Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1d - Resolution No. 6991 regarding Canyon Road appeal[ni arpur t rl t \vicy ofj DATE: TO: August 20, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council STAFF REPORT Development Services Department FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 11 -02, RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RM 11 -01, AND THE NON - CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A 90.25 -ACRE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 2111 -2125 CANYON ROAD Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6991 denying Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02 and Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 11 -01 and reject certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report SUMMARY The applicants are requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, Residential Mountainous Development Permit, 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, each to be developed with a single - family residence at 2111 -2125 Canyon Road — see the attached Tentative Parcel Map, aerial photo, site plan, and photos of the subject property. Because the proposed project does not meet the necessary findings for approval of an R -M Development Permit, and because it has unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny these applications and reject certification of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). BACKGROUND 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 Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 2 of 11 R -M & D, Residential Mountainous Single - Family and Architectural Design Overlay for the Highlands Homeowners' Association. 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. The zone change was subsequently approved and enacted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1614 on October 18, 1977. The R -M zone provides additional protections to steeply sloped portions of the City's residential areas. In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide the subject property into 11 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan Application No. SP 00 -01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 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 Application 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 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. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776 (attached) on August 26, 2008, to conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07 -05, Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01, Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. An adopted mitigation measure required a non - refundable $200,000 payment to the City to endow the maintenance of the dedicated 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 and on March 9, 2010, adopted the attached Resolution No. 1814). Since no action was taken on this proposal within two years of its effective date, the approvals expired on March 8, 2012. It is the applicant's assertion that there is no market support for this lot configuration with the building pads fronting on Canyon Road. Therefore, Mr. Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc., and Ms. Wendy Wu of Nevis Capital, LLC, submitted the subject applications to Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 3 of 11 subdivide the subject property into two (2) parcels for building pads that are elevated from the street level along Canyon Road. The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on June 25, 2013, held a public hearing for the subject applications and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Minutes of the June 25, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, and a transcript of the public hearing and discussion are attached. Seven (7) residents spoke in opposition to the proposal at the meeting, including Mr. Ralph Bicker, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board of the Highlands Homeowners' Association. He also submitted the attached letter of opposition. The Commission voted 4 -0 with one member absent to deny the subject applications and did not certify the related EIR. Resolution No. 1877 (attached) was adopted on July 9, 2013, to affirm the decision. The denial of the subject applications was based on the Commission's finding that the proposed project meets the following criteria for denial of an R -M Development Permit: 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. In addition, the Planning Commission was unable to find substantial evidence to support the certification of the EIR. Because the EIR discloses an Unavoidable Adverse Impact, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the decision making body make a Statement of Facts and Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration to justify approval of the project with the Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The criteria for a Statement of Facts and Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration are outlined in Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively of the CEQA Guidelines (attached). Staff's recommendation was that these criteria cannot be satisfied; as a result, the Planning Commission did not adopt such Statements. The EIR consultant has prepared responses to the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting on the environmental aspects of the proposal. These responses mostly refer to the sections of the EIR that address the issues that were raised by the speakers at the Planning Commission's public hearing, and are included in the EIR as part of the Reponses to Public Comments. DISCUSSION The subject proposal is to subdivide the 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 proposed Parcel 2 — see the Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 4 of 11 attached Site Plan. An access road is proposed for the two building pads that will be situated approximately 90 feet and 140 feet above the street level of Canyon Road. The creation of the building pads and the access road will require substantial grading of 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 four (4) dead oak trees, and the encroachment into the protected zone of 35 oak trees. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was conducted and it was determined that an 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 Map 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 lots 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. Based on the size, layout, and proposed use of the lots, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation, the Subdivision design regulations, and Zoning Code. However, the Planning Commission found that the design of the improvements for the proposed subdivision would likely cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, and denied the Tentative Parcel Map. 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 (19.62 cubic yards). The proposed project involves 21,948 cubic meters (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 slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 slope, which would be less steep than the existing hillside. The proposed grading will include catch basins, planters, retaining walls, and drain inlets to minimize erosion and runoff. Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 5 of 11 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: 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 alternate may issue a permit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent danger to public or private property. The City's Engineering Division 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 Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 6 of 11 feet of fill that will be deposited in a ravine on the west side of the property to balance the cut. In addition, fill slopes are generally very difficult to re- landscape and the proposed slopes will have a significant visual impact on the surrounding areas. Future development of the proposed building pads will be highly visible from the neighboring properties because the two proposed building pads will be situated approximately 90 feet and 140 feet above the street level, and 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, the Planning Commission found the following: 1. The project will cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation, because the proposed project involves 28,707 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill, the removal of 45 healthy oak trees, and the modification of the landscaping of a 30 to 100 foot wide buffer zone around each building pad. 2. The project will cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line, because the proposed building pads will involve 20 to 30 feet of cut in some areas, 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. 3. The project will unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites, because the proposed building pads, at approximately 90 feet and 140 feet above the street level, will be highly visible from the neighboring properties. The alteration in landform, the removal of vegetation for the building pads, and the potential development on the new building pads, will adversely affect the view from neighboring sites. 4. The project will adversely affect existing development or retard future development in the R -M Zone because the proposed development is inconsistent with the established development pattern along Canyon Road and will be a disruption of the existing community. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 11 -01. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND APPEAL At its regular meeting on June 25, 2013, the Planning Commission denied the subject applications, and rejected the certification of the EIR by a vote of 4 -0 with one member absent. At the next regular meeting on July 9, 2013, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1877 was adopted to affirm this decision. The denial of the subject applications Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 7 of 11 was based on the Commission's finding that the proposed project meets the criteria for denial of an R -M Development Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Ta -Jen (Jeff) Lee of Nevis Capital, LLC, filed an appeal on July 10, 2013. Copies of the adopted resolution and appeal letter are attached to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the California 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 accompanying EIR for a thorough analysis of the impacts. The EIR is presented in three parts: Volume 1 is the analyses of the environmental issues; Volume 2 is the Appendices, and contains the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, and the technical studies; and the last part is the Response to Public Comments. The EIR discusses significant impacts on Biological Resources, Soils and Geology, Hydrology and Water Quality, Wildland Fire Hazards, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Construction Noise /Vibration. 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, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources, Population /Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation /Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The discussion on these topics 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 four (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 commence, 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 less than significant levels. One such mitigation measure is to impose a limited timeframe for grading activity to avoid impacts on wildlife. Adherence to the proposed timeframes is not likely because the bird nesting season from March 1 to August 15 and the bat maternity season from March 1 to September 30 coincides with the dry weather season from April 1 to October 31 when grading and trenching are to take place. This overlap leaves just a one month window when grading could take place without the potential need to set up multiple large protective buffers to shield wildlife from the grading activities. Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 8 of 11 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The 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 Iandform modifications will be highly visible offsite, even at great distances. Even when the area is fully re- vegetated, the siting of the two new residences will not be consistent with the existing developments along Canyon Road. 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 new residences. However, the effectiveness of this mitigation measure will greatly depend on the future property owners' maintenance of the landscaping. Alternatives to the Project 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) alternatives 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 Alternative Matrix (Table 5.6.1 on page 203 in Volume 1 of the EIR) summarizes the impacts of each alternative. The subject proposal is ranked number 5 in Environmental Ranking when compared to the alternatives, which means that of the five (5) alternatives, only number 3 would have a more significant impact to the environment than the proposed development. Based on the analysis of the alternatives, the previously approved two -unit subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09 -08), Alternative 5, is a preferred alternative. 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 (EIR The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be certified in order to approve the project. Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the following criteria for certification of an EIR: (a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that: (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 9 of 11 (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. The EIR for the subject proposal was completed in accordance with these criteria; however, because the EIR discloses an Unavoidable Adverse Impact, a Statement of Facts and Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration are required to justify approval of a project with an Unavoidable Adverse Impact. The criteria for a Statement of Facts and Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration are outlined in Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively of the CEQA Guidelines and are attached to this staff report. To certify the EIR, the City Council must make a Statement of Facts and Findings supported by substantial evidence in the record that the proposal has incorporated measures to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. The Statement of Facts and Findings is not required if the City Council decides to reject the certification of the EIR. Additionally, because there is an Unavoidable Adverse Impact, the City Council must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration, finding that there is 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. The proposal does not incorporate measures to avoid or substantially lessen all the significant environmental effects to make a Statement of Facts and Findings. The proposal to build two (2) single - family residences does not provide adequate benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to support a Statement of Overriding Consideration. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council reject certification of the EIR. PUBLIC NOTICE The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was circulated locally for public review for a period of 45 days from March 18, 2013, to May 2, 2013. The EIR 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, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the United States Department of the Interior /Fish and Wildlife Service. The Response to Public Comments of the EIR was issued on June 11, 2013. 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 draft EIR were mailed on May 7, 2013, with a revised notice mailed on May 16, 2013, to the property Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 10 of 11 owners, tenants, and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property. The revised notice was issued for a revised hearing date to allow additional time to prepare the Response to Public 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. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. The potential increase in property tax revenue would be offset by the added services, safety and maintenance costs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02, Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 11 -01, and reject certification of the EIR by adopting the attached Resolution No. 6991 RESOLUTION NO. 6991 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. TPM 11 -02 (71182), AND RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. RM 11 -01, AND REJECTING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 Approved- Do inic Lanar City Manager Attachements listed on next page Staff Report re TPM 11 -02 and RM 11 -0 1 (2111 -2125 Canyon Road) August 20, 2013 Page 11 of 11 Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 11 -02 (71182) Aerial Photo Site Plan Photographs of Subject Property Planning Commission Resolution No. 1717 (December 2004) City Council Resolution No. 6466 (March 2005) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1776 (August 2008) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1814 (March 2010) Minutes of the June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript of the Public Hearing and Discussion at the Planning Commission Meeting Letter of Opposition Planning Commission Resolution No. 1877 (July 2013) Criteria for Statement of Facts and Findings Criteria for Statement of Overriding Consideration Appeal Letter to City Council Appeal Letter to City Council City Council Resolution No. 6991 Recommended Conditions of Approval if Council chooses to approve the project Environmental Impact Report Volume 1 — Draft EIR Volume 2 — Appendices Response to Public Comments R EV ISED TENTATIV E PARL EL MA P N 0. ' 1182 — -- w � � rr � r %TuCL MFaF LcS wais .L,�� v• WK a 6VOWW ON or Pkqm 4 Or PAM KAP MW 4OR IN TJ W 011 ff AWAbW EANVe Or LM diNULES STA - 1 Dr D"MAk AS PER MAP REUMM Ir 9D3R 76 R Mmly PARCEL I — PAGCEL 7 11110 L: Mlr�lr� YR�L L Y.za E M4F MMIi ■i ice\ � +F �+ �� ' � iv Tr1�T1 ■ ■i�r TT��ti �� `�T tamer!•! r � + ' ' '_ VY brL 05 ga 0 c3p cm �_• -� N.., •Y ter{ 'y5 L •;,1 •' f••': y �.,'� - �'4_.__- � �•''•'�•', i�.'' ti••+' :.} �� �. � e� ii'i •'� IY cwr "IN -A 'rte, ; 4 co NU -:., ,,.ti -�; , ill w i + I Y F •••- I •`�' -, •_r•5'Lf ~'� ti.,�� +r17, ; -�y�5 Y � }} I1�1R i . ,_�•'* --_ 5 ;�•. .,tip ._' s �� C y s }rf •; 2.__. �.,f may• L �.� _ ��-_ • �YyS'' {, +� f i �T r �.. •-'' �_ } _5 x4L.5. • V 7 Ct= -4 JAIL 4m 4 k � k - n. b� 4rl , F� wm 2111-2125 Canyon Road T� TPM 11-02 and RM 11-01 1-3 15' y. �kL h; 0% r F F r J Ir d rX 4' k RI Jr Lfor J F Id Ap_ C) L3 I- % L% 4 rV Ll L L IL kI. I I r jo 0 L d If jLrro F irp ar tl L !S t14 FLA P4 � T s i � M1. L do i 1 ' U3-- - &• Y! 1.• f i:f � ,•� ry,r _ VI-ew of the su bjei;k pia perry -Drn Ca nyran R -bad n Ur he85k from the lot frGnrage L M RESOLUTION NO, 1717 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCAL)IA, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE WC HLA ND OAKS SPECIFIC FLAN (S. P. 2003 ODI) FOR A PROPOSED 7 -LOT RESIDENTI AL H ILLS 10 E D EVE ItCRM ENT L OOATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF ARCAD;A, WHEREAS. Davis Con structlon, Inc. filed an applinati�ri for a specifc plan to PEito blish + �vel?proe nt and malntenanw requlatloa:s for i� prop ozad 7-Jot residential hillside development, Community Development DivIslon Case No. S, P. 21103 -0 -01, to be located noAh of the termInus of Wsta Avenue and Northwest of C any-on Road, more particula My deschbod in the attach ed Exh ibit A; a nd WHEREAS, a publ is F sari rig was held on Novernbe r 23, 2004, at whic h Ume all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, NOW THEREFORE} THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HERESY RE OLIrES AS FOLLOWS, SECTION 1. That five factual data submiftd by the Community Cova:apment Division of tb e- D Qvolopment Services Deparime nt in the aftched report, dated Nawmber 23, 2M4. is true and corre :t_ report; ;.EOTION 2, This Commissi�on Jrnds for t" reasons set forth In the at�ove 1, That based on the environ m eta tal analy:g is contained throughout the projects Final Environmental Impact Report. and the attnhed Specific PI an Review by the hillside - consulting firm of TRO Land, Inc_ thy, +mplernentati an of 1 he applicant's SpeOfic Plan wou d necessi tale mass grad ing of the 5;ubject prop arty to the extent that the proposec project would rkot be in oompl iance with the Cily's C e nera I Plan HIllaide Man agement Stroteg les C D -17 thru C D -20. as addresz -ad fn the attached Staff report. 2. That the propasa d Specific Plan is inadequate because. K adop-ed, it would establish modified &LvOn prnerit standards that wQ uld encourage the potential size of the now homes to bo subsiantl II larger � � than the r,eilghberi ng and INN 0 L-4 F- -1 LJ Jp surrowftd Ong homes waihin the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Asscciatlon area, +Mtiich is inconsistent with tha Land Use and Community IderElity Strategy CD-21 of the Arcadia General Plan. SECTION 3, That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Cornrnissian recommends to the City Co uniA d en;a I of the proposed Highland Oaks Specifro Pto n as submlfted by the applir a nt Eo the City as of the d ate of this Resol Mien, SECTION 4- Tha dec iSion and fndi ngs contained Iii t his Resolu do n retlect the Ela nning Co m rftslan's dir edon at its maefing of Navem b e r 23, 20 04. 2 nd th e following vote; AYES; CommEssk ner s Lucas, 0i so n, Wen r Bade Tian NOES; None ABSENT; Commissic ne rs Heu S E CTION 5- The Secreta ryr s hall certify to the adoption of this ResAtion and skull cau se a copy to be forwarded to the City Coen of I of th a C ity of ArtF dia, I M F R E BY CERT I Fly that 111-9 forgoing Ft501utin n was ado pted at a regular meeting of the Planning C orn mis.910rr held on the 10 day of Oecernbe r. 2004 by the fbilowing vote, AIDES: Cornmissianers Hsu. LLicas, Olson r WeP. Bade rian NO E& None ABSENT: None - -' -'s1 . ._.. City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: &&Xk P. StepKea P. Deitsch, City Atto-ney City of Arcad i a 2 Cho irman. Plann Ing Commissifl n CkY of Arcad la 1717 RESOLUTION NO, 6466 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AR AMA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING N THE HIGHLAND 'DAKS SPE LF [C PLAN] (S.F _ 2003-001) FOR A PRO PO SED 7-LOT RE S] DENTIAL 141 LLSIDE DEVELOPMENT' LOCATED NORTH Of THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AN D NORTHWEST OF CANYON YON ROAD IN T14 E CITY OF A RCA DIA. WHEREAS, Nlevi s Cons Rructi on, Inc, fi I ed an appl ieation for a speci fig plan to estab] i sh development and ruin tcna rice ri-,gu la tions for a proposed ? -lot residential }tills ido developmen t, Commun ity Dcveloprnent- Di vi lion Case No, S. P, 2003 -001, to be I oeated north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and Nort hwest of Canyon Road, more paAi eularly descfibed in the attached Exh ih it A; and H E KEAS. on November 2 3, 2 004, a pub] is hearing was he ld be fore the Plan ai n g Commission 10 re v Icy., the S pecif is P1 an and make a recomrnendat ion on said plan to the City Council at which time all interested persons werc Si ven full opporwn ity to be heard and to Present evidence; and WICFRJEAS, on December 14, 2004, the PIann1ng Commi ssion voted 5 to 0 to adopt Resolution 1717 ratifying the Com rni ssion "s findings and aetiorts in re comrnendi ng to the City Coun 61 den is I of t he H i gh to nd Oaks Spec i f tc Plan; and 64x6 WH EREA , a duly nol iced public herring was held be fore the Ci ty Cou nci on February 15, 2005' at which time ;211 interested pe=ns wm given full opportunity to be heard and to present evideneer and WHEREAS, , o n February 15, 2005, the City Council voted 5 to 0 to deny the highland Oaks Spcc s fie p1 an, and direeted staff to prepare [hi � Rzsol radon to fati y the Council's decision and specific findings. NOW r THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ()F AR ADIA, CALIFOPNIA, ]DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: EMON I _ That the factual data submi tied by the Con ayruii I ty Tavel oFment Divi-s ion of the Development Services Dip arCmcn k in the attached report, dated February 15, 2005, i5 true and correct_ report: SECTION 2. The C i ty Cound I FJ nds for k h c reasons set forth in the *on I- That based on E he en virortm cn c a l analysis contained thrmShou t the prOjec E's Final Envi rote men Eal 1 tr pac t Report, and the attached Specific Plan Devi ever by the hillside- omsulti ng firm of TRG Land, Inc, the i mpiernentatkm of the a l ic*n is Specific Plan would necmitate mass grading of Ehc su bjec E property Eo the extent that [ht, proposed pro1eo k would not be in compliance with the Ci tyrs General PI an Hi I I s ide Ma nagerr ent S trategi es CD- ] 7 th ru CD -20, as addressed in the attached staff report_ 2, The proposed Spcci frc Plan is inadequate because, if adopted, it we-uld establish modi fted development standards that would entorirage the potential size of the new hornes to be substantial ly larger khan the nei ghbor i ng and surmu ndi ng homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowrl ers' Association area, which is inconsistent with the .and U&c and Conlffnunity Identity Strategy CD-21 of the Arcadia General P [an. 3. The proposed Specific Plan does not adequa to I y addnss how the site's rema ire i ng oak trees wDuld be preserved; and that the largest oak tree (a 7 ,L-i rich d i ameter Cast Li ve Oak) %vb ieh exi s is i n the vi Ci ni ty of the prof cck's access ro ad en mice, is riot likely to survive due to the amount of eonstrucl ion t I at would occur around the base of the tree, as ado i sed by the h it i side -c on su I t i ng firm of G Land, fro.; and 4- The de velopmcn t standards in the Spedhc Plan do not adequa[ely address the presmation of the hillsides within the project area. For etcarrph; the Specific Plan does not require s minimum building sotback from top of slope, areas to prevent polentiati y invasive siem wall or projecting post and beam construction iipon a slope, nor is the re an ad qti ate maximum building pad area req uiremerit to 3 6*56 prop [bit t lie "paiis in n o f the b ui I d i ng pad configurations, as cs tabl i shed by a Fi rnal grading Plan, for erosyon control purposes. SECTION ION 3_ 'Tha t for thr, foregoing reasms the C ity Cc u nci I den ies the proposed Highland Oak s Specific Plat. S E TION14_ The CiIY Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Rml ution. Massed, approved and adcp tc-d 1 his 15"' d ay of M arch 2005. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcad La APPROVED AS TO FORM-. S44�'p t�� .1F � Stephen Dci tsch City Attomey 4 Mayor of (lie Cli }y of Arcadia 646k r RESQLLITION NO. 1776 A RF OLU MN OF THE PLAAIMVG CONS U S ION OF THB CrrY OF AR ADIA, CALrIFORKA,. APPRO USIDENTLAL-MCUNTALNOUS DEVF,LOPM NT PRMT ISO. RM 07 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL " NO. TPM 07 -D5 (69 775), ANI) OAK MM PURIMT NO. TR 08 -04 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DE ELOPMBNT OF AN APPRO M- MATELV 83-ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOOA17ED NORTJi OF THE TEPMI US OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTH AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON R0 . iEREAS, on October 1 r 2007, a Residential- Mountair. out Development Permit appli�atian was filed by Studio 1M, on behalf of Nevis Homes, for approval of two, new, si ngl&Lfam ly resi denies, Development Services Depwrtnent Case No, RM 0741 r to conjuration with the related subdivision, Tentative Pare] Map Application No_ TPM 0 ? -05 (69775) and Oak T= Permit Applrcafion Ala. TR 0$ -04 for -m approximtely 83 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road; and V&MREAS, pursuant to the, provisions of the Calif is Envoi uammtal Quality Act, Public resources Code Seal on 21 000 et seq. C'CE A'), and the State's CE QA ntdelines,- the City � f Amadia prepared an lr it-W Study and detenTmed that thm is no substantial evi &mae that the approval of Residential - Mcuntainous Development Permit Application No. 0 Rte. 07 -0 ], Tentative .farce_ I ap Appliroidun No. TPM 07 -06 (69775), aod Ptaming C -DmRissiorl POSMutoon No 1776 — Pa9 L- 1 of 4 Oak Tree Permit Application Aid. Tip 08 -C4 would result in a significant advcrsc effect on the cnvironment with the ipcorporation of mi tigafion measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated egafivc .Dc�olaratidrt bas been prepared and notice of that fact war, given in the mmmer rogtrired by law; and WIMREAS, a duly aoticcd public hearing was field by the Planning Commission August 12, 2009, at which time all interested persons were given ful l opportur►ity to be beard and to presew evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANMNG COMMSSION OF TRE CITY OF AR ADU RESOLVFS AS FOLLOWS: E Ti i I- "bat the factual data subrritted liy ft Dmlopmry M ftrvices DEpartment in the attached report is true and correct. SL TION I T ns Commission frnds: 1 _ 'Mat fl-ie granting of such R.esi dential-. ountairioos Development Perri i }vi ] I not result in any o f the fol lowing- a. Exocssivo or Lmmc essary scarring of the .nmral terrain and landscape through grading or termoval of vegetaticm; or b_ Unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crostli ; or c_ Unneilessadly meet the view from neighboring sitcsr or d. Advc rsely affect existing development or retard future 0 development in this 2o0o; 07 -2- 1776 0 1 a, Be inconsiment with the provisions of Divi sign 0 of Part 5 of hapttr 2 of Article EK of tht Arcadia Municipal Coda. 2. That the use appKcd for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the envromment with the incorporation of mitigatioij measures, and that based upon the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed proacct, if implemented ill accordance with the aaached Mitigation Mordtoring and Reporting Program (MNIRP) wBI have any potendal for an adverse effect stn wildlife resources or the habitat upon wWcb the Wildlife depends, 40 SECTION 3_ The Plamiog Co=rm ssica hereby approves and adopts tb at certain Mite atinu Monitoring and keportirpg Pro m pir"Od for Tentative Par -cel Map Application Teo. TPA! 07 -05 (6977 5) Residendal- Mountainoa5 Dtvelop nt Permit Appli -cafion No. RM 07 -01, and Oak Trte Permit Application No. TR -08 -04. SECTION 4_ That for the foregoing reasons this Coy missi on approves Pesiden6al -M0 nMirtous Development Perr it No, FM 07 -01, i T' ntative Parcel Map too. TPM 07 -05 (.697 75), end Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04, for the subdiviston and development of �n approximately 83 -ate site genera] l y located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north artd northwest of Canyon Road, subj act to the fol lowing condstEoi3s; 52 1776 i I , The appIieant shall sign the attached NfitigaOon Monitoring aud i Reporting Program OAM"), thereby agreeing to pay the City ntoni toring fees and implement the mitigation measures at a mi'mmum is the design, 5 f constriction, and mai-ni-cmance of the pmj eet. All rni tig�ticn measures shall eff'ec dvely be conditions of approval. 2, The applicant shall gmt any easemc❑ts deermed necessary by the City for utility or roadway m=tmiance acts vitics. 3_ The truck-haul route for graded earth material shall be a� fbllr.ws; S oudi on Carryon Road to Elkins Avenue' west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freaway, east to the 605 fineway, south to tlxe 60 f-r-ceway, Is and east to fttmte Hills Landfill. 4. At lit 49 hom prior to the eommencemmt. of grading ac,dVities, the app&ant shall hand - deliver written notification to all property ownm residing along the haul route between the point of activity and the 210 fiteway, dctaihng th-C proposed_ construct on staging p] an, haul route and schedrale, and -other pertinent grading and construction inforr m ion. . All City raquircments regarding building safety, fire prevc�nt�on, detection, suppression, err-�rgcncy access, landscaping, water supply and water facilities, trash redued on and recyrlin g requirements, and NPL)p 0 measures sh a] l k cornpiled with to the sad sfacfiott of the Building Offic i al, -4- 1 776 0 Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Public Works Services Director and Devc] opment Services Director. Compliance with these regoirmcats is to be determined by having ful ly detailed constructi on p laps subs tied for plant check review and approve.]. 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 thr, City of Acadia concerning this project an d2or land use decision, including but not 111'r6ted to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council Plan in Co rx�ssa � , ar �i staf, which eh ac 6o l is brought within the time period provid,d for in Governriwat Cede Section 66499.37 or other provision of lair applicable to this prof t or decision. Thu City shall mptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, r or proceeding concerruing the pr*ot andJor land use decision and the City LA shall cooperate fully iti ft defcase -of the matter. The City mserveti the right, at its own option, to choose its own attemey to represent the City, its O ffi ccrs, employees, and amts in the defSe of the matter. i -5- 1 776 oncaalpNmce 6th the plans, provisions and conditions of appreval for RM 07 -01, TRIG 07 -05 (69775) and TR 08=04 shall be grounds for immc6ate suspension 2nd/or revoa$ticn of any approvals. 8. Approval of R-ML 07 -01. 'IPM 07 -05 (69775); and TR 08 s hall not take effect until the property owmr and applicant. have executed and t filed the Acceptance Form available from the De apmeant Services Dopartment to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that al I condi bons of approval shall be s I `stied prilor to fanal i mpection and issuance of a Cer#ificate of Occupancy Wr dr r id s, SECTION 5. The Steretary shall certify to the adoption of this Reso]u don. Nsscd, approved and adopted this 26th day of Augusta 2009- A'TTE,S Y,r-Lary, planning Cornmission A.PPRO ED AS TO FONT; Stcph P. Deitsch, City Attorney fT) twzu� Chgnva, PlannIUg Ccr=ssion -6- 1776 RESOLUTION NO. 1814 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANMNO COMMSSrO f QF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, OAUFORNIA' APPROVINO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM -08 (7118) AND THE RENIEWAL OF RESIDENTIAL - M0LINTArNOU DEVELOPMENT PI MIT NO, R M 07 -01 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 9D -ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA A'VhN UiE AND AiOkTH AND NORTHWEST OF CAPON ROAD. WHEREAS, on Aupst 5,200 ' a Terttab vo Parcel Map applicatiorn +wa$ filed by Mr. Hank Jong o f EGL Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ncvis Hu nes, Development Servi "s Department Case No, TjpM 09 -08r in conjunctian with the reMcwa l Of a related i den#ial- Mountai noes velopmmt PerronL Igo, RAC 07 -0I for the, develvpm nt of two never single_ family residences on an approxirrWely 90 -acre Property 9cncrai ly located north Of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwcst of Canyon Road ; and WliEREA , pursuant to the provisions of the Califamm Envi ronmen t'] Qua] i cy Act, Public Resources Code S bon 21000 et seq. C $QA "), and the State's C L A Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an lni6al Study and detcrnninod that there is no stibst-antlal evidence that the approval of Tonua lve Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71192) and the renewal of ResidontLO- cuntainuu s Development Pern Li t Application -9- 1814 No- RM 07-01 would zcsu I t in a significant adverse a ffcct on t hL� c rnvlronment with [he incorporation of rri tigation measure_ Aeeordirlg ly, a i dgaW Negative Declaration bas been prepared and notice of that fac c was given in the manner requ [red by jaw; and EE EAS, a dti]y noticed Public hoan ng was hold by the PNrnn i ng Coma issicn on Febmary � 3, 2010, at which tirne all interested persona were gi Vert full opportunity to be heard and to present evi dcnc�e, NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS; S TION 1. That 1 he factual data submitted by the Development erniees Depa=erkt in the tttachod report is true and correct. ECrION 2. This Commamon finds I _ That the granti ng of such Residcnti al- Mountainous Dcve [upnrnen L Penyd t wi I I not r'�-sult M- ar y 0f the fni lowing. a. Excessivc or u»r_t-o,� ary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal Of vegetation; or h. Unnecessary altmtion of a ridge or eresti i ne; or c, Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or d. Adversely affect existing devolopment or retard futut e devel oprrmtnt in this zone; or -2- 1814 e, Be inc*nsistent with the provisions of Division Q of Part 5 of Chapter 2 of Articic IX of the Arcadia municipal Code, I That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environrrtetit with the incorporation of mitigation measures and that based upon the record as a whole, them is no evidence that the proposed project, if implemented in accordance with the attached Midgadon Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will have any potential for an adverse effect on wi Ida i fe resources or the habitat uport which the wild_ife depends. SECTION 3. The Pl aiming Cornmi scion hereby approves and adopts that certain Mitigation Monitoring and Rcportirig Pri)gram ( MRF) prepared for Tentative Paroel Map App]icaticn No_ TPM 09 -0$ (? 118 2) and R esidential- Mountainous E evelopment Perini t Appli eat ion No- RM 07 -01, $ ECTIQN 4. That for the faregoing reasons this Com- ssion approves Tentative Parcel }flag Flo, TPM 09 -08 (71182) and the renewal of Residential- Mountairtou s DcvOoprnmt P�-rrnit No. R M 07 -01, for the subdivision and development of an approximately 90 -acre site, generally located north of the term; -as of Vista Avenue and north and nortbw sl of Canyon Road, subject to the following conditions, -3- 1814 L The applicant shall agree to Ord execute the Mitigation Munitaring and Reporting Program (MMRP) themby agreeing to pay Ilie City any -applicable fees and expenses to i rnplement the rni ti gati on measures in the design, construe bon, and rnai ntenam a of the project, All mitigation measures shall effectively he conditions of approval. . An updated arborist report shall. be submitted and shall have been approved by the Development Services Director prior to the issu artcc c f a grading permit with renewa I of Oak Tree Permit Rio. TR 08 -G4. 3- All structures "I be sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fine Department Single and Mul ti -Fami ]y Dwelling Sprinkler Stmidard. 4. All structures shall I comply with building regulations for the Wild] and -Urban Interface area_ 5. All landscaping +wi thins 30 f tet of all snotures shall be Fire resistant and provided with means of imgation. Landscaping within a distance of 30 to 100 feet of all smicturn shall be cleared of all dead andJor non -fire resistant vegetat_ort. A detailed landscaping plan showing compliance with these requ iremenm shall be provided upon building permit application. -4- 1814 6. A 36-inch box oak tree shall be planted on each property in Ur adjacent to the right -of -wad the specific placermmtsam to be detcrrrrn ned by the Pub] i c Works Services Depa=ent. 7_ All f 1 items listod in the attached memorandum dated J:�ntjary 27, 2010 from the Public Works Services Department. g. The applicant shat I grant any easremcnts decoyed necessary by the City Engineer aaftr Public Works Services Director for utility andor public maintenance activities. 4. The true k haul rc We for graded earth material shall be as follows' South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, wmt to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freeway, cast to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to the Fucnte dill{ Landfill. Any alterations are to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. At least 4$ he urs prior to the comn=cement of grading activities, the applicant 51x1l hand - deliver written nutification to all results along the haul route between the point of activity and the 210 freeway, detailing the proposed construction staVing plan' haul route and schodu le, and other pertinent grading and construction information_ 11, All City requircments regarding Wilding safety., fire prevention, detection, suppression, emurgcnoy acot�ss, landscaping, water supply and -5- 1814 water fac ititics, trash reduction and recycling rcqui rements, and N?DES rneasures shall be c ornpli ed with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Manbal, Police Chief, Puhtis Works Scr ri"!� Director zmd Development Services Dirmtor. Compl iancc Zvi th these requirements iS to bi� determined by having fully detailed construction End grading plans submi ttcd for plan clieck review and approval. 12. The applicant sha11 defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, cniployoos, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its offliccrs, employees or agents ti) aGti ac%, sot aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia oo erning this project and1or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning C orrurisaicn. or City Staff, which action is brow gilt within the time period provided for in Goverment Qj& Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall pnomptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use dcci sion, and tho City shall cooperate fuller in the defense. of the matter. The C i [y reserves thr- right, at its own option, to choa�e its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and -agents in the defense of the rna rem. -6- 1814 13. Noncompliance with the p lan;5F provisions and coridi tions of aN r`oval for TPM 09 -08 (071 182), ! j 07 -0 1, and any skibsequ ent renewal Of T R 09 -04 shall It gmunds for jmmediate suspons ion and/or revocation of any ,approvals, 14. Approval of TPAI DD -08 (071 182), RM 07 -0 1, and the subsequent Oak Thee hermit &hII not Wo effoct until the prop 4rty owner, civil engineer, and applicant lave exectYt-ed and filed the Acceptanoi� Fc nn avail able from the Develowent Services Dopartrnent to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions -of approval, and that ai L condition of approval shall be satisfied prior to final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the rest deuces. SECTION 5, The Secretary shall certify to the adopricn of this peso] u tion. Passed, approved and adopted this 91h day of March, 2010. A relffi r, Plarm int Cemrrussion APPROVED As TO PORN]: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attomey ing Commission - '7` 1814 w� ARCADIA RLANKI hJfa COMMISSION REGU —AR MEETING MINUTES s TUESDAY, JUNE 25, X013 CALL TO ORDER — Che irman Criiao called the mftoting to ardor at 7:00 P.M. in the Arcadia City Council r,h Fr.t em. PLEDGE OF AL F IAAfCE DOLL CALL PRESENT- Cornmi"lor em Berane'rt, Falrona, Parrilla ar1Q Chi;av AUNT' Commminnor Baer$ lutilCD]11 Corn missioner Parrilie maw&d to uzuga Comm- ls$Ianer Baerg and Cornmmmorrer Beran -ak secDndad the metaan_ WAhour obj8diorr the ma!ion was a ppmved_ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA tTEM S Mr. K85am8 poln*d dam. fie mpies of the d0cumenl wrrta1n6n!V supprem a9l MmmQts rel9tng to Item 1 that 6 dlstribuled to oach GDmmimrwer and liat Cwmissionat Earaft* tad noted a typo In ttr& staff r:upoFt fmm Item 1. It was also Ached shut Item 2 on the agcnda, Rawlutk)n No_ 1971, should be ourracxed to rem Resolution No. 18�74- PUOLrC COM MJENTS There wet nbrre PL BLIC HEARING IVDtakiwa NEW MQ NO. TPWI 11412 (717$2),. Rasidentol Mpuingnpus QOVeIQDM�Perrpil No. RM 1 ' - ;Ql-- d Cgnskigrati!2n of, the EnwimnrneMflI Impact Rawrt-(EJ R) Newts Capital. L LQ h T 1 9,1 n Rga�d I ha applimnt is raqueedng a TenrbVive -Parcel IV8P. a Rer,40ndal IVIO rt POUE Deaelopment Parmit cefficaHon Of ao Ernrironnn wal Irr_"d Report (El R) fol 4a prgposed eubdlwiebn Arid grading of a'0_25 acre undave]oned p a,perty in the fGobill-& of ArvadA for &w (2) poraele tv ead+ be <10y& "d with a singles family re&ldence_ Assodal8 Fkinner Tom iJ praswAed the stiff rep6rt_ Chalrmar: Chiap opened the puh?k hearing i9rd ash I anyone would ilka to apeak in feww of th's prKyaat X25.13 Planning Contmissiorr Mfrjutez — Pago 1 of 4 MOTION MOTION The fOII Ir1p PEa spoke In FA'tirgf of me proJeci, Mr. Sett Yang for the app]i:.amtC Mr_ David Stewart, potentra buyer of proA$r1 Chuirmafr Chiau a eked if a.- y*ne would Ake to $peak in opposition to this prole a Thu following people spoke in opposidon to the proJec1: Mr_ Ralph Bicker Mr. Sutmdra Thakral Mr. Tlm Wandler Mr_ Phil -Conslgliv Ms. Karin Hansw Mr_ Robert Stover Mr. Crean Obst Chairman Chiao asked If tha applicant would like to mbut the gppp$ifign, The toNvwing people SpOD a in rebuttal to the oppoiton. Mr. Salt Yang Mr. Larry Gray Mr. Sid Lindmark, Enviroornantsl Consultant II was moved by Cornmissi Gonor Sarane K &wcwdad by Commissioner P$ rrmlle, to do6e the Puglia Hearing. V*tmout omscupr« tme maw was spproVed. Ft was moved by Oornrnlssiorer Swanek. se I -ed by Camnrossivner Parade, to deny Terrta6ve Parcel Map Applrrat-un No. TPM 11.02 71162). Resiftiltisl Mdunteirwx puvaloprnent'armit Applicgton No. RM 11 -01, rind to not carlify tha EnvIronmen at Import Ropert (El R) based on the fimfi%js iin the staff repQrt. . :Is],IEgs1 I I AYES: Commissioners BerrineK Falzon &, Pamll(i and Ofriao NOES: None ASSE=NT_ Com missigner Baerg 2_ CONSENT CALENDAR A RQ$0w tan of the PlaAninp CommIsslan Of the Clty of Aree4fa, CE IIfomla. approYing Canditignal U ae Perm t alb. OUP 1;3,04 with a Class t ExenVilian from the Celfrom[a Ernr runmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a $,700 square foot B-25-13 Plarkniri� Cemnrrdssi�on M inwes — Page 2 of 4 'T+yffiTT p8r-&anal training stud* with a maximum of 10 patrws and 4 trairersfs#gff al anV one lima at 215 a First Avenue- 3. Rosa cation No. 1875 A Resoludco of the Panning omm;sslan of V10 City of Arcadia, CalifQmia 9r8rrbnCP id*wvl Jsa Fmmtit No CUP 12 -21 anal Arch ita tural Da�dgr- RA El+1r No_ ADR 12 -2$ with a CJaad S Examption from Ina Cafifvmia Enwlmnn wrrE0I OualltY Act (CECA) to remodel ark 8xdsdn 75 square -%m C building fw tea saga and rental of used ca's, with - 006041r :starage of 14 whiles at 702 West Las Tunas F rive. solLMon No. 1979 A Rasolutl8rl of the F ranMnp Commiasion of thep C4 of Arc"a. CaWOFnia. dwying Conditional U2w Fermtt AppllraRiorr ND, C UI3 13-03 an- j Arahimewral Design Review No. ADR 13-05 to charms the use and make miner ewle6or aJteratpgrls of a 42.2W Wuawfwt -Mr n{ 3tDre �R91pl !l) to a dhdit mnna (Savers Thrift Superstars) et 115 E. Liwe Avenue. 6. WnLd 2L-of the J rrpie 11, 2Q13. Rftular M r:+e jM of the Rapining Cornrngsjon pnd SpGba h+feetir f tJia Ar M& Bxrairrass P rrnil 8rrd License f $vla+,r It eras mbYecd bye mmisaiwwr Pamile, s8 an-ded by C:crnmissf- ier Falfafle. tD adopt Reaolwkms 7874, 1876 and f8V6 and to approve thEr rnjrnute5 of tyre Jung 11. 2013 Meeting- ROLL CALL AYES Commissioners Beranek, FatWfle, Parrille and China NOFS. None ASSENT, Gammiseoaner B�aer!o MATtERS FROM COUNCIL LtAISOU, JOHN Woo Them were mono_ MA I 1 LRS FROM PLAN NING bbMPA ISSIONERS There were rmnr#, MATTERS FROM MO DIFFCATION COMM IT3IEE Chairman Chlao rear awad thel acr on3 or, the h i-odi�catrorti Comm they_ G15 MATTERS FROM STAFF INLCUDIPJG OPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama said that the next iimea rng will ira#ude roorganizati-cin of Hie PltrnnGng Ceommisi; Cw and the RegoFution For the Carnyan Road Resb:fOntial- MoLrrrtalnoua AppGatron_ ADJOURNMENT Ch4wman Chao aimed this meeting at 8-10 p.m to ,lolly 9, 201 �. at 7.00 p.rn_ in the Crt i2mncil Chambers kxatad at 240 W. Hunting= OriwA, Amadia. ATTEST-. e . larmi ng omnr. is:aia,n 01hai+i ian. iPlanni M Commission Planning Corrmmisslan Minutes - Page 4 of 4 Excerpt front me ,rune 25.2013_ Plannmq Comm rasion meeting- Tent tie Parr, I KA ip No. TPM 11-02 f71182). Resrde nki iaI Mour7ti�i no uS 0!eVeln prrtieni Perm n N RM 11-01. ar5d Conspde ratron of me Envifonm ental frn � Oack Manor# E I R) - Nevis Capital, LLG 2111-2125 Canyon Road The applicant rs requeslrng a Tenwive Parcel; flap, a Residential Mountai rwOUS DeVelopm ent Permit and certification of ao EnvironrnenkaT limpact Report (PIR) for a propose -d su bc!Ms ion and grading of a 90.25 acre undeveloped property in Ih a fool hills of Arcadia for two (2) parcels to each be developed with a single - family resEd$nca_ Assciciafe Planner Tom Li presented the staff report The f ollowil ng Is a transcript from the audio tape of t he d I eou ssi on on the above a pnda Item 1 from the Su no 25. 2013, regula r meeting of the PI anvil rig Commission: Chairman Chiao - Thank you very much Mr, U. Are There any queslion s from the Commissioners? If nol, as there anyone who would like to speak in Facer of #his iTern'� Please step up and sip n i n at the lectern if you would. ty$r Soolt Yang - Socitt Yang, 828 Pamela Place. represenkrng the applicam. Thanks Tom for the staff report. I-d like to address some of the reasorti g for denial of the prolert. Urn, aside with the key p ueslion of the gradient and u rinetessa ry of natural terrapn and la ndscaping the grad ieat removal of vegetations. Yes there will be a street going in and also two ',+tither$ again this is - we -only touching the minimum of the whole side with 90 acres. We only touch a bo w 3.9 acres and the way we desigrti the stfeel the actual con along the Con of the sides nog, not cukling through it. We stay away from the region as much as possit)le. So I'm net sure_ Item No_ 2 causing unnecessary alteration of ridge oe crest lines - I T,hinlc perhaps the staff is talki rig about the fill area on the upper left• ha nd corners. That is to — try to create a bafanced site so we don't have a lot of exparl of dirt. Previously we had a project of 1 I afld 7 ca ma into Pran ai ng Cpm mi ssioner and boi h got denied because of too rnk,c -h of export of dirt. So on this proposer we only put in two nooses and keeping all the dirt on site Th ak's why the fill area and fill area could be landscaped although d needs to be compacted- It's more dense dirt but I was assured by landscape a rmh itect it could be landscaped. And Number 4 and 5 the houses is nol consisteni wilh RM Zooms We do have two houses that got ap proved that are consistent with RM Zones_ You can see on the board o n the right. I apologize for —}you know the card got Faced. But you can see kriose Iwo houws is 26 feet. 30 feet inTo khe hills arid back of The hill is slra 1pt down. No+ only that they act ualily — there's another 8 to 10 fool retainer wal l behind The (louses to uI1 stop the dirt corm ng down first. Those twD houses - consistent with RM Zone but its just not market Feasible. Consirudion costs for that is ridiculous_ alright to be frank. And the staff report mention ad aboul visual impacts. I th it k the two houses that got approved got creates greater negative +visual impacts. than we have Iwo houses on the top that we can put the houses 2)ack people cannot see and the street could be very well landscaped. The reka.ining wall, we tier the rekainang wall so we can landscape in between Toe each layer of v* retaining wall so you won't feel like there's walls ors top of the h, Fs. Um those are my comments. Thank you. Transcript of Rain ning Com rmisis ion Discussion —Page 1 W 71 Chairman Dh Sao - Gorn m ass Cori ers crave any "estions of this witness? Thank you. I s there anyo rre else who wo uld I ike to speak i n favor of thi s item? Please sign if you would as wel l Mr Davr-d Stewart - I'm David Stewart and 1'rn the poter%'rail buyer roF the property. t-ookling rearly to just build two homes, one to live in and one to sell uh som el hing that would bleu d with the area. fah, just looking, looking to cooperate and lo build some! hi nag that makes feasible sense. Dha irm an Chrao- Okay. Thank you very mLrch. Is there anyone else that wouw Ii" to speak in Favor of this item? 01cay. If not, is there anyone who would like to speak in opFosjtion to the item? Mr. Ralph Bi cicer - I'm Rarph Bicker, Ch airman of the Architeclu ral Review Board for the Highrands. I've prep ared a rathe r le ngthy report. I hope each of you have had a ch ance to read il. Have ea ch of you had a chance to go Iti roug h the feporl that I g aua YOU or prepared? Chairman ChFao -Yes 1 believe so Mr. Bicker. rv$r BI CxQ t - pard00 Cha irm an Chiao -Yes I believe we hare. Mr. Bactcer - You've a II ha d a cha rice to read it- I wou Id j List hope that you wou 16 take everything seriously that I have put in there. I've spent uh almost 40 years of my life as a permit and subdivision engineer for the City of Pasadena devsloping Linda Vista Hills, part of the Hastings Ran chi, I he upper part of the Hastings Ra rich My bottorn Ii ne analysis on there, I think I called i9. a recipe for disaster- I've warmed lihe fees burrs down this property's border adonq the northwesterly side by the National Angeles Nabonal Forest About a tliixd of the property 15 even the other side of the CItantry Flails Road arid uh I've watched the hill turn off dawn to within, dust a favy hundred feet of this property o n at least three occasions I sat up all night watching h op ing it would not j urnp the and of It t property. We had a good fira department Thal put to eir fire lines up Were on the road between they arnd I -he Forest SeNce, I hey stopped 111. But basically to build two riowes in the -center of a forest litre that mM a 20 foe# wade road that s naked a round- T here's no provision up there for g uest pa rki ng. There would be - people that are going Ro build a home that size, they're going to have parties - parties can somel irnes they{re going to have barbeq ue, they can have things that can set that hill afire on that side and if it did, 'rt could come down and burn our HigNand right off the face of the reap. If @Lnyboay has a quee9iorn of me I'd W more than ha ppy to Cry to answer it Commissio nor Bera net€ - I have one question, Mr. Chairrnari. On the. of, your feelings about the taro hazard. And if you:1I look- who n I %-vas Ioas�inq et Vol urne 1 of 2 of the E I R. W page 133 M seem s like u h they -don't have the yarn a con oern e s you a rid oe -errls like , , Mr- Bick ar - Wal I, they haven't sat Ihere 2nd watched I has forest, that forest b urn down to Ina - alrr5osl to the boundary of that paoperly and to pul something like this in there is Jusl an ;nvitation to disaster. I would hope you would ser1ously take mlo account ewerANng I put into mat letter. 1, as ubdiv *iorr Engineer I watched more than one developer to belly- up in the Linda Vesta Hills when Ih ey tried something like this acrd that la rFd is nowhere the probrern that this piece of property is. Oommissio nee Sera reek - Did you get a chance to look at their report? Transcript of Rain rrirkg Com rrtiisision Discussion — Page 2 W 71 Mr. Bisaer — Yeah. I . . Commissioner Bern reek - Gause they. Mey , kir Bicker - I've been Ih roug h the emir$ Environmental Impact RepDrt - I probably spent 40 hours preparing the little report I"I l gave to }eau. Gommiss io ner Gera nek - Bo you saw they s aid les s than signs Fca nt with mitigated respo nse. Mr Brc#ce r -What's that? Commissio her Seranak - They sa id in 1hei r report thai the fire hazard's less than sig nificant with mitigalio rr i noorporated Mr_ Bicker - I'd venture to say that whoever wroae that was not hefe when they had the fires up the hill from that, Gommissione€ Beranek ek - Thank you. Mr. Bicker - Any -other q ueswris? Cho irman Dhiao — Thank yw Mr, 910er, Mr. Bir -ker- You-ve gol my address and so forth here. I don't need ... Cho irm an Chrao - I s there oil gone el se who would Ii ke yo speak in oppmrtion to this Ftem� I f so, please st -ep forward and sign in. Thank you. Mr_ Burencira Thakral — Good evening Mr_ Chawmarp and Corn mrswiriers. I'm ur"dra Thalcral. I'm a neigri. o there. 2_81 DrW. As a neig ftor I'm ooh cerned about f ire and ex-Gessive erosion and disturbance to the permanent estabEished wi Id lVe. Those are my three rr Fapor concerns. Going back to permanent loss of riatu ral woodlands and the habitat -on Ih is 90 acres of contiguous woodland, there will be permanent disturba rice during coast ruction and .afterward. I.m goi rag to read a few words here quote I've just given to you +grryrs_ For example the of new will result Pn introduction of new environmental distresses from distwxbance from riuman, , noise and artificial light and there will be more disturbance duixng the a otivities when there are some galh eri ng, parties and music and etc. So I believe this establrsh ed envifonmeint will be perm anenlly disturbed We can ao fnikig aErori measure, dving conslr;,clion. We can implement. I understart-O Iraal But wn at rrapperi s after that, if birds are neSting -dUTl ng certai rr period. People are I ivi ri g mere forever so it's going lO t1ave a pe rmarnent disl urbance I don't thi nk lhal mitigation measures are cons id Bred in th is deaf! EIN for lung time. As poi rrted ou t ea rlier by M r. Li, this El R does not provide enoug h on many of the thing s. And I'm g of ng to touch a few of them today. Regardi ng rn ilagation measures - I bel iea$ that mitigation measures rn wst be feasi bte and enforceable Throughout — thru gh permanent cond3Eroris, agreements and salter legally binding instruments. Throughout this draft EIR lnere's uncertainty as how ea cil mitigation measure will be implemented, monitored and reported during construction and after ronstruchan. Many of the wildlife fife mitigation measures say that the Building and Construction shall enforce mitigation oom plia nce_ I thiink it should be the responsibility of the developer_ They should enforce, they should normally monitor and rn*e Su ;e it gels done. For the mi6gai ion mea!$ ures. the mitigation rn easLire Transcript of Rain ning tom misis ion Discussion -Page 3 .f 11 which addreuses construction, povacizinei and access to the fire fighters equipment, will the City Building and Conslruction monitor this one during construction? I Ihink it's not possible. Th is also says that the sarn a oom ment appl ias to noise and viLralmns measures- 'VVi II the Planning Departmiant rn on i1or Darn pliance with the sirsambed altos #ion agreements as Mewed an page 14. Also, I re -coinrn encl that for erasion coin trol an expeft in erosion control should reviiew it and give their opinic ri knot are we g of rig to control erosion during construction and Mer construction. I t -s a b:g issue- Also, we've not seen a riri"alio n mon itoring and re purling plan. I thi nk tt)at, if people see it with the project, that iaeed s to be prepared and reviewed and we should get a chance to review that. I thi rrk thax's a major concern. to cultural resources, this draft E I R has not included cultural resources at the secleon, which is lypicaliy included. This E I R said that certain standard recommendalio�s will be rmplernente cl- blah, i�lat'r, bla -h, which is not fair. What is the pateontologica I sensil ivity of the area? There courd be some human remains, some other artifacts could be 1 here. There gourd be some about I nd ia:a um burial spaces, could be a rot of things. Thai need to be -considared in the EI R, it's not consid Bred. Fn fact, with this report I have attached a table showing the detailed cornme nts on vanous pages I: sv99"t lhat if we proceed with t he projIeet. why 1 dxon't (ecommend- I oppose that, this should be remiluated and the cultural sensitivities s mould be corn sidered. And Prow these standard cond Mons of approval will be implerne rated and monitored. It's not mentioned in The EI R. Arrd who will be responsible for cWa recovery and recla rnation of a rry cultural resources? Conslirrrction people are not expert for that — they just do work — somebody als-a should do that. And how will it be analyzed and catega rLzed — rt's not stated there. What is the pro-cedure and requirement in case of Native American burial encountered' It`s riiwiing — the Cultural Resources Section, is totally sine rrt- wNch is not good. Goy rag t rtr to biolog;cal resources, Mr. LP alre edy covered a lot. I'll cover a few things. Vvi II them be any - execution of conservation easem -ent in perpetuity or oaks woodlands as mentioned in the Qctcbiar 9, 2012 report? Again E I R is silent on that. Who will be irespon sibte for i nsurir7g oral seeding oaks aie estat)lished and monitoring for fine years? When will the pruning of the oak trees. be coaducled? And will consideration be given to the appropriate season, of pr uncng oak trees? A mitrga tiorl measure for the specific prese rvat4o n of 319 should be included. And on top of (haft, the loss of 45 oak trees out of 49 is a big loss and we are going to replant indigenous a -corns on the slopes which doesn't replace odk trues. It may take 25 to 50 years to grow so that's not a replacement of oak bees. So, in s urnmary. this E I R. in my opinion is rrol complete and does not a ddfe ss all the iterras. Arid also, as a neighbor I am Cori-cerned about erosion, fire and 1 he perenaneirit dill urba nca to the wildlife -corridor. That's it. Thank you very much, Cha irrn an Chiao — Thank you. Do any of the Corn mi ssioners name any questions of thps witness? Thank your. And I see Isere is someone else who would Irke to speak Prii oppmtion. grease sign pn if you would. Mr Tim W -endie r — Goad eve ni rag, my n ame is T inn Wenoler, and I'm the VKe -Chair of a local land trust and we worts to preserve natures open spaces. In an area of 90 acres as a significant resource in the reg io rw so I th ink it's •m porlant for us to wnsid er the val ue of mil- T he um — Ws va IUable in terms of wildlife cofridors even Ih.ough the applicant said that only on the order of Fo ur acres would be disturbs -cl it wou Id have a fundamerital disturba we ore the a bi lity of wildlife to use t he area I k now that deer are corn monl y+ seen in I he area For i rratanoe a nd it woVId Jusl be Yery disruptive in terms of lighting, noise and then the obatruciiorn of those oorridors, We like to say treat natural open spaces are a non - renewable resource. Once ycu build on it- it's gone and SO that's why I would urge you to think very carefully about MIS -decrsaorr that you have before you. Instead I think we should look at opportunities to bring this land into permanent protection as a natural open space whether its puichasinq it or a cori servation ease me rrt, the TranGC(ipt of Rain riiing Corti rrmisis ion Disicussion —Page 4 W 71 owner could tentially ga Ir1 Rix bene fits rf they sold it at a prI rte below the appraised value or If they put a conservation ea semenl they could be donated to a focal nvn• profit or the City or sore other entity that could in perm anent — in perpetuity protect that land as natural open space. Thank you. Chairman Uhiao — Thank you very much. 15 It3ere anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to This item? If so, please slop forward nor. Mr. Phil Consrgllo — I-iJ_ I'm Phrl Consiglio, pasl Prase dent of the Hrghla nds Homeowners Association. I Nve al 2215 Canyon Road, right up the hill From U)is pike of property I drive by rt avery morni ng on my ways to vmrk arI d every evening cm the way horse. I h2va a cou ple of Bars a!� do wf m of l he neig hbors i n the neigh borhood l"I h awe asked rn e to speak on their behalf People are afraid of one, how rk will look though we have re;?llyr no control over how it Ioo'ks. That's your posit on. As a member of the Arch iteclurak Review Board, I will: have some say :50 on how the houses look, but the fears of the seighbors. are, pa rticulafly the ones with the ~news that look out over Bluth Hill, that this will look like Bluth Hill and that's never going to be pretty They're afraEd of the driveway perhaps there's fear that a fire truck won't be able to negotiate that Driveway and lh ey'll have to Fight fires In lfrose hou!�e!� or n incl those house$ from the street which wIJI make It nearly impossible. And IYeere's fear that the i redigenou s landscaping when removed will never grow back and the stuff that irs replaced vmt'e is decomposed gran Ile up there, I know my ba ckya (d's. that way, there's con -cern that it will never to landscaped appropriately- Personally, I'd like to close wir#ti a question. Tliay're going to feernove 28008 yards. of dirt and they're not going to remove, the yf re going to rephace it and Ihey're going to dump some of in the existing gul ley behi nd Ifie pfoperty I f ftt becomes the stand erd will I be allowed ko cue the top of the hillside behind my house and dump it i rr the gully behind it'd Th al's my last ques4orl. Airight. Any quesbons for me? Thank you. Chi lern an Chilao — Thank you very rnurh sir. fs kriere a nyone else wno would 11-ke pea k in opposition to this item 7 Please sign in m a' earl if you would. Ms, Kahn Hanson — Hi. I'm Kann Hanson_ II live at 2109 C an yron Road, d ireclly below this project and I just want to reiterate just a 000ple of ooncem s that I know will affect me and several neighbors to my right looking down me hill. We're very concerned about ors Ibrlrty at the hill and the ampacl below us. Sort of the unintended consequence of whal all of this constructbn is going to mean for the houses that are Feall yr almost literally below this incline. I'm akso concemed about drainage- My home's been there for many manor years and we've newer had any kind of water problem through the years and I'm worried a bit a bo kit what's going to happen during storm season. How is that going to be he ndted and erosion is also a concern A6so I "m concerned about what's going 10 happen to Canyoo Road. 7tle road Itself Is -going to take quite a beating during this conslructian. And I'm not sure that that-s. been addressed. Perhaps I missed that. I haven't had a chance to — these are the drawings from the previGus approval. I am aoncefn€d again about conformity and IN2 size of the houses I would assume are going ko be l here given the size of Itie ped!� aria how they fit into l he rest of the neiighbor mood. T Yuan k you. Cha if an IZ;hiiao — I s there anyone else who would like to speak in opposlfion to this item? Mr- Robert Stover — Yes, my name is Robert Stover, I five at 178 Elkins Avenue in the Highlands. I anti the current President of the Highlands Homeowners Association and I would like to reiterate nioskly what's been slated already. I'm not familiar with the previovs proposal but Ill's my u ndersland irlg that the two houses that were proposed were against the street were Transcript of Rain riiing Ciom mis-a ion Discussion -Page :5 of 11 easily accessible to emergency Services was an acceptable format based on AR B comments. My concern is the same as others in regard to Iha fires. Notwithstanding tine EIR - I haven't read the EIR - but I was hire 14 -15 years ago when we did watch the fires come down to fence lines behind some of the properties at time north end of the Highla rids. I did just print out the fire zone, LA Gou nl+y fire zone map, which shows Trial evefyth irlg norq h of Sycamore, all the way up past into the forest area is a Nigh fire zo,re area. This is at the outer limit of that area. I'm concerned about access, as tras been mentioned, on a very small drrueway, service- access road, whatever you wane to call it. This is in the middle of a woodia nd area. One fallen tree is going to trap who$ver's in there, if it's a resident or a fire crew- we don't want to see that happen. And me comment that was made of vying to fight a fire above the street from She streel is a major concerin . I don't kr5ow what the lly's IraNlity might be some lime in the foese When I look at the fires we experienced down in Ban Diego, mun ici paki:ies that nave granted building permits in areas that are known to be fire zone areas; I can only imagine that in the Future there could be a potential Iiabil ity for the City. One of these, what did you lmow and when did you know it kind of lawsuits about well you knew 11tis was a high fire zone area and you allowed sore ebody w build anyway. You shouldn't have done that. N there a re deaths involved or property damage irtivolved. It's jWst a projection of wbak could be but I think that should be a consid eratio n. The previous plan to have the houses along the street would be a little more -consistent wrth what's i n the Comm unity and wh at -s i n the n eighborhood and if th a City Cound 1, or if the Phan ni ng Commission and the owners of ttrs property are will in g to go back to that proposal then I don't k now that filere s mucti objection to that config ur. ation. Thank fro U. Chairman Chiao - Thank you very much. Is there anyo r e else who would 4ke to speak in opposition to this item? please step forward. Mr. bean Obsl — I'm Dean Obsl, 2102 C anyo ri. Load- up me street from the development I have a hard lime seeing !hal there's any evide noe that outweighs the adverse impact on this. ,q aln. I agree that there was already a plan in pSaca two houses along grade of Canyon- And you're able to provide emergency services upon a pre- exisling street I kh ink it -Increases the risk and I know the EIR doesn't address 1 his but I fifer to Ratph as a local expert The emergency services get1rng to the properties up there that viere's no getting around it !hark they do create more fire exposure with pas and eleclrir-ity pumped rip there in the middle of a woodland area- Last Monday there was a news conference held. The CaVorma Depa rtmenl of Forestry and Fire Protection Director wa med that the devastation wrought in the massive botorado fire s hovId be a wake - vp call to the Californians Urn, iR was me worst fire 1 hat Cotorado`s ewer $eery. Two people lost Ittei r l es and nearly 500 homes were destroyed. They said do Ike news conference the mix of warm air, Banta Ana winds and scant rai of all create the exact sa me situation here in Cal ifornia. And I would encourage please tak a it into co ns ideration in protecting the residents and protecting the resources of the homsowners. In addition, the retaining w@ Its and what would be built along Canyon I don't feet is consistent The la ridscape — W there's nothing to Insure thal that Ia ridscape will be there over time as owners come and go. The retaining walls vii It still remain but the landscaping can dice. That's evident along Mulholland Dave. Triere's a lot of retaining walls mm are dust exposed at this point where there was landscaping. initially planted. I don't think I have anything further. Thank you_ Chairman Chiiao - is there anyGne else who would like to speak i n opposition to this item? Seeing none, would the applsr ant like to rebut any of the oom menks made in opposition? Mr. Yang - Just went to adaress two issues - one is the fire issue - The entire CRy of La Canada is Pr, high fire hazy rd zme- Also a good porhon of Si erra Madre is in hig h fire zone bW Transcript of gain ning Corn mis-S ion Discussion -Page 6 OF 71 new conslEuctaon Is approved constantly. I would like to th 3nk that wim o new street and new fire hydrant that coutd be placed on top of the street it would help with the fire hazard issues. And the fira street, the widih is approved by the City of LA, County of LA and Arcadia Fire Deparlm ant, 20 foot wide. :5ecorid issue Fs a bout the relaining wails. The previously approved two nouoes a1w have two rnaaaiae retaini ng walls be Ihind the ho uses. Th al l -hat we don't I hirrk es well as visual Pmpact wise we can't tlirnk Is tt)at great either. The only war those houses -could be built Is by retaining walls. Thank you- Chairman Cniao — Sir, I have a few gijestions for you if you don't mind We've heard an overwhelming group of comments related to opposing this item and some of them Beall with surface water and the range from fires that you've addressed -and the issues with removing healthy oak trees. As a Commission we have to abide by (fie Arcadia M un.icipal Code and unfortunately based on whal I've heard so far it appears that a lot of the development criterias that you're prapasi ng rare conflict with the Arcadia f lu niclpa I Cade and al I of what the neighbefs are seeking_ I mean all of what the neighbors are corn menling on. With regard to. how do you address the remova I of oak trees that a re hleafChy and structurall yf sound's What a re your t1tough1s on thal? Mr_ V ang — U m I thl ink out of 40 some oak frees, we are rem ovi n some, not of great numbers_ Vie are replaci ng back. I -don't have in solution for than. Cha irm an Ghia-o — Okay, Would you agree that lhat Would Cause exce -ssive or unnecessary scaring to the natural terrain or landscape? Yoi) know GP you were to remove 45 oak knees and then further encrcacrk upon a protecled area gf oak trees. Mr Ya rig — t don'l think we are remcryi ng 45 oaic 1 revs Cha irm an Ch iao — I was under the impression That a Certified Arborist had Jook ad at your s ubod proposal and determined t#I al out of the 128 oak trees on the subject property 45 of then would be hea li hy, 4 of them were dead a ad the gfoposal soijg hl to remove such trees 1S that I naccufat0 Mr fang — Pmaps you're righl. Thai number dicln:t fegisler. I didn'l think it was 45 cot of 128, 1 have d ifferant number in my head Chairman Ch iao — I mean I generally encourage development within the City that is sustainable and preserves conformity harmony wilh litre environmenl but I roea n hover do your accoijrrt for the opposition that we n ea rd tocay related to your project I mean harp us make a sound decision here I n your favor If possrble_ Mr Sid I.Momark — Mr C"Irman. if I may? Chairman Chrao — Please. Mr. Lrndmerk — There is an Arboftt report in the SIR tlml was prepared by Jan Scow You are correct in terms c f the number of removal but the mitigation measure shat is being proposed is not acorns but a one to one replacement of those oaks and it's goi rig to be axle nsivel y monitored I think for five years if my memory serves me Nht. When you Jock at the landscape plan itself, lhose fifty oars have al readyr been located on I he plan so it's a questiorn of the Arborist f ollowi rig up wrth the City to be assured that those trees are healthy and l"y will mature over woe. Transcript of Rain ning Com misision Discussion — Page 7 OF 71 Chairman Chiao - Thank you. Mr. Yang — I also like to address, the gentleman meal ioneo stout rnawra I open space anck donate lands. We'll be happy to donate the rest of ft 87 ages to any enthty to keep the natural open space - Chairman Chiao — Any other questions? Commis�siaiar Fat -ane - I hwe a question. Mr- Lindmark - I m4gh t ad'd a little bit more to the ret wttal- hairman Chiac - Actually sir, before you did- I believe one of the Commissioners has a question for Mr- Yang. Commissioner Falcone — How wide is IN driveway going up to the homes? Mr- Yang - Twenty feel. Commissioner Faizone - Twenty het wide' Mr 1'a ng — Yes Commissioner Falcone -Thank yore. Cha irrn an Ch Sao — Please note ttrat we are i n the portion of the public hears ngs that is geared to rebuttal sa please address only the issues that were rains d in opposition. Th ank fro u. Mr- t_indmark — Yes. defioitely. And to further answer the question that the Corn rniissioner just asked. The c rivewra y is designed to Fire Department standards. It has a Fare Department turnaround al the top, will likely have a fire hydrant at least at that to rnaro und. So it writ I provide better fire prowction and cerlain.ly+ better fire protraction for Ma homes dawn below because the Firs Depnrtmant will be able to gat up on that h it I and do what they do to fighl the fire arid haaa better aocess in do ing it As to drainage, we are colWing the water which is oom ing down the hill whkdh will ultimately go into our driveway. From there d will go into a detention basis to reduce the peak flour. Then it will go into a storm drain which goes undernealh, the sveet and ties into the flood control than nil- So we wirl to cantrollirig the drainage on drat hill much more completely thari it is now. Of coursa there's no control on the hill now Drainage, we did a hydroWgyf study and weril over it wilh your Dty E ng ineer and I think we have the drainage iss-te Very much under control. Pursuant to grading and landscaping thereafter, You know I'm from the Chfill Engineering side not The landscaping side- you know, we voarre done many subdivisions with tar more extenmiue slopes that a;rre on Ihis property- Most of tbos.e, if you went by today, you we uld rrol be able to fired the part that is graded- It is hard ground when we -re through with the grading because we ham 90% compaction hart you can grow new landscape on those slopes and we've certainiy done R many times in the past. We're also controlling debris that comes down the canyco because we'll be collecting it at the tennis ooud sate sc I don't Rnow what debris flows have troubled some of the homeowners in the past but this will redtrce that problem signfcantly+. Retaining ywalrs aria maximum of six feet high. They're used so we can grade as little of the property as� passibte- There's plenty of room to ptrt laridscaping in between those walls so they too can disappear or practically disappear once !hat landscaping is establi~. Six foot high wails are obviously nol terribly high and very -easy to lands pe out transcript of Plain ring com mis -sion Discussion — Rage 8 W 71 Horn es on the property s siting back frorn the edge of the slope - I sort of dou bt that once they are -completed That you'll even be able to see them from down belay certainly close up down below. So, if you have afly mere clijestions I'll be happy to answer- Commissio ner Parrille - I have a quesbon. will the retaining walls be on dourer side of the driveway or just on one side from the top of parcel 2 down the oanyi:W Mr- Lindmark - T here are retai ni rig wal Is - there's two walls on the low sede and I think it is a rn ultipre of three in certal n spats on the high side of the driv&way_ Commissioner Parrille - What's the average gradiem from ft top of paroel 2 down to Canyon Road? Mr. Lin -dmark - I'm sorry, Ine gradient from? Commissioner PaMile - The average g radi�ent from the top of parcel 2 to Canyon Road? Mr. Lindmark -Well the grace on the road! Itself would be IS%. Com mis.s10 rief Parrille - No I'm just - whal is. the grad-e from the top of parml 2 to Canyon Road? rnmissiorrar Falzone — The alavalian diffi"nos? Mr- Lindmark — Ch the elevation difference is about 140 feet I belies from the upper pad to the road- Commissioner PaoilW - So what is the percentage of grade from the top of pa reei 2 down to Canyon Road? Mr- Lindrmark - I haven't worked that out but of coursed you go direct you are basically going down the existing natural hillside with whatever grade exists on mat hillside. The reason that road wraps mound as it does is in or -der to k"p that road from beiN steeper than would be desired by the Fire aepwtmiaint, The Natural tkHl ray be one and a half to one of even as p as aria to arse in many places. Mr- Larry Crag — I f I may res pon b, there's a memo i n the attachment to the staff Feport that was written by the Fire Dapartm ant on the prior prq ecl and the slope, rniaximum slope that they require if 12%. Mr- Undmark — Mir apogogy I (org of that the City of LA allows 15%- We conform to the requiF19MSnt9 at 12. Commissioner Fal one — sad you say your grade was 15%? Mr Lindmark - I did say that initially because I knew i1 was set al the max grade Owt it- 5 at the max grade which you require which is flatter than what is cornimce in the City of Les Angeles. That's my mistake - hairman Chiliao - With regard to the treatment cf surface waters. or run -off of rain. Just so I can understa rid and I can visua laze this - the drainage system Thal you're proposing thirst cornes down the hillside and empties into what I — € guess what it would be a catch basic Itiat ultim alely transcript of Plain ning tom misl5ion mscussion — gage 9 of 71 goes i nto the storm dra in syslem - is that a zigzag formation that corn es down the rid i7 Or what does it look lik -e_ Just so I understand. Mr- Lindmark - No. tyre clracna+ge that collects on the upper pad would go into the road and would run dowry the road_ the drainage in It* lower pad wouw also go into the road and run down the road then we rapture that drainage at the I ast s harp curve almost a rig ht ang le curve We fiaptu re that d rai nage at that location and the n it goes into a detention basi n, a stormwate r mitigation basin, then into a storm drain that runs more or less straight down the hil l to the road below, u rEderneath I he road, and Iran into I he floop corktror cha anel Mr- Gray - M r. Chairman, the actual stormwatef pla n i n the E I R is on page 127_ It's at a very small soon Out I'rn sure the City staff can provide you with a I;? rgar scale exhibit that will snow all of lie d eteatkon basins and the drainage oysiern. Qhairm an Chiao - Thank you ~nary much. Thank Vau wery much sir_ Is there a frtotion to close the public heari rtgo Commissio ner Bera nek - So monad Commissioner Falzone — Second Chairman Chtao — Okay, Without objection, the motion has been doubly made and doubly approved. rs there any further dlscusslorti? Commissioner Bara nek - Mr. Chairman in listening to ilia testimony both for and against it Seems t-o me Thal I his project. Caused excessive u nnew!ssaryr scan rrg of the natural Ierfain and la rodscapmng th rough the re move I of vegetation. It cau ses un necessary alteration Io the ridgeli no and u nnecessary effect the view from the neighbors rrg sates. Al so. the E rwrcn menial report I do n't lhi nk can be certified because there's an unavadabl a adverse impacts and to r ertify we'd have to find testimony or documentation that world offset that adaefso effect through mitigation means and I don't see that. Chairman Chi ao - Are there any other c-ornm ents? Commissio rrer Parrirle - No. Cha irm an Chipao —So 3S there a motion then -on the to bled Cummissio ner Beranek -'des, All r. Chai rrna n, I'll move to deny TPAII 11.02 (71 1 B2) an d RM 11 01 and not certify the final impact report because it doesn't mitigate the unavoidable adverse finding and the proposal does rrol salisfy the findings on page 12 cause of direct exceSSiye and un rreces!�ary soefing of natural Iemain and landscape grading and removal of vegetation_ no. 2 cause unnecessary a Iterawn of a Age or crestl ine, no_ 3 unnecessary affect the view from neig hbaring sit -es. 4 adversely development or retard future development 5 it's inconsistent with the pro0sio ns of Rh a Rh1 Zone. I'd direct that Taff papa re a Resolu tion for adoption al ou r next meeting that i ncorporates the Com mission's specific findi ngs to deny th a program. Commissioner Parrille - Second. Chairman Chiao — Okay. May we have roll. call please. Transe ri fat of Pta nr1 i rig Comm i5Sion Disc u5 s ion - Page 10 of 11 Ayes: Commissioners Beranek, Faizone, Parrille and Mao Noes= None Chairm an Chiao - So the motion is approved for the denial of #his application and all b parts. There is a ten day appeal period after tyre denial of the su6diaision. Appeals of the subeivision denial are to be filed! by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Jury 3. 2.013. There s also a fte working day appeal petEod after " adoplion of the Resolution for the denial of the Residential Mwnlainous deaelopmeni permit. A Resolution reflecti N the diacisbn of fl-e Planning Commission will be presented fv adoplion at the next Ranning Commission meeting, Transc ri fat of Pfa nr1 i ng Comm i5Sion Disc wi %ion — Page 11 of I 1 FROM 1r EDESK OR RALPY 8fC 'ft 1. 01 WH[TE OAK DR. ARCADTA CA 91006 enzimmmighru i d4+ iii_ rr r Phone (626) 355-1773 Architectural Review Board Chairman FDr Arcadia Highlands Sr3bject: T -ontative; Parcel Olaf, No. TPM 11.02 CANYON ESTATE June 19.201 a Atleaiticm. Mr. Thomas Li Associate Plain rier 1 have raw reviewed [ he plans and Draft EIR docuFmilts for a proposed 2 -Cot Parcel [dap, which has been prepared and submitted to your office, and is now scheduled for PLIbtic HeaFiriz by the Arcadia Planning Commission on June 25, 2013. For lite reord, a[ this point l WY)LIld I -Ck a to Sta[a 111M 1have served as a member of the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners Aswelatior) Archilecl uraG Review Board for the past more than 3 0 yea and as Chairman of that Board sirwe 19$6_ Also, For the r -ecord, 1 would stare that 1 was trnploycd for over 37 years (1949 [o 1 986) 'in the Pasadena City Engineers office, 85 a staff' Engineer Daring m os[ of [hose ymrs my working title was "Permit and Subdivision Engineer," and I supervisad virwaliy aJ[ of [he Subdivision development that went through tl�ie ofl`rrtt_ My responsibilities included everything from meeting vAth the ]and developus when they firsr eon[acted Lhe City to hetp there get started aM stay on Lhe ri& track to accomplish their developments, My responsibilities also included supervision of the inspac[ors assigned to that plans and specifications were fol rowed. Thorw subdivisions inclined everything fr -orn (l) the simple d i vi slUrk of is fl at rectangular half acre or smaller prop" into two sacral let parce[s, to (2) the subd iaisions of large parcels or steep undeveloped hit aside land sometimes developed into 50 or rmre lots i rr the upper Hastings Ranch and Linda Vista hills area of Pasadena, lust above and west of the Rose Bow[. I have reviewed the plans and eavironmerltal documents submir[ed with this most recent of seveQl attempts that have been mode over the past 20 or more years Ln " to subdivide and develop the subject 80 acres of steep, rugged, tr -ee and brush oovered hillside- taeh of those previous requests, except for the last, most recent one in 2008 were denied by tie city. That last most recent 200$ regucsl was approved by the coy, with [he support area blessing of our Highlands HOA. Il also wa.5 for permission to divide the 80 acres into two 40 acre: Parcels. HDwever each of those 2 prgosed new parcels wtrre both proposed to have: a dui I di ng site right down chose to the Canyon Road rrontage of the property, in order to mini mite the need for any =rye grading aniVor earth 'moving than no nary Ro build an the 2 new p amd s- Approval of the 2008 request was also based orr the understandi na that except for the gr -adi ng necessary to accornmotlatc -construction of the 2 now homes rigout down along the Canyon Load b'on[age of the 80 acres, the remainder of the 80 acres would be rnai ntai ned in its gresen[ and i sturbad COMILion. * $10 * The Current plan calls ror ex cavation of approxim ately 27,340 cubic yards of carth, and fi I h; of approx imnlely 25,77!9 etibic yards -of material to mate [ he :2 propasW buili:!Mg sites, and a totally inadequate apprea i mately quarter m i Ic Long, steep, narrow, winding (20 feet wide) driveway up to ttse 2 proposed building pads, that w -ould be elmtcd approximately 100 and 150 feet respimtively above the level of anyotr Road. In fact the current plan as proposed could best be described as '*a "eta t far disasrerm because [he subject 80 acres of tree and brush, Covered land is bordered alai g its northwesterly boundary by the Angelcs National Forest land. See Page (2) for additional rom 'ments fie 0I is proposed development. r of OpporALW — Page 1 or 2 (Page 2) Additic its I coMMent s r• k!n-ig the or Yarce] Map. Potential Vorest_Fire Hnmi,d "The north- wasterly bounce of the subject 80 acres of laM is also th-e sourfiedy boundary of the steep, rugged Angeles l ;j6omal Forest. * * For -over the past 43 years 1 have been a resi dcnl of the H wghta nds. living just one block Soucy of the subjeCt 80 acres. "As a long time resident of the Highlands. [ ean elUrly recall that on at least 3 di fFcrent oecasitDas daring those 43 years, I sat up most of the nigh4 watching and praying that E he dangerous forest fires c h,at were burning down across the steep fate of the foss land Immediately nmh of the subject 80 acres would not reach our horn. Our good Arcadia Fite Departrnen4 along with help frorn some c F the Fire fighters from our neighboring cities, as wei I as the Form Service were able to slop the fi res, jugs a fear hn rrdred feet before they reached, the subject V acres -of land. This writer believes that it would be Wr} poor judgment on -the part -of the city W approve the divi Sian and development of the subject property as proposed by this appl imnt, and that the City of Arcadia could be found to have sorne leg -@l mgPonsibil ity and i iabil ity in the went of any future forest fires that might come dowry out of the National Forest land into the SO ecru and beyond into our H Shlands where it could easily damage or destroy hund reds homes. * *lubli o reeards gem to indicate that the subj pct 80 arms of un- subdivided I n rtd which the applimm clsi ms to own is in fact alrudy 2 sap =te parcel s, un lens the ownef cart shove evick nee t hat he wally own S the land that the Chantry Flats Road rr„wes over. * *The it E ical, Jury- rigged, and meanderling alig-nment that xhe applicant hu showy as a boundwy between the propmed parcels does not makc any sense. In ract it would he next to impossibTe for any future owner of either of the parcel to try to determine where That boundary between the 2 proposed parcels aurally is` "For each and all of the reasons and i nrorrrmatiw cited above this requc -St for approval should be den-3 Respectfully Su�rniv ed; Ralph Bicker Letwr of Opposition - Page 2 of 2 P EOLUTI'ON NO. 1877' A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE O I TY OF ARCAD IA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TEUTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLIOATJ O N NO. TP M 11 -02 (71182) AND RE S I DE NTiAl� MO U NTAI NOU5 DE VELOPM ENT PERM I T APPLE CATIC N N 0, RM 11- 01, AND NOT QERTfEYINO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED SUB-DIVISION AND GRADING OF A 90,25-ACRE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FOR TWO ( 2) PARCELS TO EACH EE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE -FAWLY RESIDENCZ AT 2711 -2121$ CANYON ROAD H E REAS, on January 24. 2011, Ft -051de ntia I Mountainous Deere lop went Permit Appi ication No_ R M I 1 -01 was submitted by M s_ Wendy WLr to grad-P a p l', ruxi ma tgly four (4) acra5 of a 90.25 -acre undeveloped prop -e rtY for hvo ( ) residentiat building sites and a Tennis Mort at 2111 -2125 Can yone Road: and WHEREAS. on April 12, 2011. Ten- tative Parcel Map Application No. TPt,4 11 -0 (71162) was fled by M r_ Ha ok Jong to subdivide a 90.25 -acre u n developed p raperty for two (2 � parcel's to each be developed with a single-family residence at 21"1-2125 Canyon Road; and WHEREAS. an I n iti al' Stud+ was conducted per the California Environmental Q ua lity Ac[ (C EQA) t hat identified potentia I ly sig n ificant in"Pacts to the enviro n anent; an d WH E IDEAS, a d raft E nvi ronmertlaJ I mPart Report (DE I R) was err pared puts ua i I l to C E QA ufdeJines; and WHEREAS, the D E I R was filled WRh the State Clearinghouse for rev ew by aspen si b le agencies frfl m March 15' 2013 to April 29, 201 .3; a nd H EREAS, the D E I R era s c irculated IcCally fc r pub I is review for a period of 45 days from March 18, 2013 to May 2 2013; anti Kvnnin�j Oarnrni551g�1 Ft;*ol-.tL r `Ip. "B ' - Pale 1 a.4 WH EREAS, a pu bl is hea r ng vLra s held by the PI a nning Corr] miss ion a n J u rte 25, 2013 at which time all interested persons were given fu I I a pportu nity to be heard and to present evidence. NOVA, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITE' OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLCVVS= SECTION 1- That the factual data submitted by the Devejo pment Services Department in the staff report dated June 25. 2013 are true and ,correct, ECJI_QN 2. That this Gorr-irnission finrlq the f tine Propgse d work and d c sig n of the Inns and driveway subject to 1 he Residential Mountainous' Devae lepmertt Permit world, 1- Cause excessive or u n n-E cessary scarring of the natural terrain and I-a n d scape through grading or r mOval of vegetEitfon, because the proposed project in wolves 25.707 cu bi n ye rds o f cut a nd an 2 q ual a rnount of fil I. th a r�meval of 4 5 healthy ea k tries, a nd the maid ificati an of the Ian dscapi ng .01 a 30 to 100 foot twi de buffer zon 5 around each building pad. 2_ Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line, because ti3e proposed h u i Iding Pads wilr'"Olve -2 0 LO 30 raet Of cut in ,come areas, a n d U p lu 50 f8et Of fill that will be d e pfl;s ited in a ravine on the west side of the property to ha la nce the cut, 3, Un n ecessa my affect the view from neighboring sites. because the proposed b4.ril d i n g pa .dsr W 90 feet and 140 feet above the street level. wijl be highly visit le from the neighboring properties, 1 he a li eration in l andform , the removal of vegetabon for the b u i Iding pads. and the potentla I development an the new boding pads, will adve re e.1y affect the view frorn neighboring sites_ Planning: Comrnission Reaorulion No. 1877 -- Page 2 of 4 4. Adversely affect exis =i n g development or rota rd futu r}� development in the R -M Zone, because the proposed developmnt is inconsistent with. the esla blished development pattem along Canyon Road. and will be a disruption of the existing mmun ity. E 'LION_ 3, That this C`nrn rni ssion finds that the proposed' Tentative Parcer Map Would likely cause $Lrbs to n tia[ environmental damage or su bsta nl i n Ily and avoidably Injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the 1310 posai will result in permanent la rtd form modifications that will by Fr ohily Visible gffsito, and coajdt ute to an u n a Voidable adverse impact or the environment as identified In the DEIR due to significant grading with 28,707 cubic yards of cut, an. eq Lral arnou nt of till. ramoval of 45 healthy oak trees, and removal of all existing Dreg etatlen in the graded areas- -SECTION 4- That this Corn mission fi ridgy chat there is Insufficient evil erne to sup13crt the certification of the final EnVironmontal Impact Report (FE I R) In that the proposed project cannot be altered to adequately m itlgate a significant eavircnFM ntal effect as required -by Section 1 5091 of the CEQA Guidelines. and that a Statemnt of Overriding Consideration neuld not be made as required by SoGtIon 1 5093 of the CEQA Guideli n es. SECTION S. That for the foregoing reasons this Ccmmiss is n denies Tentative Parcel flap App IicaWn. No. 1i PM 11-02 (71182), and Residential M ountainoLra Development Perm[[ A pp I ica bola No. FAA 11 -01, and does not certify the FEI R for a proposed subdiviapon and grading of a 90.25 -acre u n developed property in the foothills of Arcadia for two ( 2) parcels IQ each be developed with a single-family residence at 2111-2125 Canyon Road. Plan nrng Commission RasolugiCirl NCi, 1 077 —Page � of A SECTION 6 rho 8evrel:ary i$melf i si ry to the. -rje1aption of ihi.,; p�e;:ojuteoir, P .sm, Onoroved a r +d aaop c rJ thm 94A O .Dy of _ 4411 , 20 13 Ai If %r- API ROVE D AS TO FORIA f L �> ai ral an °li -ckn nrn g C umll ' ihb�iQn PIanning Commir;r;ion Resolution No, 11577 — Page 4 of 4 Statement of Facts and Findings Section 15091 M the C EQA G u ids lin as p rovides f he following c6te ria fo r a Slatoment of F -ads and Findings, (a) No public agency shaft approve or carry out a profact f6r which an EIR has beer? certffoed which ids; lrpres one or more significant error }rorrmeqtaj eft-Us of the project unfess the public agency makes one or morn wrf€ten findings for-each of those sfgofficant effects, acmmparrred by o brief ex larration of the rallonaic for each f ndfrrg_ The po ssib €e findings are, (f) Charrges or afteratfons have been required r -A, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or subslantrally lesser+ the signiricant environmentaf effect as hdentfffed in the final EIR. (2) Such Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and furisdrerrorr of another public agency arro not the agency making the finding- Such changes ha ve been adopted by such a(her agency or can and .9hoWd be adopted by ,FucF7 of her agency. f3) Speerfc economocr legaJ, social, technological, or other considerations. including provision of orrrpfcyme;al opporltrrrllles for larghfy trawled wprkers, make infeasible 1ho m1frgatrorr meastores or project alternatives idenlrf+ed in the Anal EIR. (b) The Findings roquefed by subdavisoon (a) shall be supported by sLrLmlarr[rs t eirrdence in Me raoord- (c) The Finding in Sirbdrvrsrcrr (a) f2) shall -rot be made if the agency MakfR9 the finding has corrcurrent jerrrsdiction with another agency io deaf with iden trf ed feasible rrrrtrgatiorr measures or alternatives. The fioding in subsection (a) (3) shall describe the sp rroc reasons for re)eeting rdenfi e d m.•trga[ron measures and project a�temafivas. (d) When makiag the Fendings rejuired in subdivision (a) (1), the agency shall ai so adopt a program for reporting on or rrranrtorfrrg the -changes which it has ellher required on the pro ect ar made a CondWoo of approval to avofd or substantially{ lesson sfprrtlicant on vironmental effects- These measures mast be fully enforceable through permit corrorilions, egreer enis, or other mess -Tres. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of tyre documents or ottrer material which constijule the record of the proceedrrigs upon whkh its decWon is based, (0 A slatement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not s ubstiluee for the findings required by turfs see€ an. Cirri a for Stgernem of Forks ang Find inq$ Statement of Overridina Consideration When an E I R d iscI a s an Unavoidable Adve rse Impact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration must be made by the decision-making body in order to rk,fy the E I R, The Statem ent must ci to b en efits of t he proPoscd p reject th at outwe ig h the Lrnavoida b le adverse environmental impacts, :Section 16093 of the C EQA G u ide Iines s:alos the fa) CEQA raqu&f" s the decis,ors- making agency to balance a$ the economic, fegal, so6ai, lechnologkal, or ocher benefits of a proposed preject against its unavoidable env ronmental risks when -determining whcthar to approve the project. if the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a pr- QpQSi:id project oulwefgh the unavoidable advoNe envrronmorrtol off -ctsr U G adverse arivirorrmenlal effects rney be coasidered "acceptable_ (b) When the fea d agency approves a project which wflf resuft fir the occar(ence of signi{icani effects rMich are Eden ifed in the Errol EfR but are not avoided or substan ially fe�soned, the zgency shall state in wrrfirrg the specific reasons to support its acffon based on the final EIR andlor ocher infomaalrarr in the record- The slafarrrerrt of cvanrding consfderaffons shall be sapporled by subsfanfial evidence in the record- (u) If an agency makes a sialarnent of overkfirig considerations, the slalom-ent should -be inctuded in the record of the project approval ancf shout/ be rr onl oned in the notice of determination. Thy statement dares not substitute far, and shall he ir1 adds rr ter prrrdings required pursuant to Section 15091, rir!Brio for StatemenI of Overriding Cons ideratton City of Arcadia " — Pfanning impartment Planning CornmEsslon 240 W. Hunlingtan DrIve, Arcad ia, CA 9111766 JUL 10 N13 7�1��013 Nfwis Capita I LLC 9674 Te Ista r Awl,, C. Ea Mun Le- CA 131731 RE; Appeal kt#F,-r for proposed su h-d IvIslon at � 111 -2125 "on Road, Arcadib, CA Public Hearing Date — W5{2013 Cea r Sir /Madam, Phase arrept (�is letter as formar appeal reque$t for Items, i, TerLtatiVe Parcel Map No" Ti PM 11 -02171183 ) 2- Aesidential Mountainous Deve-lopment Permit -NOL RM 11LQ3 We wou Id like to request planning tei m mi 5sion to reconsi d er the a RPrava I of t he proposed su bd iviisi¢n Orld 9fading of 90-25 acre ur de velap -ed property in the foothlft of Apcadia- thank vou and rook forwa rd to h -Par from you_ I�gard�, Tia-)ert Lee Nevis copliar LLC Appellant i Appeal Lwow RESOLUTION NO. 6091 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA_ CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDJNG THE PLANNING OOMMISSJON'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARC EL MAP APPLICATION N D_ TPM 11 -02 (71182). AND RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLI CATION NO. IRM ;1 -01, AND REJ ECTI NG THE C ERT1 FICAT I ON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A 90, 2 5 -AORE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY FOR TWO (2) PARCELS TO EACH BE DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE - FAMILY R E S I DE NO E AT 2111 �2125 CANYON ROAD WHEREAS_ on January 24, 2 011. Residentia I Mou Msinvus Dt:rvalopment Perm it Apptication No, R '11 -01 was submitted by Ms. Wendy Wu to grade approxirnaWly four (4) acres of a 90.25-acre undeveloped property for two (2) residential building situ and a tennis court at 2111-2125 Canyon Road; and HEREAC. Q n April 12. 2011, TentatWe Pa reel Map Apptication Pao_ TIM 11 -02 1182) was filed by M r_ Ha n k Jong to s ubdivide a 90.25 -acre undeveloped property for two (2) Parcels to each be de% eloped with a single-family residence at 2111 -212b Canyon Dead; and WHEREAS. an Inil iiaJ Study was conducted per the California Environmental (�ualr y Act (C EQA) that identified pneti rntia I Iy sig 17 ifir„ a r i l im pacts tri th E.� i!� nvi rc n meat; a nd WHEREAS. a draft E nvi rorimenW I Impact Report (DE 1 R) was pre p a reel purl uari.4 to CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the DE I R was tiled with the SUte Clearinghouse for review by responsible agencies from March 15. 2013 10 April 29, 2013; and WHEREAS, the D E.IR was ci rcu Iated Iocai y for pub lio revie w for a peric d of 45 days from March 18, 2013 to May 2, 2018; and WHEREAS a p u b I is h eadn.9 was held by I he P lannirrg Com m ission on June 25, 2013 at which time a IJ interested Persons were given full op portu ri ity to be heard and to -7- 6991 present evidence, after which the Plan n ing Commission Voted to deny the a PpI icatio ns, a rid rejected certification of th e f n al Environmental Irnpaot Jae port (FE Ifs), a nd erg J my 9, 2013, the Pila n n i ng Comm ission adopled Resolution No. 18 77 to formalize the denial of th a applications an d non -car t f cation of the FE I R; and WH EREAs, an July 10, 2D13. within the prescribed five-working-day appeal period. Mr. Talon (gaff) Lee, President of Nevis Capital LLC, submitted an appeal to the City C ours cil of I he Planning Comm issioi7 denial's, and WHEREAS. on August 20. 2013. a public hearing was held before the City ounclJ on said appeal of the app liratioas, at which time a Il interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. N OW. TH ERE FO RE, TH E CITY CO UNCJ L OF TH E C ITY OF ARCADIA 00 E5 F I ND_ D ETERMI N E AN D R ESO LVE AS FOLLDW& SECTION 1. That the factual data s u bm Itt d by the Oeae lopment Bervr ces Dep a rtme rat i n the sta ff repo rf d algid August 20, 2.013 ;� re true and correct. Ul O —N2. That t h is City C ou nci I finds that the proposed g rading end des ign of the I0ts arid driveway :Wbfect to th-e Reside ntiai Mo Lrntainous Developm en4 permit 1- Cause excessive or unnecessary scam ng of the natural terrain and landscape through g ra dl ng or removal of aeg otation, because the proposed project i nvoJaes 28,707 cub is ya rd s of cut a n d an e-q uaJ a mou nt of f I I, the rem oral of 4 5 healthy oak trees, a nd the mod ifi ca tion of the Ian dscapi ng of a 30 to 1 -00 loot grade b uffer zone a rou nd each bu i Iding pad- -2- 6991 2. Cause unnecessary alterat[ o n of a ridge or crest Ifn e, because the propo d building pads wild inaoilve 20 to 30 feet of cut in some areas, and up to 50 feet of fill that wiif be deposited in a ravi ne o n the west side of the grope rty to balance th a cut. 3. Uanecossarify affect the viev; from neighboring sites, because the proposed b Wd ing pads, at approxim a tely v. 0 feet and 140 feat above the street level, wjJ1 -be h ighly vii b le from the neighboring properties. The a Ile ration in Iandform, the .removal of Vegataf nn fQr the 5 u ildiog pads, and the potential d evelopmeo t ur i the riew building pads, will a dve rsel y s Ffeot the view from neigh boring ,sites. 4, Adversely affent existing development or refs rd future development in the R- M Zone, because the proposed development is [ncunsiste nt with the asi ablished -development pattern along Carryon Road, and Wf IJ be a di srupti urr of the ex[sting communi#y- E�TIQN I That tftfs City Council finds that the p rap osed Tentative Marcel Map and the proposed fmprovr rnents wi)uld I[ ke Iy ca use substantfal environmental damage or sub5tantia liy and awoldably injure fish or wildlife or their ha bi -at, and injuriously affect the neirgffti t is -od ber_;au9e the proposal will result in permanent landform modifications that will be NO h ly risible offsite, a nd contribute to an unavoida ble adverse impact on the env[ ronm eni ;� s identified. in the DEI R due to significant grading with 28,707 cubic yards of Cut. an equal amours of ffl I, removal of 45 healthy oak trees, and removal of ail existing vegelat-on in the graded areas. SECTION 4. That this C i-Y Council finds ds that there is insufficient evidence to support tho oerNficallon of the final Envi ronmenta I lnoa r t Report (FEI R) in that 1 he Proposed project C-s n not be s Iterc d to adequately mwq ate. a significant envi ron rnerrmai -3- 6991