HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1b - Revisions to Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-08 (71182) for single-family residences at 2111-2125 Canyon Road
DATE: September 19, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa L. Flores, Planning/Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Jordan Chamberlin, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7180 APPROVING REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-08 (71182), RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RM 07-01, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO.
TR 08-04, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
UPDATED ANALYSIS FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND GRADING FOR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AT 2111-2125 CANYON
ROAD
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
The applicant, Nevis Capital, LLC, has submitted revisions to a previously approved project for a two-lot subdivision and grading of a 90.63-acre, undeveloped property in
the foothills of Arcadia at 2111-2125 Canyon Road (APNs: 5765-002-013 & 5765-002-
014). The request is to incorporate a new crib wall system to allow the two, single family
residences to have side and backyard areas rather than being built directly into the
hillside. An updated grading plan, Arborist Report, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis have been submitted to evaluate the revisions.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7180 (Attachment No. 1)
approving Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-08 (71182), Revised Residential
Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01, and Revised Oak Tree Permit No. 08-
04 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration and updated environmental analysis.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently undeveloped with an undisturbed mountainous hillside
area containing native vegetation. Santa Anita Canyon Road runs diagonally through
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 2 of 18
the property from the southwest to the northeast – refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity. 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 Overlay with minimum 10,000 square-foot lots, to R-M&D –
Residential Mountainous Single-Family and Architectural Design Overlay. The zone change was approved and enacted by the City Council on October 18, 1977.
In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide the subject property into 11
lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 00-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM
51941) but withdrew the applications before being considered by the Planning
Commission. In 2003, Nevis Homes submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the property into seven lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 03-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 51941). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal
due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts and the City Council
subsequently denied the applications.
In 2007, Nevis Homes submitted another proposal for two developable lots and a third remainder parcel. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776 on August 26, 2008, to conditionally approve Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-05 (69775),
Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01, Oak Tree Permit No. TR
08-04, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. These entitlements were to subdivide the
subject property into three parcels with Parcels 1 and 2 to be developed with new, single-family residences along Canyon Road, and Parcel 3 (80.33 acres) to remain undeveloped and be dedicated as open space. As a condition of approval, a mitigation
measure required a non-refundable, $200,000 deposit to the City to endow the
maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land that was to be
maintained as open space.
Following approval, the developer determined that this project was not financially 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 – refer to
Attachment No. 3 for the 2010 Approved Plans. 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. However, subsequent to the approval, it
was the applicant’s assertion that there is no market for the lot configuration approved by these applications, which have the building pads fronting on Canyon Road and back walls of the house that are built into the hillside. As a result, the applicant began work
on a revised project.
In 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6991 to deny Tentative Parcel Map
No. TPM 11-02 and Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 3 of 18
11-01 for a subdivision of the subject property into two parcels, with a new, single-family residence on each lot, and a tennis court situated above on a filled ravine on the westerly portion of the property. An access road was proposed as a driveway for the
building pads that would be situated approximately 90 feet and 140 feet above the
access point at Canyon Road. The proposed development would have required
substantial grading of approximately 3.9 acres of the property. The proposal included the removal of 45 healthy oak trees and 4 dead oak trees, and encroachment into the protected zone of 35 oak trees.
In 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7111 to deny Tentative Parcel Map
Application No. TPM 14-01 (72681) and Residential Mountainous Development Permit
Application No. RM 14-01 for a subdivision of the subject property into two parcels, with a single-family residence on an 11.68-acre parcel and a 78.78-acre parcel to remain as undeveloped open space. Similar to the project denied in 2013, an access road was
proposed as a driveway to the building pad that would be situated approximately 90 feet
above the access point at Canyon Road; it would have required significant grading to
the property and the removal of 32 City-protected oak trees and other vegetation.
The denials of the 2013 and 2016 projects were based on the City Council’s determination that the proposals would likely cause substantial environmental damage,
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, and injuriously affect
the neighborhood because the proposal would result in permanent landform
modifications that would be highly visible offsite and contribute to an unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The City Council also received testimony from residents who were in opposition to the proposal due to similar environmental concerns as well as
how visible the proposed residences would be and the potential impact to views. The
City Council also found that there was insufficient evidence to support the certification of
the EIRs in that the proposed projects could not be altered to adequately mitigate a significant environmental effect, and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations could not be made for the Unavoidable Adverse Impact.
Following the denial of the 2016 project, a lawsuit was filed by the applicant, Nevis
Capital, LLC. After discussion, a settlement and tolling agreement (“Agreement”) was
reached between the two parties in which Nevis Capital agreed to modify the site design that was approved by the City in 2010 with a new crib wall system to allow the two homes to have side and backyard areas rather than have the homes built directly into
the hillside.
DISCUSSION
In compliance with the Agreement, the applicant has submitted revised plans to subdivide the 90.63-acre site into two parcels for the future development of two, single-family residences. Parcel 1 will be 1.99-acres and Parcel 2 will be 88.64-acres – refer to
the image below and Attachment No. 4 for Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-
08 (71182). Both lots are proposed to be developed with a single-family dwelling. The
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 4 of 18
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 applicant has provided
preliminary architectural drawings
of the two homes. Each house is
proposed to have five bedrooms, the house on Parcel 1 will have four and a half bathrooms and the
house on Parcel 2 will have five
and a half bathrooms. At this time,
the homes are proposed with approximately 5,000 square feet of livable space with attached three
car garages, and various outdoor
areas will be provided. The
applicant is requesting a side yard setback modification to allow Parcel 1 to have a first floor side
yard setback of 32’-0” whereas
45’-5” is required and a second
story side yard setback of 29’-0” whereas 90’-11” is required on the northerly side of the property. The design of the homes can be described as Modern Ranch style with contemporary features such as flat and pitched rooflines, a combination of lap siding
and stucco, and large windows – refer to Attachment No. 5 for the Preliminary
Architectural Plans. The property is located within the Highlands Homeowners’
Association. It is important to note that the final architectural design of the two homes is subject to review and approval by the Highlands Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and the overall mass, scale, and design elements could change.
A total of 5,330 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill are needed to create the
building pads and outdoor areas for the two homes. A new crib wall system, as
specified in the Agreement, is proposed on both properties. The crib wall will range in height, with a maximum height of 38’-8” in the rear yard of Parcel 1. The crib walls and additional retaining walls on the two properties create the flat side and rear yard areas
for the homes which provide outdoor spaces – refer to Attachment No. 6 for the
Conceptual Grading Plan and Sample Crib Wall Design.
Due to the proposed grading and development of the two lots, two healthy Coast Live Oak trees and one healthy Sycamore tree will be removed, and four Coast Live Oak trees will be encroached upon – refer to Attachment No. 7 for the Revised Certified
Arborist Report dated April 24, 2017.
In summary, the proposal in front of the City Council includes grading, pad placement,
crib walls, side yard setback modification, tree removals, and the general location of the
The proposed two lot subdivision
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 5 of 18
two new homes. The final design and appearance of the two new homes, will, however, be subject to approval from the Highlands ARB. The various elements of the proposal are described in detail below.
Revised Tentative Parcel Map
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Residential Estate for up
to two dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R-M&D, Residential Mountainous with an Architectural Design Review Overlay which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) per lot. The proposed subdivision will create two parcels, Parcel 1 will be
1.99-acres and Parcel 2 will be 88.64-acres. The proposed subdivision will allow for
single-family residential development that is consistent in character with the Residential
Estate designation as described in the City’s General Plan, and in compliance with the minimum lot size and dimensions for the Residential Mountainous Zoning Regulations.
Revised Residential Mountainous Development Permit
The new Development Code that went into effect in December 2016, does not include a
Residential Mountainous Development Permit process. This type of application is now
handled through the City’s Site Plan and Design Review application and a grading permit. The Residential Mountainous Development Permit under the previous Code stated that no person shall grade, excavate, or fill in the R-M zone without a
development permit from the Planning Commission, or the City Council, upon appeal, if
such grading, excavation, or filling is in excess of 15 cubic meters (19.62 cubic yards).
Because the applicant is modifying the project approved in 2010, staff’s analysis will be based on the requirements from the previous Code. However, the new Site Plan and Design Review process achieves the same goals and the review and analysis process
is essentially the same.
The proposed project involves approximately 5,330 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic
yards of fill. The portion of the site that will be graded is approximately three acres on the west side of Canyon Road. In accordance with the Municipal Code, all cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a 2:1 slope. Additionally, the grading will include concrete
swales, catch basins, planters, retaining walls, crib walls, and drain inlets to minimize
erosion and runoff. The crib wall system will be landscaped, and will structurally blend
into the hillside. Some of these features are depicted on the Conceptual Grading Plan – refer to Attachment No. 6.
An estimated 377 truck trips will be necessary to haul the graded earth material to the
Puente Hills Landfill. The proposed truck route is south on Canyon Road, to Elkins
Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 Freeway, east to the 605
Freeway, south to the 60 Freeway, and east to the landfill. Engineering Services has reviewed the proposed truck route and has determined that the proposed route is the best option. As a mitigation measure in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”),
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 6 of 18
grading activities are limited to the months of April through October to minimize the impact on nearby property owners and avoid the rainy season.
Once grading is complete, the construction will begin on two, single family residences
that will be accessed off of Canyon Road; no new roads are proposed. The homes will
be setback approximately 28 to 37 feet from the street and the building pads will be a
maximum of 35’ above the street, well below the ridgeline to preserve existing views of the hillside, and substantially below the location of previously denied submittals.
Crib walls, a type of retaining wall, will retain the slope to help create side and rear yard
areas for both building pads. No administrative modification is needed for the height of
retaining walls located in hillside areas but this can be considered as a part of the
Revised Residential Mountainous Development Permit. The proposed crib walls will vary in height, with a maximum height of 38’-8” in the rear yard of the home proposed on Parcel 1. The crib walls will be landscaped and will structurally blend into the hillside.
Side yard setback modifications were previously approved as a part of the 2010
Residential Mountainous Development Permit. The approved modifications allowed the
following:
• For Parcel 1, a first story side yard setback of 31’-0” in lieu of the 10% or 45’-6”
requirement, and a second story side yard setback of 16’-0” in lieu of the 20% or
91’-0” requirement.
• For Parcel 2, a first story side yard setback of 16’-0” in lieu of the 10% or 22’-5” requirement, and a second story side yard setback of 31’-0” in lieu of the 20% or
44’-9” requirement.
Site planning and proposed home placement has been modified for the current project.
The applicant is requesting a side yard setback modification to allow Parcel 1 to have a first floor side yard setback of 32’-0” in lieu of the 45’-5” required and a second story
side yard setback of 29’-0” in lieu of 90’-11” required along the northerly property line. A
modification is no longer needed for Parcel 2. The reduced setback will be adjacent to
the new home proposed on Parcel 2 and will not impact any existing residences. The
home will have a southerly side yard setback of approximately 310 feet adjacent to existing residence at 2109 Canyon Road. The lot width of Parcel 1 is approximately 454
feet wide along the front property line, more than double the width of any of the adjacent
lots along Canyon Road. Given the development constraints of the hillside, the fact that
the proposed lot is significantly wider that the other lots in the area, and that there will
be no impact to existing residences, the proposed side yard setback modification for Parcel 1 is appropriate.
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 7 of 18
Protected Trees
An updated arborist report was prepared by certified arborist, Jan Scow in April 2017 – refer to Attachment No. 7. The updated arborist report is based on the City’s current
tree preservation regulations adopted in 2016. There are over 100 protected trees of
various species on the entire 90.63-area site; 16 protected trees are located within
relatively close proximity to the proposed project area. Of these 16 trees, three are healthy protected trees proposed to be removed and four are protected Coast Live Oak trees that are to be encroached upon by the proposed development.
The three healthy protected trees to be removed include a multi-trunk Coast Live Oak, a
23” diameter Engelmann oak, both located on Parcel 1, and a 28” California Sycamore
located on Parcel 2. As mentioned previously, there is a substantial amount of grading necessary to create the building pads and side and rear outdoor areas for the two proposed residences. The proposed grading activity will result in the loss of the trees.
The goal of the Tree Perseveration Ordinance is to preserve oaks, sycamores and
mature trees because they are significant aesthetic and ecological resources. While
loss of trees is always carefully evaluated, it should be noted that previous iterations of this project called for the removal of many additional trees. Care has been taken to minimize tree removal in this proposal. To this end, over 100 protected trees will be
maintained on the subject properties. With the mitigation measure from the MMRP that
Oak tree acorns be planted into the slope and in the arborist report that two Western
Sycamores and four Coast Live Oak trees be planted on site, the removal of the three protected trees will be sufficiently mitigated.
There are four Coast Live Oak trees whose protected zones will be encroached upon by
the proposed project. Two trees are located on Parcel 1 and the other two are located
on Parcel 2. Grading, excavation, new drainage, crib walls, and the proposed structures
will encroach into the protected area of these trees. Tree 201 and 219 will be the most impacted by the proposed construction. Due to the proposed crib wall, root loss may occur to Tree 201 which is located on Parcel 2. Tree 219 is a very large Coast Live Oak
tree located on Parcel 1 above the proposed driveway and house. Excavation and
grading for the crib wall, drains, and proposed residence will have significant impacts on
the tree. As such, the arborist has provided specific steps in order to preserve this tree, including a structural support system to reduce the chance of whole tree failure and as well as requiring oversite by the arborist during any pruning and the construction of the
crib walls. The Arborist has concluded that with protective measures outlined in the
report, the development will not have an adverse impact on the health of the oak trees
and will minimize any safety concerns.
Planning Commission Hearing
At their July 25, 2017, regular public meeting, the Planning Commission considered
Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-08 (71182), Revised Residential
Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01, and Revised Oak Tree Permit No. 08-
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 8 of 18
04. During the public hearing, five neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposed project. The neighbors raised concerns regarding the number of truck trips that would be generated from the project, removal and encroachment into the protected area of the
existing oak trees, safety during the construction period, and the maintenance and
future development of the undisturbed hillside. The size of the homes, the architectural
style, neighborhood compatibility, and height and stability of the proposed crib walls were also issues stated by the neighbors – refer to Attachment No. 8 for the July 25, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. The Planning Commission closed the
public hearing and, after much discussion, voted 4-0, with one Commissioner absent, to
adopt Resolution No. 1999 (Attachment No. 9) recommending approval of the
applications to the City Council with the following conditions:
A. The applicant shall deliver to the City and record a restrictive covenant or similar instrument on Parcel 2 that: (1) requires the property owners including
successors-in-interest to maintain the unimproved portion of the property for the
benefit of the City, (2) requires the property owners including successors-in-
interest to maintain an insurance policy covering the undeveloped property with the City named as an additional insured; (3) requires the property owners including successors-in-interest to defend and indemnify the City for claims
against the City related to the undeveloped property; and (4) provides the City,
and its employees, agents, and contractors a right of access to the property for
purposes of maintaining or repairing private drainage facilities within the unimproved portion of the site.
B. The applicant shall deliver and record a conservation easement applicable to the
portions of the Parcel 2 that are to remain unimproved, which shall forever
prohibit development on such areas. The Planning Commission also recommended that the setback modifications not be
approved until the final design is complete and approved by the Highlands ARB and that
the City Council strike condition number 13 from the Planning Commission Resolution.
Commissioner Thompson added that he was concerned with the amount of truck trips generated from the grading and felt that it was lot for the residential neighborhood. He also did not find the modern architectural style to be compatible with the neighborhood
as it lacks articulation between the first and second floors and has a flat roofline. He
recommended that the second floor be smaller than the first floor to reduce mass and
scale, as homes of this size would have a major impact on the neighborhood – refer to Attachment No. 8 for the Meeting Minutes.
With the exception of the removal of Condition number 13, Staff has not modified
Resolution No. 7180 to reflect these recommendations, but they are presented here for
the City Council’s consideration. After consultation with the City Attorney, it was
reasoned that the items raised by the Commissions under letters “A” and “B” above tend
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 9 of 18
to be covered by the City’s general police powers and land use controls. In addition, the setback reduction is reasonable as proposed. Commissioner Thompson’s comments related to the design of the homes is well-taken and will be evaluated through the
required design review process. If the City Council desires to include any of these
recommendations as conditions, the proposed Resolution will be modified and returned
and to City Council for approval.
FINDINGS
Revised Tentative Parcel Map
According to Arcadia Development Code Section 9105.01.070, a Tentative Parcel Map
shall be processed for all provided divisions of land resulting in four or fewer lots. The proposal for a two-lot subdivision requires that they be subdivided through the Tentative Parcel Map process – see Attachment No. 4 for Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 09-
08 (71182). The following findings are required for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map:
A. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent
with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Subdivisions Division of the Development Code.
Facts to Support the Finding: The land use designation for the subject property
is Residential Estates which accommodates low density, single-family residential
neighborhoods. Development in Residential Estate areas is characterized by
large, estate-type lots, of 22,000 square feet or more. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-3.6 encourages preservation of the natural topography of a site and existing mature trees. The proposed project will create two lots 1.99
acres and 88.64 acres in size. The lot sizes are consistent with the General Plan.
The building pads for the two homes are located along Canyon Road with 37’-9”
and 28’-4” front yard setbacks. The building pads will be a maximum of 35’-0” above the street, well below the ridgeline. This helps to preserve the natural topography of the site and existing mature trees by minimizing the amount of
grading required and protecting more than 97% of the existing mature trees
located on the subject properties. The proposed maps, subdivision design and
improvements are consistent with the General Plan and the Subdivision Section of the Development Code.
B. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development.
Facts to Support the Finding: The General Plan Land Use Designation for the
project site is Residential Estates which accommodates low density, single-family residential neighborhoods. Development in Residential Estate areas is characterized by large, estate-type lots, of 22,000 square feet or more and up to
two dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R-M&D, Residential Mountainous with
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 10 of 18
an Architectural Design Review Overlay which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) per lot. The R-M zone is intended to provide areas for detached single-family dwelling units on estate-type lots in the hillside and valley
areas of the City.
The proposed two-lot subdivision will create two lots, 1.99 acres and 88.64 acres
in size, well above the minimum lot size recommended for the land use designation and required by the underlying zoning. The updated analysis to the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the proposed development would not
exceed the density of existing single-family residential development in the project
vicinity and impacts to population growth would be less than significant. The site
is physically suitable for the proposed single-family residences and density of development.
C. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Facts to Support the Finding: The subject property is currently a vacant and mostly undisturbed mountainous hillside area containing native vegetation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project approved in
2010 found that with appropriate mitigation measures, the potentially adverse
effects on the biological resources from the project would be reduced to levels
less than significant. The updated analysis related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the current project establishes that the proposed development will not result in substantial changes. Approximately 80 acres of hillside will remain
undisturbed and be preserved as oak woodland. The portion of the site that will
be disturbed is located adjacent to an existing roadway. The proposed project
would result in two healthy Coast Live Oak trees and one healthy Sycamore tree being removed and four Coast Live Oak trees being encroached upon. With the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), as well as the mitigation measures stated in the Arborist Report dated
April 24, 2017, the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.
Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed project is for the future
development of two, single-family residences. The subject property is mostly
undisturbed mountainous hillside area. Grading of the two lots, approximately 5,330 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill is needed, as well as a crib wall system and retaining walls to create adequate rear and side yard areas for the
two homes. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project approved in 2010
found that with appropriate mitigation measures, any slope instability from the
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 11 of 18
proposed project such as seismic ground shaking, landslides, and loss of topsoil, would be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of recommendations provided in the site-specific geotechnical engineering
investigation.
For the proposed project, an update to the geotechnical engineering investigation
was prepared and determined that the currently proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering and geological viewpoint. With implementation of the measures recommended in the Updated Report of Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation dated March 1, 2017, impacts will be comparable to the impacts
stated in the 2010 proposal, and will be less than significant.
The construction of the two, single-family residential units will be in compliance with Building and Fire Codes and all other applicable regulations. The Project meets all health and safety requirements, and will not cause any public health or
safety problems.
E. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed design of the subdivision or the
type of improvements does not conflict with any easements acquired by the
public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision. There is an existing 20’-0” wide ingress and egress easement that runs along the northeast property line of 2135 Canyon Road to provide access to the City’s water tanks. The proposed subdivision and improvements will not
conflict with this easement as it is a part of the approximately 80-acres that will
not be disturbed and will remain in a natural undeveloped state.
F. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements specified by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Facts to Support the Finding: The Arcadia Public Works Services Department
determined that the City’s existing infrastructure will adequately serve the new development, and the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will be satisfied.
G. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, passive or
natural heating and cooling opportunities.
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 12 of 18
Facts to Support the Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with the California Building Code; which includes regulations pertaining to energy conservation.
H. The proposed subdivision, its design, density, and type of development
and improvements conforms to the regulations of the City’s Development
Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed subdivision complies with the density requirements of the City’s Development Code, and all the improvements
required for the site and each unit will comply with the regulations in the City’s
Development Code.
The proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not violate any requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Revised Residential Mountainous Development Permit
The following findings were established in the review of the former R-M Development
Permit Application:
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.
The proposed 5,330 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill is a reasonable amount of grading for a hillside property of this size to allow for the construction of two, single-
family residences. The creation of the proposed building pads will not unnecessarily
affect the views from neighboring properties because the building pads will be situated
no more than 35 feet above the street, well below the ridgeline of the hill. The proposed layouts will also be consistent with the existing adjoining developments, which are closer to the street level along Canyon Road. The proposed crib walls will be
landscaped and structurally blend into the hillside. Any potential visual impacts of this
development will be sufficiently mitigated by the planting of mature trees and
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 13 of 18
landscaping appropriate for the screening of a hillside development. The proposal will not impact the existing ridge and crest lines and most of the site will remain as undeveloped open space. Given the development constraints of the hillside and the fact
that the proposed lot is significantly wider that the other lots in the area, the proposed
side yard setback modification for Parcel 1 is appropriate. Based on the foregoing
findings, the proposal meets the criteria for the approval of an R-M Development Permit.
Protected Trees
Per the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and certified arborist report, Oak
tree acorns are to be planted into the slope, and two Western Sycamores and four
Coast Live Oak trees are to be planted on site. These requirements will sufficiently
mitigate the removal of the three healthy protected trees. The encroachment into the protected area of four Coast Live Oak trees, with the protective measures identified in the arborist report, is acceptable and will be mitigated. The encroachments will not
have an adverse impact on the health of the oak trees and any safety concerns from the
proposed encroachments will be minimized. The tree removals and encroachments are
consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
It is recommended that, if approved, the project shall be subject to the conditions of
approval listed below.
It should be mentioned that many of these conditions extend to the future construction
on the site. The two proposed homes on the site are subject to specific design review approval and plan check approval, and conditions related to construction will be enforced and/or added to at that time. The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. The final architectural design of the two homes on shall be subject to review and
approval by the Highlands Homeowners’ Association’s Architectural Review Board.
2. All structures shall be equipped with sprinklers per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Single and Multi-Family Dwelling Sprinkler Standard.
3. All structures shall comply with building regulations for the Wildland-Urban Interface
Area.
4. All structures shall comply with Chapter 7A of the 2016 California Building Code or
as amended and the City of Arcadia amendments.
5. All landscaping within 30 feet of all structures shall be fire resistant and provided with means of irrigation. Landscaping within a distance of 30 to 100 feet of all
structures shall be cleared of all dead and/or non-fire resistant vegetation. A
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 14 of 18
detailed landscaping plan showing compliance with these requirements shall be provided upon building permit application.
6. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the City Engineer
and/or Public Works Services Director for utility and/or public maintenance
activities, including updating the easement for Santa Anita Canyon Road to
accurately reflect the actual roadway alignment.
7. The truck haul route for graded earth material shall be as follows: South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 Freeway,
east to the 605 Freeway, south to the 60 Freeway, and east to the Puente Hills
Landfill. Any changes to the haul route plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
8. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public
right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer
facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully
detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the
foregoing City officials and employees.
9. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), Revised RM 07-01, and Revised TR 08-04 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals.
10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to
any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or
City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government
Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
11. Approval of Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), Revised RM 07-01, and Revised TR 08-04 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after the City Council
adoption of the Resolution, the applicant and property owner have executed and
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 15 of 18
filed with the Planning/Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.
Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval
The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures is
detailed in the MMRP.
12. The applicant/property owner shall pay the cost in its entirety for an independent
contract planner/inspector to assist the City with the monitoring and reporting of the required mitigation measures outlined in the MMRP. The scope of work and selection of the contract planner/inspector shall be determined by the Development
Services Department, and an agreement to engage and pay for the contract
planner/inspector shall be executed prior to issuance of any building permits.
13. The applicant shall agree to and execute the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) thereby agreeing to pay the City any applicable fees and expenses to implement the mitigation measures in the design, construction, and
maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of
approval.
14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and throughout grading and construction, the project applicant shall comply with the recommended tree protection measures identified in the certified arborist report dated April 24, 2017 (see attached), or as
amended by an updated arborist report to be submitted prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
15. The project contractor shall water the grading site at least twice a day (morning and afternoon, or as deemed necessary) using reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where feasible.
16. The project contractor shall wash off trucks leaving the site and cover dirt in trucks
during on-road hauling.
17. During grading operations, the project contractor shall spread soil binders on the construction site, unpaved roads, and parking areas at least every 4 hours and at the end of the workday.
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 16 of 18
18. The project contractor shall apply chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all previously graded construction areas which remain inactive for 96 hours or more.
19. The project contractor shall re-establish ground cover within the construction site
through seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for a
period of two months or more.
20. The project contractor shall sweep streets to prevent silt and other debris from being carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares.
21. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.
22. The project contractor shall suspend grading operations during first and second
stage smog alerts.
23. The project contractor shall suspend grading operations, apply soil binders, and water the grading site when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles
per hour.
24. The project contractor shall keep construction equipment engines tuned to ensure
that the air quality impacts generated by construction activities are minimized.
25. The project applicant shall follow all recommendations listed in Chapter 6 of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation dated September 20, 2007, and as outlined
in the updated report dated March 1, 2017 (see attached).
26. Grading and construction activities shall be limited to the following hours: 7:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction and grading activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays.
27. The project contractor shall ensure full compliance with the construction staging
plan for rough grading, including the placement of waste containment and stockpile
areas and the proposed truck haul route.
28. Hauling of graded earth material shall only occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays to avoid school and rush hour traffic.
29. Grading activities shall not last more than 6 months and shall occur between April
and October to avoid the rainy season.
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 17 of 18
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For the project that was approved in 2010, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration – refer to Attachment No. 10 for the Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
Update Analysis. It was determined that with mitigation measures the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts in the following areas of analysis: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic.
The mitigation measures were included as condition of approval for the project.
For the proposed project, the applicant has provided an updated CEQA analysis to
determine whether the current project involves substantial changes that will result in new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects from the 2010 project. The update analysis found
that the proposed project would require additional haul trips due to additional excavation
required which would slightly impact Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic.
These impacts were not found to be significant or result in substantial changes that involve new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, no additional environmental review of the proposed project is required
because all of the project’s potential impacts have already been analyzed and mitigated
in the 2010 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, which fully covers this proposed project – refer to Attachment No. 10 for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting
Program, and Updated Analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT
All the necessary infrastructure improvements will be paid for by the applicant/property owner. Fees from the project will fund the development’s fair share of impacts from the project on City utilities and services, including sewer, transportation, electrical, parks,
and storm water. The proposed development would have a limited impact on fire or
police services and would not have any significant impacts on local schools.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/ NOTICE
The public hearing notice for this item was mailed to the owners that are located within 300 feet of the subject property and published in the Arcadia Weekly on September 7,
2017. The Highlands Homeowners’ Association President and Architectural Review
Board Chairperson were also notified of the proposed project.
Revised TPM 09-08 (71182), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 September 19, 2017
Page 18 of 18
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7180 to approve Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-08 (71182), Revised Residential Mountainous
Development Permit No. RM 07-01, and Revised Oak Tree Permit No. 08-04, based on
the aforementioned findings, including that no additional CEQA review is required.
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 7180 Attachment No. 2 - Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3 - 2010 Approved Plans
Attachment No. 4 - Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-08 (71182)
Attachment No. 5 - Preliminary Architectural Plans Attachment No. 6 - Conceptual Grading Plan and Sample Crib Wall Design Attachment No. 7 - Revised Certified Arborist Report dated April 24, 2017
Attachment No. 8 - July 25, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment No. 9 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999
Attachment No. 10 - Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Update Analysis
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 7180
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and
Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity
N/A
N/A N/A
Yes
N/A
Property Characteristics
Zoning: R-M
General Plan: RE
Lot Area (sq ft): 3,947,986 (90.63 ac)
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): N/A
Year Built: N/A
Number of Units: 0
Overlays
Architectural Design Overlay: Yes
Downtown Overlay: N/A
Downtown Parking Overlay: N/A
Parking Overlay: N/A
Racetrack Event Overlay: N/A
Residential Flex Overlay: N/A
Special Height Overlay: N/A
Site Address: 2111-2125 Canyon Road
Parcel Numbers: 5765-002-013 & 5765-002-014
Property Owner(s): NEVIS CAPITL LLC JEFF LEE
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 20-Jul-2017
Page 1 of 1
View of the approximate location of Parcel 1 from Canyon Road looking north
View of the approximate location of subject property, Parcel 2, from Canyon Road looking west
View of the neighboring property to the north, 2127 Canyon Road, looking southwest
View of neighboring vacant property to the east, APN 5765-031-900, looking north
View of easterly side of Canyon Road looking south
View of neighboring property to the south, 2109 Canyon Road looking west
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
2010 Approved Plans
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Revised Tentative Parcel Map No.
TPM 09-08 (71182)
4'8+5'&6'06#6+8'2#4%'./#201
5%#.' Ä
O NSFESOIPDRA
NI
EGN
A REEINAIGKNSETHIS
ACFIL OF
CIVIL
12/31/18
ERTSTAHExp.
OEA45846 O
NINGJ
R
-GNLER L
2#4%'.2#4%'.
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Preliminary Architectural Plans
figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016COVER
0
Canyon Drive | Arcadia, CA 91007
parcel map no. 71182
canyon KRXVH$ =
2 new single family houses development
3D VIEWKRXVH$
KRXVH=
figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 3D VIEWPROJECT DATA0.1
KRXVH$KRXVH=
KRXVH$
KRXVH=
+/- 564'-10"
+/- 245'-4"25' - 00"25'-0"10'-3"
10'-4"137'-2"EXT. OAK TREE TO REMAIN
EXT. 216 TO REMAIN
EXT. 215 TO REMAIN
EXT. 306 TO REMAIN
EXT. 222 TO REMAIN
EXT. 218 REMOVE
EXT. 201 ENCROUCH
EXT. 202 TO REMAIN
310' +/-
47'-0"
72'-10"18'-2"28'-4"37'-6"37'-9"+/- 449'-1"+/- 218' - 0"
P.L.
322'-9"
242'-1"
32' +/-
1st and 2nd story setback 65'0"
29'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016
Applicant:Jeff Lee1311 E Las Tunas DrSan Grabriel Ca 91776Tel: 626 255 7439Email: f8giscott@yahoo.com
a.A101 HOUSE A FLOOR PLANS --
NUMBER:REVISION DATE:LAST ISSUE
0 COVER SHEET --
Project Address: Canyon Drive Arcadia, CA 91006
Zoning: R-1M Lot Dimensions: See Map Lot Size: See Map Existing Use: Vacant
SITE PLANPROJECT DATAa.001
a.001 SITE PLAN / PROJECT DATA --
Canyon Drive | Arcadia, CA 91007
parcel map no. 71182
canyon KRXVH$ =
2 New Single Family House Development
N
Not To Scale
Legal Description:
A portion of parcel map 5883 in the city of Arcadia,county of Los Angeles, state of California, as per maprecorded in book 70 page 26 of parcel maps, in the officeof the county recorder of said county.
APN: 5765-002-012/013
KRXVH$ KRXVH=
Project Team Building Summary Vicinity MapLot Information
KRXVH$KRXVH=
SITE PLAN
SCALE : 1"= 30'-0"
Project North
True North
a.A102 HOUSE A FLOOR PLANS --
a.A103 HOUSE A FLOOR PLANS --a.A201 HOUSE A BUILDING ELEVATIONS --a.A401 HOUSE A BUILDING SECTIONS --a.Z101 HOUSE Z FLOOR PLANS --a.Z102 HOUSE Z FLOOR PLANS --a.Z103 HOUSE Z FLOOR PLANS --a.Z201 HOUSE Z BUILDING ELEVATIONS --a.Z401 HOUSE Z BUILDING SECTIONS --
Owner:Nevis Capital LLC335 N. BerryBrea CA 92821
Architect: Pison Netsawang
PARKING ANALYSIS:
Required parking: 3 enclosed garageProvided parking: 3 enclosed garage
LOT COVERAGE: HOUSE A allowed 35%, Proposed: 1,890 sf / 86,927 sf : 2% HOUSE Z allowed 35%, Proposed: 1,706 sf / 3,861,059 sf : 0.5%
FAR HOUSE A allowed 22,414 sf, Proposed : 4,542 sf
HOUSE Z allowed 588,533 sf, Proposed: 4918 sf
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 35' required, Proposed: House A: 29' 9" House Z: 29' 11"
SETBACK Front: 18'2" + 37'6"/2 = 27'9" required, Proposed: House A: 37' 9" House Z: 28' 4" Side: 15' required, Proposed: House A: (L) 310', (R) 31'6" House Z: (L) 47', (R) 72'10" Rear: 355' required, Proposed: House A: 137' House Z:
PROJECT PROPOSED: 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSECONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE VB W/ FIRE SPRINKLERSOCCUPANCY: GROUP R-3 & U
BUILDING INFORMATION:BUILDING AREA (GROSS): LEVEL 974' - 250 sf LEVEL 984' - 2010 sf LEVEL 989' - 336 sf LEVEL 996' - 1724 sf HIGH CEILING - 623 sf
TOTAL GROSS LIVING AREA: 4,923 sf GARAGE - 690 sf
PROJECT PROPOSED: 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSECONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE VB W/ FIRE SPRINKLERSOCCUPANCY: GROUP R-3 & U
BUILDING INFORMATION:BUILDING AREA (GROSS): LEVEL 996' - 1706 sf LEVEL 1001' - 216 sf LEVEL 1006' - 2040 sf LEVEL 1011' - 956 sf HIGH CEILING - 250 sf
TOTAL GROSS LIVING AREA: 5,168 sf GARAGE - 600 sf
974' - 0"
1 ENTRY LEVEL PLAN @ 974'
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Ä%#4)#4#)'19'-2"8'-6"18'-8"
28'-6"34'-0"18'-8"25'-3"
52'-10"22'-7"20'-8"9'-4"30'-0"UP
31'-0"
UH'064;UH
&4+8'9#;61%#;10&4+8'
)#4&'0UH
'064;#4'# UH)#4&'0 UHÄ%#4)#4#)' UH Project North
True North
tankless water heater
38'-6"24'-3"
31'-0"32'-1"
20'-0"
3'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 ENTRY LEVEL PLAN @ 974'House Aa.A101
984' - 0"
984' - 0"
1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN @ 984'
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
.+8+0)411/HV%*
-+6%*'0HV%*
219&'4
$'&411/HV%*
$#6*
28'-6"34'-0"19'-2"27'-9"29'-0"
52'-10"22'-7"63'-0"
63'-5"15'-6"15'-8"15'-6"15'-8"5'-0"9'-4"7'-6"5'-3"18'-9"9'-0"20'-5"8'-0"30'-0"6'-0"8'-6"18'-8"14'-8"14'-2"5'-11"26'-6"22'-6"
UP DN
12'061$'.19
&'%-
984' - 0"
(#/+.;411/HV%*
.+8+0)#4'# UH$'&411/Ä$#6*Project North
True North
16'-0"5'-7"5'-4"15'-8"21'-0"011-
&+0+0)47'-5"
8'-0"7'-0"EQ EQ EQ EQ
9'-0"5'-4"3'-0"
989'-0"
2 MEZZANINE PLAN @ 989'SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
63'-5"28'-6"34'-0"18'-8"28'-3"
52'-10"22'-7"31'-0"9'-0"15'-8"15'-6"15'-6"15'-8"14'-4"12'-5"6'-3"
2'-6"1'-0"6'-0"6'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"6'-0"4'-0"2'-0"2'-6"15'-6"21'-1"
8'-8"
UP DN
570-'0&'%-HV%*
12'061$'.19
&'%-#4'# UH True North
32'-1"5'-7"5'-4"29'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 MEZZANINE PLAN @ 989'MAIN LEVEL PLAN @ 984'a.A102House A
996' - 0"DN
996' - 0"
1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN @ 996'SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
.#70&4;
/#56'4$'&411/HV%*
$'&411/$'&411/HV%*
$'&411/HV%*
/#56'4$#6*
$#6*
9+%55'-3"24'-8"9'-9"11'-2"55'-4"46'-11"
4'-4"
114'-0"
16'-2"33'-11"12'-7"34'-4"28'-7"8'-0"2'-3"9'-9"8'-8"14'-10"6'-1"14'-4"14'-0"8'-3"12'-6"22'-3"15'-6"7'-0"19'-0"8'-9"34'-6"
DN
12'061$'.19HV%*
&'%-$#6*
12'061$'.19HV%*
.+8+0)#4'# UH$'&411/5$#6*
12'061$'.19
True North
Project North 11'-6"9'-4"20'-10"11'-8"2'-6"5'-8"2'-6"11'-8"
22'-5"
5'-3"
16'-0"11'-1"16'-5"15'-9"16'-11"5'-6"7'-4"9'-0"5'-4"5'-0"
7'-10"4'-0"13'-10"14'-0"11'-10"4'-0"DN
56'-11"22'-6"34'-0"29'-0"
63'-5"62'-6"46'-11"29'-0"29'-11"25'-3"25'-3"30'-0"1 ROOF_PLAN
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"12'-3"12'-5"8'-9"12'061$'.19
Project North
True North
411(411(
5'-0"
5'-
0
"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 ROOF PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN @ 996'a.A103House A
2 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
996' - 0"Second Floor
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
CEA A JK
K30'-0"61'-9"55'-9"50'-4"25'-1"e
4'-0"30'-0"16'-6"8'-11"21'-11"Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
CE
J
A
P.L.40°top of topography 30'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
EC C
JA40°
P.L.30'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
EK
30'-0"A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
sw 6251 Outer Space
La Habra StuccoSilver Gray
La Habra StuccoCrystal WhiteT.P.O Roofing
Asphalt ShingleCertainteed
FLS-DD-24-DIHTFlush Panel Garage
Outdoor Entry LightEOS2
AAW Door Retro-19
Jeld-Wen Windowv2500 Chestnut Bronze
James HardieLap Siding
MATERIAL SCHEDULE figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING ELEVATIONS a.A201House A
2 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
996' - 0"Second Floor
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
CEA A JK
K30'-0"Street Slope 61'-9"55'-9"50'-4"25'-1"Existing Slope grade
4'-0"30'-0"16'-6"8'-11"21'-11"A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
sw 6251 Outer Space
La Habra StuccoSilver Gray
La Habra StuccoCrystal White
T.P.O Roofing
Asphalt ShingleCertainteed
FLS-DD-24-DIHTFlush Panel GarageOutdoor Entry LightEOS2AAW Door Retro-19
Jeld-Wen Windowv2500 Chestnut Bronze
James HardieLap Siding
MATERIAL SCHEDULE figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING ELEVATIONS a.A202House A
1 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
6'-0"3 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
P.L.
2 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
6'-0"4 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"P.L.25'-1"T.O.Roof
figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING SECTIONS a.A401House A
5 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"10'-0"5'-0"7'-0"12'-0"12'-0"29'-9"T.O.Roof
P.L.
6 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"10'-0"7'-0"12'-0"T.O.Roof
Second Floor996' - 0"
Mezzanine Level989' - 0"
Main Level984' - 0"
974' - 0"Garage Entry Level
T.O.P1008' - 0"5'-0"12'-0"29'-9"P.L.figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING SECTIONS a.A402House A
UP
996' - 0"
1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN @ 996'
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
$'&411/HV%*$'&411/HV%*
$'&411/HV%*/#56'4$#6*
$#6*
$#6*5'-0"UP
9+%
9+%
9+%
UP
.1(6HV%*
.+8+0)#4'# UH$'&411/5$#6*
Project North
True North
&'%-UH
67'-4"18'-6"10'-4"12'-8"12'-1"13'-9"29'-0"19'-0"10'-0"67'-4"
5'-10"12'-8"48'-10"
10'-4"9'-8"3'-0"12'-0"5'-6"5'-3"3'-1"29'-0"5'-3"9'-1"14'-8"10'-6"12'-6"5'-8"5'-4"35'-4"
1 4 5 623
B
DN
1001' - 0"
1001' - 0"
2 ENTRY LEVEL PLAN @ 1001'
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
19'-9"14'-8"67'-4"
7'-7"7'-1"19'-0"10'-0"14'-3"4'-9"UP
DN
UP
'064;HV%*
Ä%#4)#4#)'
UH
UH
DN
'064;#4'# UHÄ%#4)#4#)' UH
UP
35'-4"
21'-3"14'-1"31'-2"15'-11"15'-2"tankless water heater
1 4 5 6 723
B
20'-0"
7'-6"
65'-0"4'-1"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 ENTRY LEVEL PLAN @ 1001'a.Z101House ZLOWER LEVEL PLAN @ 996'
1006' - 0"
1006' - 0"
3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN @ 1006'SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
(#/+.;411/HV%*
-+6%*'0HV%*
219&'44/
&+0+0).+8+0)411/HV%*7'-5"4'-4"7'-4"12'-7"&0DN
UP
DN
DN
12'061$'.19HV%*
12'061$'.19
$#%-;#4&
&'%-
.+8+0)#4'# UH$#6*
1006' - 0"
16'-8"78'-6"42'-0"
22'-0"20'-4"7'-4"28'-10"
78'-4"4'-1"19'-9"26'-0"32'-3"12'-11"6'-6"6'-0"26'-3"46'-4"30'-8"15'-9"15'-11"15'-0"15'-11"23'-5"19'-1"4'-10"2'-8"9'-9"18'-8"
1 4 5 6 723
B
5'-0"
011-
28'-0"
65'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 MAIN FLOOR PLAN @ 1006'a.Z102House Z
1011' - 0"
4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN @ 1011'
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
$#6*
$'&411/$#6*
9+%
$'&411/
106'-6"9'-0"8'-5"5'-4"DN
DN 12'061$'.19
.+8+0)#4'# UH$'&411/5$#6*
11'-6"5'-8"11'-4"
.1(6
30'-11"14'-4"2'-8"13'-11"1'-4"18'-8"11'-0"17'-2"5'-0"3'-10"7'-5"
1 4 5 6 723
B
3'-3"5'-0"5 ROOF_PLAN
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"35'-9"35'-9"3'-3"73'-4"34'-6"
1 4 5 6 723
B
figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 ROOF PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN @ 1011'a.Z103House Z
2 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"29'-11"Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level
996' - 0"
1001' - 0"Entry Level
1011' - 0"
Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"T.O.P
T.O.ROOF
AACJJJCCA
1 4 5 623
ex. grade30'-0"31'-4"26'-3"29'-11"25'-0"Street Slope 4'-0"7'-6"10'-6"4 EAST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"29'-11"Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"T.O.P
T.O.ROOF
CDA JJC
A EBC
ex. grade 30'-0"40°P.L.
28'-4"
3 WEST ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
28'-11"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"T.O.P
T.O.ROOF
C DFAJ
B AD
40°
P.L.
28'-4"
ex. grade 30'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
29'-11"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"T.O.P
T.O.ROOF
CC A A
ex. grade 30'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING ELEVATIONS House Za.Z201
2 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"29'-11"Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"T.O.P
T.O.ROOF
AACJJJCCA
1 4 5 623
ex. grade30'-0"31'-4"26'-3"29'-11"25'-0"Street Slope 4'-0"7'-6"10'-6"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING ELEVATIONS House Za.Z202
3 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level
996' - 0"
1001' - 0"Entry Level
1011' - 0"
Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"Entry Level
1011' - 0"
Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"11'-4"3 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"2 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level
996' - 0"
1001' - 0"Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor Main Level1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"11'-4"Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"
Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"4 BUILDING SECTION
SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"
Main Level
1006' - 0"
Lower Level996' - 0"
1001' - 0"
Entry Level
1011' - 0"Second Floor
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5 BUILDING SECTIONSCALE : 1/8"=1'-0"figureSheet TitleProject Issue Date:
Revisions
Sheet No.Project8group, inc.Project Status:+RXVH$ =&DQ\RQ'ULYH$UFDGLD&DOLIRUQLD 3DUFHO0DSProject 585
Date: 11-21-2016 BUILDING SECTIONSa.Z401House Z
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Conceptual Grading Plan and Sample Crib
Wall Design
45846
Exp.12/31/18
CIVIL
9,&,1,7<0$3
1
1RW7R6FDOH
%10%'267#.)4#&+0)2.#0
%Ä
#22418'&&'5+)0
5%#.' Ä
45846
Exp.12/31/18
CIVIL
%Ä
%10%'267#.)4#&+0)2.#0
5%#.' Ä
45846
Exp.12/31/18
CIVIL
%Ä
'#46*914-':*+$+65
%76
%
;
45846
Exp.12/31/18
CIVIL
%Ä
%
$
%
"
#!
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Revised Certified Arborist Report dated
April 24, 2017
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment
4/24/17 (rev)
Nevis Capital, LLC (applicant)
c/o Maggie Teng
335 North Berry Street
Brea, CA 92821
1744 Franklin Street Unit B
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(818) 789-9127
SUBJECT: Revised Preliminary Arborist Report for 2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd., Arcadia
REFERENCE:
1) Arcadia Municipal Code, article IX, chapter 7 Tree Preservation
2) “Report on Existing Trees”, 11/15/07, Pieter Severynen
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the construction of two new single-family dwellings, one on each
parcel. There are protected oak trees of various species on the site, requiring an oak tree report in accordance with the City of Arcadia Tree Preservation Ordinance.
We visited the site on 11/11/16 to assess the trees and to evaluate anticipated construction
impacts and mitigation measures. The following report is based on our observations while on
site, on discussions with the applicant, and on the site plan provided by the applicant.
ASSIGNMENT
• Record necessary data for all qualifying oaks on the project area, to be defined, including the
following information:
• Indicate each oak’s location on site plan provided by others (we are not surveyors, and locations not surveyed will be noted as approximate).
• Measure and record for each oak:
Species
Trunk diameter1 at standard height
Canopy spread
Canopy height (approximate)
Health and structural condition
Disposition
• Complete an oak tree report for the subject project that meets the requirements of the City of
Arcadia.
• Compare impacts between 2007 proposal and current proposal for use in CEQA assessment
OBSERVATIONS
1 Terrain may limit ability to physically measure some trees
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 2
Site description: The subject site is located in the upper Sierra Madre area of Arcadia, and is
situated between Clamshell Canyon and Chantry Flat Road. The site is bordered by Canyon
Road to the east, a residence to the north, and undeveloped vegetation to the south and west.
Some lots on the other side of Canyon Road have also been developed for residential use. The
site is a steep, undeveloped, eastern facing slope with primarily native vegetation, poison oak,
and mature native trees.
Project description: The subject property consists of two parcels, with a single-family dwelling
proposed for construction on each lot, near to and fronting on Canyon Road. Each home will have an attached garage accessible from Canyon Road, and a common open patio will connect
the two homes. Grading (mostly cut) will be extensive on both parcels, except that the eastern
1/3 of the southernmost parcel will remain undisturbed. Each parcel will have a substantial crib
wall with bench drains built upslope of the homes. All remaining land above the proposed crib
wall will be left undeveloped. All utilities will connect from Canyon Rd.
Tree description: There are sixteen protected trees of various species on or near the property
(fifteen oaks and one sycamore) as indicated in the following Tree Inventory. One of the oaks is
off the property to the west. A full inventory of the protected trees is listed below (and in the
attached Field Inventory Data sheet), and all tree locations are shown on the accompanying
Protected Tree Plan. As the inventory shows, the protected trees are a mixture of various native
oaks (Quercus berberidifolia, Q. agrifolia), native oak crosses, and a single sycamore.
Furthermore, there are approximately 100 additional oak trees on this property that will not be
disturbed in any way by the proposed project, as we understand it2.
Summary:
Total Number of protected trees3 ................................................................................ 16
Number of protected trees recommended for removal ................................................. 3
Number of protected trees with encroachments ........................................................... 4
Number of protected trees not impacted…………………………………………………...9
Tree safety: We have not evaluated trees on this property for safety. Without a thorough and
focused “risk assessment,” it is difficult to estimate the likelihood that a tree may fail and cause
damage to life or property. Even with such an evaluation, there are no guarantees that a tree
will not fail unexpectedly. Trees are dynamic living organisms subject to many influencing
factors. All trees are potentially hazardous, regardless of their apparent health and vigor. It is
impossible to be certain that a tree is absolutely safe.
NOTE: Tree 219 has significant safety issues that concern us. This tree should be
evaluated for safety, and remedial actions should be taken to enhance its safety if it is to
be protected in place. Some of this work, primarily pruning, should be done PRIOR to any
construction work being performed. Pruning work should be carried out by a highly
qualified, and well-trained contractor who is approved by the City in consultation with the
Project Arborist. While pruning can reduce the risk to these homes, it will not remove all
risk.
To further enhance safety, an engineered support system has been proposed and will be
evaluated by the Project Arborist in consultation with a structural engineer.
2 This is based on a previous inventory that was done by our office in Dec. 2011 (see attached inventory) 3 Fifteen oaks and one sycamore tree.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 3
TREE INVENTORY
Tree
# Species DSH (inches)*
~Ht
** ~Spread*** Health Structure
Dispos-
ition
201 Quercus agrifolia 29,17@2' 35 30/25/33/25 good good encroach
202 Quercus agrifolia 17,16,10.5,3@3 35 30/26/25/18 good good save
203 Quercus agrifolia 17,15,12@1' 40 20/28/25/20 good good save
204 Quercus X 9 12 30SE good fair save
205 Quercus X 13 20 15/15/10/0 good good save
206 Quercus X 15 30 18/16/22/20 fair fair save
209 Quercus berberidifolia 6,5.5,5 13 9/12/13/10 fair fair save
210 Quercus berberidifolia 5,5,5@3' 12 12/8/3/5 fair good save
211 Quercus berberidifolia 6,5,1,1 12 5/20/15/0 fair good save
212 Quercus berberidifolia ~6 18 10/15/8/3 fair good save
214 Quercus agrifolia 16.5 40 15/30/10/5 fair poor save
215 Quercus agrifolia 15,15@2.5 35 20/20/25/30 good fair save
216 Quercus berberidifolia ~5,2,2 30 6r fair fair save
218 Quercus agrifolia 18,12,12 40 28/32/25/17 good good remove
219 Quercus agrifolia 67 93 40/45/50/60 good very poor encroach
220 Quercus agrifolia 16@3' 33 30/30/17/12 good fair save
221(2
1) Quercus engelmannii 23 40 18/31/28/22 fair good remove
222 Quercus agrifolia 25.5 40 15/40/10/8 good poor save
223 Quercus agrifolia 29@2' 45 30/28/27/22 good good save
301 Platanus racemosa ~28 40 25/35/35/35 good fair remove
302 Quercus agrifolia ~12 18 30WNW good good encroach
303 Quercus agrifolia 8@2.5 20 10r good good encroach
304 Quercus berberidifolia 6@1' 12 5/8/7/8 good fair save
305 Quercus berberidifolia 8,5,3 20 12/13/15/10 good good save
306 Quercus berberidifolia 6.5,6 20 10r fair good save
307 Quercus berberidifolia 5,3,3 8 5/15/10/3 fair fair remove
Shaded trees are not protected by City definition * Diameter measured at the standard height of 4.5 feet above grade, unless otherwise specified.
**Height is estimated in feet.
***Protected trees are shown with canopy in N/E/S/W directions, or an "r" indicates an estimated radius in feet.
IMPACTS
This project has been redesigned to reduce impacts and to conform to CEQA approvals from a
previous application based on a 2007 report (see reference 2). A comparative analysis of the
impacts of the two projects is attached. We have added several trees in our analysis that were
not in the previous report. Three of these will be removed or impacted by this project, and would
have had similar impacts in the previous project had they been included4.
Impact assumptions: The analysis of construction impacts in this section is based on
assumptions that:
1) The applicant has accurately described all relevant work to be done.
2) The mitigation measures described below will be implemented by the applicant, and
monitored by the City of Arcadia, to prevent unnecessary impacts to the protected oaks.
3) The proposed project design will not change significantly.
4) We have correctly identified where the property lines are.
5) Tree locations are mapped correctly.
4 These are smaller trees that may not have been large enough to consider in 2007.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 4
Tree removals: Two protected oaks (trees 218 and 221) and one protected sycamore (tree
301) will be removed during construction of this project. Removal of these trees is necessary
due to proposed construction activities on the site as follows:
Tree 218- Grading for the proposed crib wall and nearby structures will lower the grade around
this protected oak more than five feet.
Tree 221- This protected oak is located within the boundaries of a proposed structure.
Tree 301- Grade will be increased at the location of this protected sycamore to allow for
construction on the site.
Construction impacts: Four protected oaks (trees 201, 219, 302, and 303) will be impacted
during the construction of this project. Their impacts are as follows:
Tree 201- This protected oak will be significantly impacted by excavation and grading for the
proposed crib wall, bench drain, and structure to the south of the tree. This may require some
clearance pruning as well as significant root loss. This is considered a major impact.
Tree 219- This protected oak will be significantly impacted by excavation and grading for the
proposed crib wall, bench drain, and structures to the east of the tree. This tree will also require
significant risk reduction pruning to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure. Safety pruning
should be done before construction activity begins. These are considered moderate
impacts.
Tree 302- This protected oak will suffer impacts due to excavation and grading for the proposed
crib wall and bench drain to the north of the tree. This is considered a minor impact.
Tree 303- This protected oak will suffer impacts due to clearance pruning necessary to make
room for the proposed structure to its west. This is considered a minor impact.
Assuming that no work will take place outside of the proposed construction boundaries, and that
recommended protective fencing is installed as indicated on the enclosed Protected Tree Plan,
the remaining protected oaks will not be impacted by this project.
MITIGATION
Removal mitigation measures: Mitigation requirements for the removal of Trees 218, 221, and
301 will be as follows:
Mitigation ratio 2:1- For each protected tree removed, two new trees of the same species (see
below) shall be planted on the site. Mitigation plantings shall be #15-container size.
Mitigation species- The following species and quantities shall be planted on the site:
2 - #15 western sycamores (Platanus racemosa)
4 - #15 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia)
Mitigation planting locations- Mitigation trees shall be planted in the locations to be determined
by the project arborist upon completion of construction.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 5
Mitigation establishment monitoring- Project Arborist shall inspect all mitigation trees upon
planting and quarterly thereafter for a minimum of one year to ensure their survival and
establishment.
Specific impact mitigation measures: These steps are provided specifically for the unique conditions of this project. These are considered the minimum oak protection measures which
the applicant will carry out in order to maintain the impact levels described in this report.
Oversight of tree 219 activity- Before any work is conducted in the vicinity of oak tree 219, the
project arborist will be called to discuss the steps needed to ensure safety and maximize tree
viability.
Proposed order of operations for Tree 219
The project hinges to some degree on how this large oak fares during the design and
construction process. It is suggested that the following steps be carried out in the following
order:
Step 1. Project Arborist will work with a structural engineer (to be hired by applicant) and an approved arborist with structural support experience (to be hired by applicant) to design a
suitable structural support system5 that will be anchored by the crib wall and will support the oak’s trunk to reduce the chances of whole tree failure.
Step 2. Pruning of this oak will be carried out with the Project Arborist in attendance to
oversee pruning and judge the effect on the safety of the tree. This pruning work must be
done by an arborist approved by the Project Arborist and must be done prior to any other
work within 100 feet of this tree (for safety reasons).
Step 3. When grading or excavation is to take place within 50 feet of this oak in any direction,
the Project Arborist will be on site to examine the extent of root damage and judge the
viability and safety of the tree based on roots encountered, slope stability, etc. If the impacts
associated with this work still appear to be acceptable, proceed to step 4.
Step 4. Construction of crib walls and the tree’s structural support system will be done in
consultation on site with the Project Arborist.
It is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that the project arborist is notified prior to
initiating these activities. This is a safety issue as well as an oak tree preservation
issue.
Protective fencing- Protective fencing shall be installed at the top of the site to protect trees 219
and 302. Fencing shall also be installed surrounding trees 220, 222, and 303, and trees 201 and
202. Please see the enclosed Protected Tree Plan for exact locations of recommended
protective fencing.
Protective fencing around trees in construction zones is the best possible means of minimizing
impacts related to construction if it is done properly. The purpose is to keep the oaks’ root zone
free from disturbance of any kind throughout the period of construction activity. The greatest
benefit from the use of protective fencing is the prevention of soil compaction. Other benefits
5 It is critical that this support be designed and approved prior to additional work. It is possible that during
the construction of the crib wall it may be determined that the tree needs to be removed.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 6
include protecting branches and trunks from equipment-related breakage and injury, and
preventing root damage from spillage of construction chemicals, grading, etc..
1. Fencing will be installed in the locations shown on the enclosed Protected Tree Plan
prior to any grading activity or construction on the site. Fencing will be chain-link,
at least 5 feet high, and held securely in place by steel stakes driven directly into the
ground.
2. There shall be no gates, openings, or easy access into the fenced protection zones. All
protective fencing shall remain intact until construction is completed.
3. No workers or equipment shall enter the fenced areas.
4. No storage, waste disposal, equipment clean-out, outhouse, or vehicle parking will be
allowed within the fenced area.
Clearance pruning- Where clearance pruning is required (for trees 219, 302, 303, and any other
trees not anticipated for clearance pruning at time of writing this report), all pruning will be carried
out by an ISA Certified Arborist. All pruning shall conform to ANSI A-300 standards at a
minimum. Risk reduction pruning on tree 219 must be done by an approved expert (see
note under Tree Safety).
Ground cover (mulch)- In order to further protect the oak trees being retained during
construction, it will be helpful to lay a ground cover around the trees during and after
construction. Appropriate ground cover for this site would be a 3-4 inch thick layer of organic
mulch composed of wood chips or oak leaves, being sure to keep the mulch a few inches away
from the trunks of all trees. The mulch should cover all ground inside the trees’ protective
fencing during construction, and be extended to meet the trees’ canopy driplines once protective
fencing is removed.
General impact mitigation measures: The following measures should be applied where they
are relevant. If specific measures above conflict with any of these general recommendations,
specific measures shall supersede.
1. All work conducted in the ground within the protection zone of any protected tree should be
accomplished with hand tools only. (The protection zone is defined as the area within a circle
with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the
canopy).
2. Where structural footings are required and major roots will be impacted, the footing depth
should be reduced to 12". This may require additional "rebar" for added strength. An alternative
would involve bridging footings over roots and covering each root with plastic cloth and 2-4" of
Styrofoam matting before pouring concrete.
3. Any required trenching which has options as to the trench path should be routed in such a
manner as to minimize root damage. Radial trenching (radial to the tree trunk) is less harmful
than tangential trenching because it runs parallel to tree roots rather than diagonal or
perpendicular to them.
If roots can be worked around, cutting of roots should be avoided (i.e. place pipes and cables
below uncut roots whenever possible). Whenever possible, utilize the same trench for as many
utilities as possible. Generally, roots with a diameter of two inches or more should be saved.
Digging should be done manually to avoid tearing, puncturing, or otherwise damaging the bark
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 7
that covers the roots. Roots should be covered and kept damp while trenching is being done,
and reburied as quickly as possible.
4. "Natural" or pre-construction grade should be maintained for as great a distance from the
trunk of each tree as construction permits. At no time during or after construction should soil be
in contact with the trunk of the tree above natural grade.
5. In areas where grade will be lowered, or where footings will be dug, some root cutting may be
unavoidable. Cuts should be made cleanly with a sharp saw or pruning tool, far enough behind
the damage that all split and cracked root portions are removed. The cut should be made at
right angles to the root so that the wound is no larger than necessary. When practical, cut roots
back to a branching lateral root. Do not apply any pruning wound treatment to cuts.
6. When removing pavement, as little disruption of soil as necessary should be attempted.
7. Pruning of oaks should be limited to the removal of dead wood and the correction of potentially
hazardous conditions, as evaluated by a qualified arborist. Pruning oaks excessively is harmful to
them. Removal or reduction of major structural limbs should be done only as required for actual
building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed, cuts should be made perpendicular to the
branch, to limit the size of the cut face. The branch bark collar should be preserved (i.e. no “flush
cuts”), and cuts should be made in such a way as to prevent the tearing of bark from the tree. All
pruning should be done in accordance with ANSI A300 pruning standards. No pruning wound
treatment (e.g. “Tree Seal”) should be applied.
8. Keep all activity and traffic to a minimum within the protection zone of the trees to minimize
soil compaction.
9. It is important that the protection zone not be subjected to flooding incidental to the
construction work, or to disposal of construction debris such as paints, plasters, or chemical
solutions. No equipment fueling or chemical mixing should be done within the root protection
zone.
10. In general, it is best to minimize the amount of environmental change which trees will be
subjected to. This includes drastic changes in watering practices from historic conditions,
especially drastic increases.
11. Care should be exercised not to allow equipment to physically damage the tree’s trunk, root
crown, or lower scaffold branches during construction. This includes but is not limited to 1)
impact damage by scrapers, buckets, or hoes; or 2) damage by tires, wheels, or tracks from
operating in close proximity to trees.
CONCLUSIONS
This project will remove two healthy native oaks and one native sycamore, requiring the planting
of six native trees as mitigation. The protective measures will help to keep the remaining oaks
safe from damage if followed appropriately. The only concern here is with the largest oak, tree
219. It is important that the project arborist be involved in efforts to save this tree, as safety is a significant concern, as well as the tree’s survival.
It is our opinion that the impacts from this revised project are no more significant than
the impacts from the previously proposed (2007) project design. In fact they are less
significant.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 8
Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance or if you have any additional
questions. Our goal is to satisfy our clients and help them to better care for their trees in the
most effective way possible. We look forward to working with you toward that goal!
Sincerely,
Jan C. Scow
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #382
ISA Certified Arborist # WC1972
Attached: Field Inventory Data sheet
Site Location Map
Arborist Disclosure Statement
Arborist Certification
Comparative Impact Analysis Oak Tree Inventory (Dec 2011)
Enclosed: Protected Tree Plan (24” x 36”)
“Report on Existing Trees”, 11/15/07, Pieter Severynen
Note that enclosures are already in possession of applicant and are not being resent
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 9
"
Tree #Species DSH (inches)* ~Ht** ~Sprd*** Health Structure Disposition
201 Quercus agrifolia 29,17@2' 35 30/25/33/25 good good encroach202Quercus agrifolia 17,16,10.5,3@3' 35 30/26/25/18 good good save203Quercus agrifolia 17,15,12@1' 40 20/28/25/20 good good save204Quercus X 9 12 30SE good fair save205Quercus X 13 20 15/15/10/0 good good save206Quercus X 15 30 18/16/22/20 fair fair save209Quercus berberidifolia 6,5.5,5 13 9/12/13/10 fair fair save210Quercus berberidifolia 5,5,5@3' 12 12/8/3/5 fair good save211Quercus berberidifolia 6,5,1,1 12 5/20/15/0 fair good save
212 Quercus berberidifolia ~6 18 10/15/8/3 fair good save214Quercus agrifolia 16.5 40 15/30/10/5 fair poor save
215 Quercus agrifolia 15,15@2.5 35 20/20/25/30 good fair save216Quercus berberidifolia ~5,2,2 30 6r fair fair save
218 Quercus agrifolia 18,12,12 40 28/32/25/17 good good remove219Quercus agrifolia 67 93 40/45/50/60 good very poor encroach220Quercus agrifolia 16@3' 33 30/30/17/12 good fair save221(21)Quercus engelmannii 23 40 18/31/28/22 fair good remove222Quercus agrifolia 25.5 40 15/40/10/8 good poor save223Quercus agrifolia 29@2' 45 30/28/27/22 good good save301Platanus racemosa ~28 40 25/35/35/35 good fair remove302Quercus agrifolia ~12 18 30WNW good good encroach303Quercus agrifolia ! 20 10r good good encroach304Quercus berberidifolia 6@1' 12 5/8/7/8 good fair save305Quercus berberidifolia 8,5,3 20 12/13/15/10 good good save306Quercus berberidifolia 6.5,6 20 10r fair good save307Quercus berberidifolia 5,3,3 8 5/15/10/3 fair fair remove
*Diameter measured at the standard of 4.5 feet above grade, unless otherwise specified.
**Height is estimated in feet.
***Protected trees are shown with canopy in N/E/S/W directions, or an "r" indicates an estimated radius in feet.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 1011/29/16, 9:30 AM2125 Canyon Rd - Google Maps
Page 1 of 2https://www.google.com/maps/place/2125+Canyon+Rd,+Arcadia,+CA+91006/@34.1728405,-118.…m5!3m4!1s0x80c2dc1b2a08704d:0xc2fcebefe127f3ed!8m2!3d34.1737728!4d-118.0278566?hl=en
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 11
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment
1744 Franklin Street Unit B
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(818) 789-9127
ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and
experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health
of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to
accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure
of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand.
Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope
of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines,
disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist.
The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the
recommended treatment or remedial measures.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees.
Please note the following important considerations:
• You should never authorize or do any work on any tree unless you are certain
of that tree’s ownership, and you have confirmed that you solely own the tree, or that anyone else having a claim to the tree has given you permission in writing
authorizing your proposed action.
• Before removing a tree, be sure it is your tree to remove.
• Trees on property lines belong to both properties. • Working on trees hanging into or over your yard that belong to a neighbor may result in “unreasonable damage” to their tree and could expose you to litigation.
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 12
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 13
"
) *() #
* *(*
+ +() #
, *)1 #
- **(
. **)$*)% #
/ ***
0 *)0 #
1 *(1
! )( *(,
! )( *(-
! )( *(.
)) *))
)* *),
)+ *)(
# +(* #
# *)* #
# +(, #
# +(- #
# +(. #
# *)- #
# *). #
# +(/ #
# +(+ #
# *(+$
% #
# **+ #
#
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 14
OAK TREE INVENTORY (Dec 2011)
Tree # Species Diameter DBH Est. Height Canopy N/E/S/W Health Structure
1 Q. agrifolia 27, 15 28 30’ r good good
2 Q. agrifolia 16,16,10 25 20/30/20/15 good good
3 Q. agrifolia 15,14,11 22 25/30/20/15 good good
4 Quercus X 10 12 22SE fair fair
5 Quercus X 14 20 30E fair good
6 Q berberidifolia 16 25 15’ r good good
7 Q berberidifolia 9 12 8/10/8/- fair good
8 Q berberidifolia 8 12 fair good
9 Q berberidifolia 6,5,5 10 8’ r good good
10 Q berberidifolia 5,5,5 8 12’ r fair good
11 Q berberidifolia 5,5 12 8’ r fair good
12 Q berberidifolia 5 10 12E good good
13 Q berberidifolia 8 12 12’ r good good
14 Q. agrifolia 15 21 15NE good fair
15 Q. agrifolia 15, 14 25 20’ r good good
16 Q berberidifolia 6 10 12E fair fair
17 Quercus X 6 8 10NE good fair
18 Q. agrifolia 12,10,8 22 15/20/15/12 good good
19 Q. agrifolia ~60 35 10/40/40/40 good poor
20 Q. agrifolia 14 17 15’ r good good
21 Q. agrifolia ~26 35 15/40/30/20 good good
22 Q. agrifolia 25 35 10/35/10/10 good good
23 Q. agrifolia 25 35 30/20/30/30 good good
24 Q. agrifolia 25 32 35N, NE good fair
25 Q. agrifolia 18,8,8 12 20E good fair
26 Q. agrifolia 11 30 30S, W good fair
27 Q. agrifolia 26 30 25/30/25/10 good good
28 Q. agrifolia 30@2’ 35 30’ r good good
OP29 Q. agrifolia ~26@1’ 35 35’ r good good
OP30 Q. agrifolia ~14 30 20’ r good good
31 Quercus X 16 18 8/10/18/17 good fair
32 Q. agrifolia 17 25 10/14/15/12 fair good
33 Q. berberidifolia 9,9,7,7+ 12 8/15/18/20 fair good
34 Q. berberidifolia 11,9,8,6,5 16 10/18/16/15 fair good
35 Q berberidifolia 3 8 10S fair fair
36 Q. berberidifolia 6,4 8 7’ r poor fair
37 Q. berberidifolia 6,5,4,2+ 8 10S fair poor
38 Quercus X 7,7,6,6,5 17 20’ r fair good
39 Quercus X 12,5,4 22 13’ r good good
40 Quercus X 6,6,3 16 9’ r fair fair
41 Q. berberidifolia 7,6,5+ 12 15’ r fair good
42 Q. berberidifolia 8,7,6,6 17 12’ r fair fair
43 Quercus X 8,7 15 9’ r fair fair
44 Quercus X 6,5 12 12’ r good good
45 Q. berberidifolia 12,8,8 29 15’ r fair good
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 15
46 Quercus sp dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree
47 Q. berberidifolia 2,2,1,1+ 12 7’ r good fair
48 Quercus sp dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree
49 Quercus sp dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree
50 Quercus X 7 11 14’ r fair-good good
51 Q. berberidifolia 6,6,5 22 10/-/15/20 fair poor
52 Quercus X 11 28 16’ r fair fair
53 Q. berberidifolia 6 14 10’ r fair fair
54 Quercus X 6,5,5,4,4+ 14 14SE fair fair
55 Quercus X 6 26 18SW fair fair
56 Quercus X 7,6 11 12SSW fair fair
57 Quercus X 8,7,7,5,3 17 20/10/20/12 fair fair
58 Quercus X 7,7,7,5+ 15 15’ r fair fair
59 Quercus X 6,3 9 10NW fair fair
60 Quercus X 8,7,7,6+ 22 18’ r fair good
61 Quercus X 14,12,11,10+ 33 30’ r fair very good
62 Quercus X 8,7 25 16NE fair fair
63 Quercus X 8,8 26 17W fair fair
64 Quercus X 8,6 20 21SSW fair poor
65 Quercus X 13,10,10,9+ 30 22’ r good good
66 Quercus X 8,8,7,7,4 15 18’ r fair-poor fair
67 Quercus X 8 24 15S poor fair
68 Quercus X 7,4,3 22 14NS poor fair
69 Quercus X 6,5 22 12SW poor fair
70 Quercus X 10,10 26 14’ r fair good
71 Quercus X 8,5,4,4,4 15 20S fair fair
72 Quercus X 8,8,6,5 24 22’ r fair-poor good
73 Quercus X 12,10,8 13 23S good fair-poor
74 Quercus X 10,7,7 18 20’ r fair very good
75 Quercus X 9,9 18 15’ r fair fair
76 Quercus X 7,6 13 6’ r fair fair
77 Quercus X 11 18 16ENE poor fair
78 Quercus X 12,10 28 20’ r fair fair
79 Q. berberidifolia 6,5,4,4+ 14 9’ r fair fair
80 Quercus X 6,6,5,2 10 10’ r good very good
81 Q. berberidifolia 9,7,6,3 13 13’ r fair good
82 Quercus X 4,4,3,3,2 10 6’ r fair good
83 Q. berberidifolia 6 10 8’ r fair fair
84 Q. berberidifolia 5,5,5,4+ 9 12’ r good good
85 Quercus X 8,6 16 6/22/21/10 fair fair
86 Quercus X 10,8 25 18NW fair fair
87 Quercus X 10,9 30 6/13/21/18 fair fair
88 Quercus X 7,6,6,6,6+ 15 15’ r good fair
89 Quercus X 10,9 23 16’ r good good
90 Quercus X 9,9,9,9,8,8+ 27 23’ r good very good
91 Quercus X 10,9 21 8/14/18/14 fair fair
92 Quercus X 7,10 24 10/10/10/22 fair fair-poor
93 Quercus X 11,9,8,5+ 25 22’ r fair-good very good
94 Quercus X 9 9 15NW poor poor
2111 and 2125 Canyon Rd. 4/24/17
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 16
95 Q. berberidifolia 6,3 16 12WNW fair fair
96 Quercus X 7 8 20W good poor
97 Quercus X 10,8,7,7 22 20’ r fair-good good
98 Quercus X 6,6,6,5,4 11 14’ r good fair
99 Quercus X 9,6 22 18SW fair fair
100 Q. berberidifolia 5,5,3,2,2,1 12 9’ r good very good
101 Quercus X 7,7 24 10/10/10/22 fair fair-poor
102 Quercus X 11,10 24 18/16/17/25 fair fair
103 Lost tag No tree No tree No tree No tree No tree
104 Q. berberidifolia 6,6 13 14S fair fair
105 Quercus X 11,8 25 19’ r fair very good
106 Quercus X 8 22 17SW fair fair
107 Quercus X 10,10,7,7 22 -/16/24/24 fair fair
108 Q. berberidifolia 9,8,7,3 22 15’ r poor fair
109 Q. berberidifolia 4,3,3,2 11 12/9/2/13 fair fair
110 Quercus X 8,1 18 3/6/15/11 good good
111 Q. berberidifolia 9 25 15S fair-good fair
112 Q. engelmannii 2,2,2,1,1+ 12 5’ r good fair
113 Quercus X 3,3,1,1,1+ 9 8’ r very good fair
114 Quercus sp dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree dead tree
115 Q. agrifolia ~18 45 20’ r good good
116 Quercus X 13 25 17’ r good good
117 Quercus X 5,4,4,4,3+ 11 13’ r fair good
118 Q. berberidifolia 5,5,2+ 9 11’ r very good good
119 Q. berberidifolia 6,2,2,1 9 12W fair fair
120 Quercus X 8 11 15W fair fair
121 Q. berberidifolia 3,2,2,1+ 8 11W fair fair
122 Quercus X 4,2 6 10W fair fair
123 Q. berberidifolia 6,5,5,4,4 13 20SW fair fair
124 Quercus X 16,12,8 20 20’ r fair fair
125 Q. engelmannii 9 25 8’ r fair fair
126 Q. engelmannii 9 18 20N fair poor
127 Q. engelmannii 8 20 8’ r fair fair
128 Q. engelmannii ~16 35 20’ r good good
129 Quercus X ~12 18 15N good fair
Attachment No. 8
Attachment No. 8
July 25, 2017, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Attachment No. 9
Attachment No. 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1999
Attachment No. 10
Attachment No. 10
Initial Study, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Mitigated Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and Update Analysis
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.
42635 MELANIE PLACE, SUITE 101, PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (760) 341-4800
May 30, 2017
Mr. Jim Kasama
Community Development Director
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
RE: CEQA Evaluation – revised Nevis Capital Project on Canyon Rd., City of Arcadia
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 16-08 (1182)
Residential Mountainous Permit No. RM 16-01
Tree Permit Nos. TRE 16-56 and TRH 16-03
Development Code Modification No. MP 16-10
Dear Mr. Kasama,
Terra Nova Planning & Research is pleased to submit the following analysis of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review previously conducted by the City for this project
site, and comparing it to the currently proposed project, for your consideration.
Introduction
Beginning in December 2016, Nevis Capital, LLC submitted revised development plans and
documents to the City of Arcadia for a two-lot subdivision and development of a single-family
residence on each of the new lots on Canyon Road in the City of Arcadia. A similar project on
the same property was proposed and approved in 2010 by City Council. The following analysis
compares the previously approved (2010) and currently proposed (2016) projects, and evaluates
a range of environmental considerations to determine whether the 2016 project will result in
substantial changes that will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2010 Project: Environmental Review Background
In 2010, a development project was evaluated under CEQA through the preparation and approval
by the City of Arcadia of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (TPM 09-08 and RM 07-01).
The project proposed the subdivision of a 90±-acre undeveloped property into three parcels in
the foothills of Arcadia. According to the MND, the project required the following applications:
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 2 of 14
2
1. Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property into three lots: Parcel 1 (approximately 2
acres), Parcel 2 (approximately 0.82 acres), and Parcel 3 (approximately 80.33 acres not
proposed for development). The proposal was later revised to include only two lots, with
approximately 80 acres to remain open space (Staff Report, City of Arcadia Development
Services Department, February 23, 2010).
2. Residential Mountainous (R-M Zone) Development Permit for the grading of Parcels 1 and
2. According to the MND, Parcel 1 was proposed to be improved with a two-story, 5,490
square-foot residence on a 2,940.5 square-foot pad. Parcel 2 was proposed to be developed
with a two-story 5,110 square-foot residence on a 2,991.5 square-foot pad. The grading to
accommodate the proposed developments would involve approximately 5,000 cubic yards of
cut and 40 cubic yards of fill.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared pursuant to CEQA and included
mitigation measures for aesthetics, biological resources, air quality, geology and soils, noise, and
transportation/traffic.
2016 Project Proposal
On December 27, 2016, the applicant submitted the following applications and corresponding
plans to the City. Additional supporting material was provided to the City on subsequent dates.
The project proposes the subdivision of the same undeveloped property into two parcels and
development of a single-family residence on each.
1. Tentative Parcel Map [TPM 16-08 (71182)] to subdivide the property into two lots: Parcel 1
(1.99 acres), and Parcel 2 (88.64 acres).
2. Residential Mountainous Development Permit (RM 16-01) for grading of the parcels.
According to the Revised Tentative Parcel Map (March 21, 2017) and Site Plan (November
21, 2016), Parcel 1 is to be improved with a two-story, 5,523 square-foot (including garage
and double-height ceiling space) residence (“House A”). Parcel 2 is to be improved with a
two-story, 5,768 square-foot (including garage and double-height ceiling space) residence
(“House Z”). The Earthwork Exhibits (May 22, 2017) indicates the project will require 5,330
cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill.
3. Tree Permits (TRE 16-56 and TRH 16-03) based on a “Protected Tree Plan” prepared by
EGL Associates, Inc. on November 22, 2016; and arborist report entitled “Revised
Preliminary Arborist Report for 2111 and 2125 Canyon Road, Arcadia,” prepared by Jan C.
Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, March 22, 2017 (revised).
4. Development Code Modifications (MP 16-10) for the height limit of the crib wall(s).
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 3 of 14
3
In letters dated February 10, 2017 and April 13, 2017, the City determined the applications were
incomplete due to various inconsistencies in the application materials, particularly regarding the
amount of cut and fill, number of truck loads/trips, type of environmental documentation cited,
and uncertainty as to whether or not the plans comply with the new Development Code regarding
crib wall height(s), house setbacks from crib walls, and number of stories of House A.
CEQA Considerations
The proposed project constitutes a “project,” as defined by CEQA. As stated in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162:
“When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determined, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following…”
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is
undertake which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete
or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following signs:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C)Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternative which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternative.
This analysis evaluates the currently proposed project in the context of CEQA Section 15162.
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 4 of 14
4
Project Comparison
The 2010 and 2016 projects both propose subdividing the subject property into two lots for
development of two single-family residences. Both propose maintaining approximately 80 acres
as undisturbed hillside. The location and general footprint of the two residences near the
southwesterly boundary of the subject property along Canyon Road is the same for both projects.
The square footage of the residences is nearly the same (± 5,100 to 5,700 square feet). Both
projects propose two-story buildings. (The 2016 project initially proposed three stories for House
A; however, it has been revised to include only two stories, and new architectural plans will be
submitted to the City.)
As relates to construction impacts, the MND indicated the 2010 project would require 5,000
cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a total export of 4,960 cubic yards. The
Earthwork Estimates plan for the 2016 project indicates the currently proposed project would
require 5,330 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a total export of 5,270
cubic yards. Compared to the 2010 project, this represents a 7% increase in cut, and a 50%
increase in fill.
Several conflicting estimates of the number of truckloads required to transport graded earth
material from the subject property to the landfill are provided in various project plans and
documents. Section XV.a, Transportation/Traffic, of the 2010 MND states that the 2010 project
would require 108 truck trips; however, no formula, factor, or data source is cited to indicate
how the estimate was calculated. The Earthwork Estimates plan (May 22, 2017) for the revised
project uses a standard of 14 cubic yards per truckload. At a rate of 14 cubic yards per truckload,
the 2010 project would have generated approximately 355 truckloads to export 4,960 cubic
yards. At the same rate, the 2016 project would generate 377 truckloads to transport 5,270 cubic
yards of cut. Compared to the 2010 project, the 2016 project represents a 6% increase in the
number of truckloads required.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, modeling software
used to estimate air pollutant emissions generated during various stages of construction, uses a
default rate of 16 cubic yards per truckload for haul trucks. At this rate, the 2010 project would
require approximately 310 truckloads to transport 4,960 cubic yards, and the 2016 project would
require approximately 330 truckloads to transport 5,270 cubic yards. At this rate, the 2016
project represents an increase of 6% in the number of truckloads.
The 2016 project is similar to the 2010 project in regard to proposed land use, lot configurations,
scale and siting of buildings, and retaining hillside open space. Relatively minor architectural
and design changes are proposed, including construction of a crib wall system instead of a
standard retaining wall. However, these will not result in a substantial increase in environmental
impacts. During construction, the 2016 project will result in a relatively low (6%) increase in
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 5 of 14
5
haul truckloads, but as was determined in the 2010 MND, impacts to local roadways would be
mitigated to less than significant levels by limiting the hours and days during which hauling
could occur. In the overall, the proposed project will not create substantial changes that will
result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
Impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services,
recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems will be comparable to those presented in the
MND. Following is a brief discussion of impact comparisons, by category.
Aesthetics
The 2010 project would have converted a portion of the subject property from an undisturbed
hillside to low-density residential development; however, approximately 80 acres, including the
higher elevations and ridgelines, would have remained undisturbed open space. The 2010 project
proposed two 2-story dwelling units with contemporary styles and low-profile, flat rooflines. The
MND determined that visual impacts would be less than significant because the residences
would be located below the ridgeline and views from surrounding properties would be preserved,
proposed land uses would be consistent with surrounding residential development, and the
conceptual design had been approved by the Homeowner’s Association Architectural Review
Board. The 2010 project would, however, require removal and/or encroachment upon up to 12
mature Coast Live Oak trees and 1 California Sycamore. One large Oak tree was to be preserved.
To mitigate for impacts to trees, the Mitigation Measure No. 1.1, included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) required the project applicant to comply with the
tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report (November 15, 2007), or as
amended by an updated report to be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure No. 1.2 required the applicant to plant indigenous low growing
plant cover and acorns from nearby Oak trees into the slope under the supervision of a certified
arborist who would be responsible for submitting a report to the City following its completion.
Impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the referenced
mitigation measures.
The currently proposed project will alter the same limited portion of the subject property from an
undisturbed hillside to two 2-story residences of approximately the same size, scale, and
footprint as the 2010 project. Like the previous project, approximately 80 acres of the property
will remain in a natural, undeveloped state, and the residences will be built below the ridgeline to
maintain the hilltop’s integrity and preserve scenic viewsheds. The residences will be developed
in a Modern Ranch style with contemporary features, including a combination of flat and pitched
rooflines that are consistent with surrounding development. The previously approved retaining
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 6 of 14
6
wall system will be replaced with a crib wall constructed on the hillside; the crib wall will be
landscaped and structurally blended into the hillside, which can be considered a visual
improvement compared to the 2010 project. Both houses will no longer be built into the hillside,
as was proposed in 2010, but will be set back 20 feet from the crib wall. Impacts to scenic vistas,
existing visual character, quality of the site and surroundings, and light and glare will be less
than significant and comparable to those analyzed in the 2010 MND.
Like the 2010 project, the currently proposed project would result in impacts to existing onsite
trees. As provided for in the 2010 MMRP, an updated arborist survey was conducted in
November 2016 in accordance with the requirements of the Arcadia Oak Tree Preservation
Ordinance (Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC to Maggie Teng, Nevis Capital, LLC,
revised March 22, 2017). The report contained recommended mitigation measures and was
submitted to the City. It identified a total of 16 protected trees (15 oaks and 1 sycamore) onsite.
Of these, 3 (2 oaks and 1 sycamore) would be removed as a result of the project, 4 oaks would be
encroached upon (pruning and/or root loss), and 9 would not be impacted. The report also
indicated there are an estimated 100 additional oak trees on the site that would not be disturbed
in any way by the proposed project. The report recommended mitigation measures, including
specific measures to protect a large oak tree (tree no. 219), installation of protective fencing, a
clearance pruning program, and general impact mitigation measures to be applied where
relevant. Implementation of these mitigation measures, as well as Conditions of Approval
imposed by the City based on its tree protection Ordinances No. 2323 and 2338, will reduce
impacts to trees to less than significant levels. Impacts will be comparable to those analyzed in
the 2010 MND.
Agricultural Resources
The 2010 MND determined the previously approved project would have no impact on
agricultural resources. As was the case in 2010, the subject property is not designated or zoned
for agricultural uses, subject to a Williamson Act contract, or located in the vicinity of farmland
such that it could result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
The currently proposed project will result in equivalent impacts to those analyzed in the MND
because there are no agricultural resources in the project vicinity. No project-related impacts
would occur.
Air Quality
According to the MND, the 2010 project would have no impact on implementation of an
applicable air quality plan because it would comply with the City’s General Plan. It would not
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The project would, however,
have the potential to violate air quality standards; result in cumulatively considerable net
increases in criteria pollutants for which the region is a nonattainment area; and expose sensitive
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 7 of 14
7
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The MND determined that long-term air quality
impacts would be less than significant because the project complied with the land use density
allowed in the City’s General Plan. However, short-term impacts would require implementation
of standard site preparation and construction measures listed in MMRP Mitigation Measures No.
2-1 through 2-10 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No modeling or projections of
potential criteria air pollutant emissions was provided or cited in the MND.
Like the 2010 project, the currently proposed project will comply with the land use designations
set forth in the City’s General Plan and, therefore, have no impact on an applicable air quality
plan. The project will not create objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people;
any short-term odors associated with construction equipment would be quickly dispersed. The
current project proposes the same of number of dwelling units proposed in 2010, which is
consistent with the land use densities allowed in the General Plan, and therefore, its long-term air
quality impacts will be less than significant and comparable to those analyzed in the 2010 MND.
Short-term site preparation and grading impacts would be comparable to those anticipated in
2010 because the area to be graded is similar in size, scope, and location to the 2010 project. The
currently proposed project will require export of approximately 5,270 cubic yards of earth
material during grading, compared to approximately 4,960 cubic yards of export generated by
the 2010 project. The following table uses the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) to estimate pollutant emissions generated by hauling trucks for the 2010 and 2016
projects, and indicates whether they would exceed pollutant emission thresholds established by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which monitors air quality in the
South Coast Air Basin in which the subject property is located.
2010 Project vs. 2016 Project
Haul Trips Emissions Comparison
(pounds per day)
Hauling Emissions CO NOx ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2010 Project – 4,960 cubic yards 1.32 6.98 0.21 0.01 0.40 0.13
2016 Project – 5,270 cubic yards 1.39 7.38 0.22 0.01 0.42 0.14
SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds thresholds? No No No No No No
1 Average of winter and summer emissions, unmitigated, 2017.
Source: CalEEMod model, version 2016.3.2
2010 Haul Trips = 620 round trips (310 truckloads)
2016 Haul Trips = 660 round trips (330 truckloads)
The data show that, compared to the 2010 project, the 2016 project would result in slightly
greater pollutant emissions associated with more hauling trips. However, pollutant emissions for
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 8 of 14
8
both projects would be well below established SCAQMD emission thresholds. Project impacts
will be comparable to those analyzed in the 2010 MND. Implementation of the air quality
mitigation measures provided in the 2010 MMRP will reduce impacts of the 2016 project to less
than significant levels. As shown in the Table above, even with the increase above the 108
truckloads (cited in the 2010 MND), there would not be additional significant impacts.
Biological Resources
The 2010 MND determined that the project would have no impact on federally protected
wetlands because none exist onsite. The project would not conflict with an adopted habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan because the subject property is not
within the boundaries of such a plan. The project would have a less than significant impact on
special-status species because biological field surveys in the project area determined no such
species were identified onsite; and would have a less than significant impact on the movement of
migratory species because wildlife movement corridors do not existing in the portion of the site
proposed for development. The MND determined that mitigation measures would be required to
reduce impacts to existing oak trees that would be removed or encroached upon during
construction. Specific mitigation measures (No. 1.1 and 1.2) were identified in the MMRP (refer
to Aesthetics, above).
Like the 2010 project, the currently proposed project will have no impact on federally protected
wetlands because none are known to occur on the portion of the site proposed for development.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan and, therefore,
will not conflict with such a plan. Since the 2010 MND, there have been no significant changes
regarding special-status species or wildlife movement in the project area. Approximately 80
acres of hillside will remain undisturbed and be preserved as oak woodland; and the portion of
the site that will be disturbed for development is adjacent to an existing roadway. Impacts to
existing protected trees are described, and mitigation measures provided, in an arborist report
dated March 22, 2017 (refer to Aesthetics, above). Implementation of the mitigation measures
will reduce project-related impacts to less than significant levels, and impacts will be comparable
to those described in the 2010 MND.
Cultural Resources
The 2010 MND determined that the previously approved project would have no impact on
cultural resources because no historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources were known
to be located on the subject property.
No changes pertaining to cultural resources have occurred onsite since the MND was approved,
and no known cultural resources are known to be located onsite. The currently proposed project
will have no impact on cultural resources; impacts will be comparable to those of the 2010
project.
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 9 of 14
9
Geology and Soils
The MND determined that any slope instability resulting from the 2010 project would be
mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of recommendations provided in
the site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation (MMRP Mitigation Measure No. 3.1).
Impacts associated with seismic ground shaking, landslides, and the loss of topsoil would be less
than significant. No project-related impacts associated with rupture of an earthquake fault,
liquefaction, expansive soils, or soils supporting alternative waste water disposal systems would
occur.
Overall onsite geologic conditions have not changed since the MND was approved. An update to
the geotechnical engineering investigation determined the currently proposed project is feasible
from a geotechnical engineering and geological viewpoint (Environmental Geotechnology
Laboratory, Inc. letter to Nevis Capital, LLC, March 1, 2017). Implementation of the measures
recommended in the report will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, consistent
with the 2010 recommendations. Impacts will be comparable to those provided in the 2010
MND.
Hazardous and Hazardous Materials
According to the 2010 MND, the previously approved project would have no impact on hazards
or hazardous materials because none would be used or released onsite, and the site was not listed
as a hazardous materials site or within an airport land use plan. Given that the property was
designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone 1 and in proximity to the urban-wildland interface,
it could be susceptible to fire hazards. The MND determined that the project would comply with
all applicable Fire Department, code, and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water
mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants; as a result, project-related impacts would be less than
significant.
The currently project proposes the same land uses that were proposed in 2010 (two single-family
residential units), and as such, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials will be
comparable to those analyzed in the MND. The project can be expected to store and use typical
household cleaners, but no significant public hazard associated with the storage, release, or
disposal of hazardous materials is anticipated. The project will comply with all applicable fire
safety codes and requirements, and no increase in hazards will occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The MND determined that the 2010 project would result in less than significant impacts to water
quality standards, polluted runoff, quality of receiving waters, depletion of groundwater supplies,
drainage patterns and systems, and erosion. Potential impacts would be minimized through
preparation and implementation of a standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan pursuant to the
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 10 of 14
10
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and inclusion of onsite gutters,
slope stabilization practices, retaining walls, and similar improvements. The project would have
no impact on the biological integrity of water bodies, violate water quality standards, or place
housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
The 2016 project proposes the same land uses, number of residences, general size and scale of
buildings, and general site plan as the 2010 project. The proposed drainage and erosion control
plan is comparable to the 2010 plan, with onsite flows draining to Canyon Road. Like the 2010
project, onsite drainage will be accommodated by standard stormwater improvements (such as
gutters) and implementation of a standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan. The subject
property is not located within a 100-year floodplain, and the project will not place housing within
a 100-year floodplain. Impacts will be comparable to those described in the 2010 MND.
Land Use and Planning
The 2010 MND determined that the previously approved project would have no impact on land
use and planning. The project would not physically divide an established community, or conflict
with an applicable land use plan or habitat conservation plan.
The currently proposed project will result in equivalent impacts to those analyzed in the MND.
The project proposes the same land uses: two single-family residences and approximately 80
acres of natural, undisturbed hillsides. Its two-story design is consistent with previously
approved plans. It would comply with zoning standards but could require a modification for crib
wall height, as described above. This modification is permitted through the City’s Municipal
Code. The currently proposed project is consistent with General Plan and zoning land use
classifications. It is not within the boundaries or vicinity of a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. No increase in the severity of impacts would occur.
Mineral Resources
The MND found that the previously approved project would result in no impacts to mineral
resources because the subject property does not contain locally important mineral resources, is
not located near an area known to contain mineral resources, and is not identified as a mineral
resources site in the General Plan.
The same onsite conditions currently exist; the site is not designated for mineral uses and is not
known to contain mineral resources. The currently proposed project will have no impact on
mineral resources, which is comparable to the impacts of the 2010 project.
Noise
The 2010 MND determined that the project would produce short-term construction-related noise
that could exceed the City’s Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for residential zones,
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 11 of 14
11
but impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels by enforcing limits on construction
hours and days. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (,) Mitigation Measures Nos.
4.1 through 4.4 restrict the times for grading and construction activities, including hauling of
earth material. Other potential project-related noise impacts, including exposure to groundborne
noise/vibration and permanent increases in ambient noise levels, were found to be less than
significant (without mitigation). No airport-related impacts would occur because the subject
property is not located in the vicinity of an airport or within an airport land use plan.
The current project proposes a site plan that is very similar to the 2010 project, with construction
of the same number of structures and similar footprints on the same portion of the property
adjacent to Canyon Road. Some variations in grading will occur to accommodate different
setbacks and design features. As explained previously, during construction, the project is
expected to generate approximately 16% more haul truckloads than anticipated under the 2010
project, which will increase vehicular noise levels. However, noise level increases will be
temporary and minimal, and will end once construction ends. Like the 2010 MND, impacts will
be mitigated to less than significant levels through limits on construction days and times through
implementation of Mitigation Measures Nos. 4.1 through 4.4 cited in the 2010 MMRP. The
current project proposes the same number and type of buildings (two single-family residences) as
proposed in 2010 and, therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels will be comparable
to those analyzed in the MND. As was the case in 2010, the subject property is not located in the
vicinity of an airport or within an airport use land plan, and no airport-related noise impacts will
occur.
Although construction-related noise impacts from hauling trucks will be slightly greater than the
2010 project, no substantial changes will occur that would result in new significant impacts or
substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Overall impacts
will be comparable to those analyzed in the MND.
Population and Housing
The 2010 MND determined that the addition of two new single-family residences would not
exceed the density of existing single-family residential development in the project vicinity, and
impacts to population growth would be less than significant. It also determined that no existing
housing or population would be displaced as a result of the project, and no impacts would occur.
Onsite conditions remain the same as 2010 conditions; the subject property is vacant, and no
existing housing or population will be displaced as a result of the currently proposed project. The
current project proposes the same number of dwelling units as the 2010 project, and therefore,
impacts to population growth will be comparable to those analyzed in the MND.
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 12 of 14
12
Public Services
The MND determined that the 2010 project would result in marginal increases in demand for fire
and police protection services, schools, parks, and other public facilities. However, it was
determined that existing services and facilities were adequate to serve the two proposed
residences, and impacts would be less than significant.
The currently project proposes the same number of residences as the previous project, and no
new deficiencies in public services has been identified. Therefore, impacts will be comparable to
those analyzed in the MND.
Recreation
The 2010 MND determined that the two new residences would incrementally increase the use of
existing parks, but the payment of parks and recreation impact fees would help prevent the
physical deterioration of the City’s facilities, and reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The MND also determined that existing recreational facilities were adequate to serve two
additional residences, and no new or expanded facilities would be required.
Like the previous project, the current project proposes two single-family residences and will be
subject to payment of parks and recreation impact fees. Therefore, impacts will be comparable to
those analyzed in the MND.
Transportation/Traffic
According to the 2010 MND, the previously proposed project would have no impact on air
traffic patterns, hazardous design features, or conflicts with alternative transportation plans or
policies. It would have a less than significant impact on emergency access and parking capacity
because the export truck schedule, construction staging plan, and completed project would
provide adequate emergency access and parking. The MND estimated that the grading process
would require 108 truck trips to haul graded earth material off-site; however, no trip generation
factor or equation is provided or cited to explain how the calculation was determined. The MND
found that, with mitigation, impacts associated with increased short-term construction traffic
would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Nos. 4.1 through 4.4 address permitted times
for grading and construction activities, and well as measures to assure compliance with the
construction staging plan.
Like the 2010 project, the currently proposed project will have no impact on air traffic patterns
because the subject property is not in the vicinity of an airport or within an airport land use plan.
It does not propose new roads, intersections, or other potentially hazardous features, and the new
residential driveways would comply with the City’s visibility standards. The export truck
schedule and construction staging plans will assure sufficient parking is provided during the
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 13 of 14
13
construction phase, and both proposed dwelling units will include driveways and garages to
provide adequate long-term parking.
The Earthwork Estimates plan (May 22, 2017) prepared by the project engineer uses a haul trip
generation factor of 14 cubic yards per truck to estimate the number of haul trips anticipated for
the 2010 and 2016 projects. Based on the factor of 14 cubic yards per truck, the 2010 project
would have required approximately 355 haul loads to remove 4,960 cubic yards of cut. The 2016
project would require approximately 377 haul loads to remove 5,270 cubic yards of cut. This
represents 22 more haul loads than the 2010 project, or an increase of 6%.
As discussed in the Air Quality section above, CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) modeling software
uses a default factor of 16 cubic yards per haul trip. Based on this factor, the 2010 project would
have required approximately 310 haul trips to remove 4,960 cubic yards of cut. The 2016 project
would require approximately 330 haul trips to remove 5,270 cubic yards of cut, which represents
20 more haul loads than the 2010 project, or an increase of 6%.
Regardless of which haul trip generation factor is used, the currently proposed project is
expected to require approximately 6% more truck haul trips compared to the 2010 project. This
is a minimal increase in short-term impacts that would end once the project is completed. Even
with the increase above 108 truckloads (cited in the 2010 MND), there would not be additional
significant impacts. Impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the same
mitigation measures cited in the 2010 MMRP, namely limiting the hours and days during which
hauling could occur and ensuring compliance with the construction staging plan and proposed
truck haul route. With mitigation, the project would not individually or cumulatively exceed an
established level-of-service. The MND (p. 18, 19) includes the following roadways in the
project’s truck traffic route leading from the subject property to the 210 freeway: Canyon Road,
Elkins Avenue, and Santa Anita Avenue; none are identified in the General Plan Circulation and
Infrastructure Element as exceeding the City’s acceptable level-of-service, or requiring
modifications or future studies to accommodate growth. Therefore, additional truck traffic
generated during construction of the proposed project will not be substantial compared to the
2010 project or contribute to exceedances in acceptable levels-of-service. Impacts would be
comparable to those analyzed in the MND.
Utilities and Service Systems
The 2010 MND determined that the previously proposed project would have no impact on
utilities and service systems because increases in demand for utilities and public services from
two single-family residential units would be minimal, existing services were sufficient to serve
the units, and the project would not trigger the need for additional or expanded facilities or
services.
City of Arcadia
CEQA Analysis
Page 14 of 14
14
The current project proposes the same number of single-family residential units, and no new
deficiencies in utilities or service systems have been identified. Impacts would be less than
significant, which is the same as those analyzed in the MND.
Conclusion
The impacts of the 2010 project were fully analyzed in the approved 2010 MND. The currently
proposed project will not result in substantial changes that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. There
has been no significant change in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken,
or change in the environment on or surrounding the subject property that would result in
significant environmental impacts that weren’t analyzed in the 2010 MND.
The mitigation measures included in the 2010 MMRP, and the recommendations provided in the
updated geotechnical and arborist reports, will be applied to the currently proposed project where
applicable. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the City to find, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162, that no additional environmental review of the proposed project is required, and
that all of the project’s potential impacts have already been analyzed in the 2010 MND, which
fully covers the proposed project.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Andrea M. Randall
Senior Planner