The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7111 RESOLUTION NO. 7111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. TPM 14-01 (72681), AND RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. RM 14- 01, AND REJECTING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A 90.46-ACRE PROPERTY AT 2111-2125 CANYON ROAD WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 14- 01 (72681) and Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 14- 01 (collectively known as the "Project") were submitted by Mr. Scott Yang of Nevis Capital, LLC, to subdivide a 90.46-acre undeveloped property into two (2) parcels to develop one parcel with one (1) single-family residential building pad, and one parcel to remain as undeveloped open space, with approximately 1.34 acre of grading at 2111- 2125 Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code Section 2100 et seq.), a draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared for the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2014041113; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 24, 2015, for review by responsible agencies from March 24, 2015 to May 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the DEIR and Notice of Availability were released for public review for a period of 45 days from March 23, 2015 to May 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said Project and DEIR, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, after which the Planning Commission voted to deny the applications, and rejected certification of the final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and on June 23, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1939 to formalize the denial of the applications and non-certification of the FEIR; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, within the prescribed five-working-day appeal period, Mr. Scott Yang of Nevis Capital, LLC, submitted an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission denials; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2015, the City Council set a hearing date of September 15, 2015 for the appeal; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, at the request of the appellant, Mr. Jeff Lee of Nevis Capital, LLC, the hearing was postponed to January 19, 2016, to allow additional time to work with an entity to accept a conservation easement, or a transfer of land of the undeveloped parcel; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2016, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on said appeal of the applications, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated January 19, 2016, are true and correct. SECTION 2. This City Council finds, based upon the entire record: 1. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. FACT: The Project would require 7,000 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill to provide an access road and building pad. The Project would also require the -2- removal of 32 City-protected oak trees and other vegetation. The significant landform modifications necessary, and the removal of a large number of protected trees and other vegetation by the Project, make it physically unsuitable for the type of development. 2. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. FACT: The DEIR identified an unavoidable adverse short-term aesthetic impact due to the 7,000 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill to create the access road and building pad. The building pad would be at the upper portion of Parcel 1, and the removal of all vegetation in the graded areas and the landform modifications would be highly visible offsite, even at great distances. The grade cut for the building pad and access road would be approximately 16 feet and 10 feet tall, respectively. The Project would also require the removal of 32 City-protected oak trees. The EIR presented an alternative that would avoid this damage and injury to the wildlife habitat. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. FACT: The substantial grading of 7,000 cubic yards of cut and an equal amount of fill will disturb the natural soil and terrain of this hillside property. This will subject the neighboring properties to potential slope instability, erosion, and runoff. Although there will be mitigation measures in place to minimize the impacts, the Project would pose an added danger to the surrounding neighbors once the natural hillside is graded and disturbed. -3- 4. That the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein said lot is located. FACT: The Project, with the substantial grading necessary, will pose a hazard due to potential increased slope instability. Furthermore, the grade cut for the building pad and access road would be approximately 16 feet and 10 feet tall, respectively, which will significantly modify the natural landforms and will be visible from the neighborhood, and from great distances. SECTION 3. That this City Council finds that the proposed work and design of the lots and driveway subject to the Residential Mountainous Development Permit would: 1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation. FACT: The DEIR identified an unavoidable adverse short-term aesthetic impact due to the significant grading required for the proposed access road and building pad. A total of 7,000 cubic yards of cut and fill is required for the Project. Furthermore, the Project will remove 32 City-protected oak trees in addition to other vegetation for the proposed grading. The EIR presented Alternative 5, which would reduce or avoid the scarring of the natural terrain and landscape. 2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line. FACT: The Project will cut into the hillside to an approximate depth of 16 feet, at a location that is only 25 feet below the ridgeline. This excessive grading contributes to the unavoidable adverse short-term aesthetic impact. The EIR presented the approved, -4- Alternative 5 that would reduce or avoid the substantial alteration of the ridge or crest line. 3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites. FACT: The building pad would be at the upper portion of Parcel 1, and the removal of all vegetation in the graded areas and the landform modifications, with grade cuts for the building pad and access road of approximately 16 feet and 10 feet tall, respectively, would be highly visible offsite, even at great distances, and particularly visible from nearby surrounding properties. 4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone. FACT: The Project would adversely affect existing development due to the unavoidable adverse impact of short-term aesthetics. The necessary grading would substantially modify the natural land forms with grade cuts for a building pad and access road that would be approximately 16 feet and 10 feet tall, respectively. These substantial modifications would be highly visible offsite, even at great distances, and be a detraction from the desirability of the neighborhood. 5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential-Mountainous (R-M) Zone. FACT: The Project is inconsistent with the provisions of the Residential- Mountainous (R-M) Zone because of the aforementioned findings. The significant grading necessary for the Project would unnecessarily scar the natural terrain and landscape, cause unnecessary alteration of a ridgeline, unnecessarily affect the view -5- from neighboring sites and from great distances, and would adversely affect existing development in this zone. SECTION 4. That this City Council finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the certification of the final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in that the potential added danger to the surrounding neighbors and properties by the Project was not adequately addressed, and the proposed Project cannot be altered to adequately mitigate a significant environmental effect as required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that a Statement of Overriding Consideration could not be made as required by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 5. That for the foregoing reasons this City Council denies the appeal, and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 14-01 (72681), Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 14-01, and the Planning Commission's decision to not certify the FEIR for the Project. SECTION 6, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] -6- Passed, approved and adopted this 2nd day of February , 2016. M r of 47 y of Ar adia ATTEST: qty Cle k APPROVED AS TO FORM: s=.„.,,i4,„ _it eitr--461, Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -7- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, GENE GLASCO, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 7111 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of February, 2016 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Beck, Tay, and Kovacic NOES: Mayor Pro Tern Chandler ABSENT: Council Member Segal City ' of the City of Arcadia 8