City for utility or roadway maintenance-activities. 3. The truck.haul route for graded earth material shall be as follows: South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freeway, east to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to Puente Hills Landfill. 4. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall hand - deliver written notification to all property owners residing along the haul route between the point of activity and the 210 freeway, detailing the proposed construction staging plan, haul route and schedule, and other pertinent grading and construction information. 5. All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, landscaping, water supply and water facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and NPDES measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, -4- 1776 • Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Public. Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not Limited to any approval or condition of • i Council, Planning Commission or City Staff, which approval of the City g � ty action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding conceming the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. • 1776 1 7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions! and conditions of approval for RM 07 -01, TPM 07 -05 (69775) and TR 081.04 shall be grounds for immediate suspension .and/or revocation of any approvals. 8. Approval of RM 07 -01, TPM 07-05 (69775); and TR 08 -04 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicanii have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final I inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for.the.residences. SECTION 5, The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Passed, approved and adopted this 26th day of August, 2008. Resolution. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTES tary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -6- 1776 FROM THE DESK OF RALPH BICKER 101 WHITE OAK DR. ARCADIA CA 91006 enwineeralphCa!verizon.net Phone (626) 355 -1773 Architectural Review Board Chairman For Arcadia Highlands Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02 CANYON ESTATE Attention: Mr. Thomas Li Associate Planner June 19, 2013 I have now reviewed the plans and Draft EIR documents for a proposed 2 -lot Parcel Map, which has been prepared and submitted to your office, and is now scheduled for Public Hearing by the Arcadia Planning Commission on June 25, 2013. For the record, at this point I would like to state that I have served as a member of the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board for the past more than 30 years, and as Chairman of that Board since 1986. Also, for the record, I would state that I was employed for over 37 years (1949 to 1986) in the Pasadena City Engineers office, as a staff Engineer. During most of those years my working title was "Permit and Subdivision Engineer," and I supervised virtually all of the subdivision development that went through the office. My responsibilities included everything from meeting with the Iand developers when they first contacted the City to help them get started and stay on the right track to accomplish their developments. My responsibilities also included supervision of the inspectors assigned to see that plans and specifications were followed. Those subdivisions included everything from (1) the simple division of a flat rectangular half acre or smaller property into two smaller parcels, to (2) the subdivisions of large parcels of steep undeveloped hillside land sometimes developed into 50 or more Tots in the upper Hastings Ranch and Linda Vista hills area of Pasadena, just above and west of the Rose Bowl. I have reviewed the plans and environmental documents submitted with this most recent of several attempts that have been made over the past 20 or more years to try to subdivide and develop the subject 80 acres of steep, rugged, tree and brush covered hillside. Each of those previous requests, except for the last, most recent one in 2008 were denied by the city. That last most recent 2008 request was approved by the city, with the support and blessing of our Highlands HOA. It also was for permission to divide the 80 acres into two 40 acre Parcels. However each of those 2 proposed new parcels were both proposed to have a building site right down close to the Canyon Road frontage of the property, in order to minimize the need for any more grading and/or earth moving than necessary to build on the 2 new parcels. Approval of the 2008 request was also based on the understanding that except for the grading necessary to accommodate construction of the 2 new homes right down along the Canyon Road frontage of the 80 acres, the remainder of the 80 acres would be maintained in its present undisturbed condition. * * ** The current plan calls for excavation of approximately 27,340 cubic yards of earth, and fills of approximately 25,778 cubic yards of material to create the 2 proposed building sites, and a totally inadequate approximately quarter mile long, steep, narrow, winding (20 feet wide) driveway up to those 2 proposed building pads, that would be elevated approximately 100 and 150 feet respectively above the level of Canyon Road. In fact the current plan as proposed could best be described as "a "pattern for disaster" because the subject 80 acres of tree and brush covered land is bordered along its northwesterly boundary by the Angeles National Forest land. See Page (2) for additional comments Re. this proposed development. (Page 2) Additional comments regarding the proposed Canyon Road Parcel Map. Potential Forest Fire Hazard * *The north - westerly boundary of the subject 80 acres of land is also the southerly boundary of the steep, rugged Angeles National Forest. ' ** For over the past 43 years I have been a resident of the Highlands, living just one block south of the subject 80 acres. * *As a long time resident of the Highlands, I can clearly recall that on at least 3 different occasions during those 43 years, I sat up most of the night watching and praying that the dangerous forest fires that were burning down across the steep face of the forest land immediately north of the subject 80 acres would not reach our home. Our good Arcadia Fire Department, along with help from some of the fire fighters from our neighboring cities, as well as the Forest Service were able to stop the fires, just a few hundred feet before they reached the subject 80 acres of land. This writer believes that it would be very poor judgment on the part of the city to approve the division and development of the subject property as proposed by this applicant, and that the City of Arcadia could be found to have some legal responsibility and liability in the event of any future forest fires that might come down out of the National Forest land into the 80 acres and beyond into our Highlands where it could easily damage or destroy hundreds homes. * *Public records seem to indicate that the subject 80 acres of un- subdivided land which the applicant claims to own is in fact already 2 separate parcels, unless the owner can show evidence that he actually owns the land that the Chantry Flats Road crosses over. * *The illogical, jury- rigged, and meandering alignment that the applicant has shown as a boundary between the 2 proposed parcels does not make any sense. In fact it would be next to impossible for any future owner of either of the parcel to try to determine where that boundary between the 2 proposed parcels actually is. * *For each and all of the reasons and information cited above this request for approval should be denied. Respectfully Submitted; Ralph Bicker MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: January 22, 2013 TO: Tom Li, Associate Planner FROM: Matthew Bond, Senior Engineering Assistant SUBJECT: Engineering Comments PM 11 -02, RM 11 -01 In response to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal for a two lot subdivision in the undeveloped area north of Canyon Road. Grading The applicant is proposing to construct two new residential lots on approximately 13 acres of land, which will involve significant grading in a undisturbed hillside area. Grading will consist of 28,707 cubic yards of cut, and an equal amount of fill, in order to construct the two residential building pads and an access road. Site grading is balanced by creating a fill slope in the canyon above Vista Avenue, with a tennis court at the top of the slope. The amount of grading required for the two building pads is extensive, and involves 20- 30 feet of cut in some areas, and significant lengths of retaining walls, especially along the driveway. All of the soil removed will be redistributed in other areas on the site. Most will be deposited in the canyon on the west wide of the property, which will support a tennis court. In this area, up to 50 feet of fill will be added. This aspect of the project appears to be proposed to allow a balance between cut and fill, instead of hauling the soil offsite. Fill slopes like the one proposed are generally very difficult to re- landscape, and will involve a significant visual impact. This portion of the proposed development appears to cause unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain. Engineering is also concerned that the extent of grading shown is unrealistic. The actual disturbed area is always greater than the proposed area to be graded, which will have and that additional trees are likely to be disturbed in the process, such as tree No. 19 cited in the Arborist Report. Grading is proposed immediately adjacent to the tree, which Engineering Comments PM 11-02 and RM 11-01 January 22, 2013 Page 2 may cause damage, or require changes to the proposed roadway to protect the tree. The applicant should be more conservative in showing disturbed areas. Road Design 1. The road design shown is vague, and does not give details regarding the transition from Canyon Drive. The applicant should provide a plan, profile and sections of the proposed road for the City's review. Drainage 1. The applicant has provided a preliminary hydrology study for the proposed development, which meets all requirements in the Arcadia Municipal Code for the RM permit, including drainage areas and volumes. Minor changes may be required during the design phase, but these should not affect the proposed grading. 2. The proposed development meets the criteria for a SUSMP report as a hillside development, and must have an approved report prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The applicant has provided a preliminary report, which meets all of the general requirements for this stage of development. Minor changes may be required during the design phase, but these should not affect proposed grading. 3. The proposed development will require obtaining a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the General Construction Permit. The applicant will be required to show that this has been obtained prior to the issuance of a City grading permit. °Ale)' of City of Arcadia Fire Department Tony L. Trabbie Fire Chief PROJECT REQUIREMENTS Arcadia Fire Department -Fire Prevention Bureau 710 S Santa Anita Ave Arcadia CA 91007 Ph 626 574 -5104 Plan Check # TPM 11 -02 Date - 5/17/11 Project Name Canyon Subdivision Project Address CanyonlCaroiwood Applicant Name EGL Associates 17t? t s pi! dl nrl:ig items irs;oil ?)e toi Fir) Dopartmerlt ,%p c7, C t 4! L I ;: f '(� :C be 1 �3f:r: h� c Ji "�Jtf i ) i)e Oft ?iii^ on !1e ongin2! cif a,,,,�na VeHur u i�l�rj or �.II . I,�r h ll c mace l,vrrtl r-�� t 015 ai._ r.;! - °pi_�t••i� A. All structures shall be sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fi Single & Multi - Family Dwelling Sprinkler Standard. re Department B. All structures shall comply with Chapter 7A of the 2010 C Building Code. alifornia C. All landscaping within 30 feet of all structures shall be fir provided with means of irrigation. Landscaping from 30 to 100 feet structures shall be cleared of all dead and /or non-fire fire resistant and A detailed landscaping tits resistant vegetation. P g plan showing compliance with these requirements shall be provided upon building D. Maximum grade of the access road shall bep12 application. E. A fire hydrant shall be provided adjacent to the access road Canyon Road. ad entry off of All plan check questions should be directed to Fire Marshal Mark Krikorian at (626) 574 -5104. Thank you.