HomeMy WebLinkAboutMFADR 19-04, TPM 20-03 147 Alice St
DATE: February 9, 2021
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Luis Torrico, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2071 – CONTINUANCE OF MULTIPLE FAMILY
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. MFADR 19-04 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 20-03 (83113), WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) FOR A THREE-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 147 ALICE STREET
Recommendation: Approve and Adopt Resolution No. 2071
SUMMARY
The Applicant, Tom Li of Prestige Design, Planning & Developmen t, on behalf of the
property owner, Soliel Homes Inc, is requesting approval of Multiple Family Architectural
Design Review No. MFADR 19-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113), for
a new three (3) unit, three-story, multi-family residential condominium development at 147
Alice Street. At the January 26, 2021 meeting, two of the Planning Commissioners had
concerns with the functionality of the ingress and egress at the site, and the functionality
of the garages. After two failed motions, the Planning Commission agreed to continue the
item, with a 4-0 vote, to the February 9, 2021 meeting when all five members will be present
to provide an additional vote should there be another tie -vote.
The proposed development qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). It is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113), approving the amended conditions of
approval as listed later in this staff report and within the attachment of Resolution No. 2071
– refer to Attachment No. 1. The January 26, 2021 staff report and all the attachments,
including one late comment from the public was provided under Attachment No. 7.
Resolution No. 2071 - MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113)
147 Alice Street
February 9, 2021 – Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 7,500 square foot interior lot, located on the north side of Alice
Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenues. The proposed development will consist of a three -
unit, three-story, Spanish style multi-family residential condominium development with
surface parking – refer to Attachment No. 2 for the proposed Architectural Plans. Each unit
will vary between 1,659 to 2,177 square feet in floor area. The front unit will have direct
access from Alice Street and the remaining two (2) units will have a pedestrian walkway
along the west side of the property.
DISCUSSION
At the meeting, the Commission expressed concerns with both the current eviction laws
and what authority the City has on this matter and whether vehicles can maneuver properly
in terms of ingress and egress on the site due to the garage sizes and the building layout
on this narrow lot. Although the staff report indicated that there are similar projects that
were approved in the past by the Planning Commission , Commissioner Thompson
referenced several articles and findings from a transportation engineer to support his
analysis that the access is not functional. The third-party analysis submitted by
Commissioner Thompson has been provided with this staff report – refer to the email and
diagrams under Attachment No. 3. Vice Chair Lin and Commissioner Chan acknowledged
that any development on these narrow lots tends to be tight since the buildings must also
meet the minimum required setbacks. Further, the Development Code has a minimum
garage dimension of 18’x19’, which is not uncommon for multi-family developments. While
there were concerns regarding the size and functionality of the proposed garage
dimensions, Vice Chair Lin and Commissioner Chan stated that the project complies with
the Development Code and felt that functionality concerns of the site’s vehicular ingress
and egress was not enough to deny the project. Commissioner Wilander felt that the site
did not appear entirely functional and wanted additional information on this issue. In
response to the Commissioner’s comments and concerns, the Applicant presented images
of the adjacent multi-family development, located at 155-159 Alice Street, which was
approved with a similar vehicular ingress and egress configuration.
The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on the project. While no additional
studies of the site’s vehicular ingress/egress were requested, the Planning Commission
voted to continue the public hearing to the next meeting when all five Commissioners would
be present.
After the January 26, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, Staff felt it was important to visit
the development next door at 155-159 Alice Street since it has a very similar layout as the
subject site – refer to the Site Plan under Attachment No. 5. The Applicant agreed to use
his mid-size vehicle (Tesla) that was approximately 16’-6” in length to show a vehicle can
adequately ingress and egress on the site and from the garage of Unit C, and the rear
guest parking spaces. Access to the first two-unit garages (Units A & B) were unavailable
as both units were occupied. A total of five videos were taken and have been provided as
a part of this staff report – refer to Attachment No. 6. Below was Staff’s observation:
Resolution No. 2071 - MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113)
147 Alice Street
February 9, 2021 – Page 3 of 5
Unit C Garage:
The vehicle was able to enter the garage with no issue. In terms of backing
out, it took four (4) maneuvers to exit from the garage.
Guest Parking Space No. 1:
The vehicle was able to enter the parking space with three (3) maneuvers,
and exit the space with two (2) maneuvers to exit forward.
Guest Parking Space No. 2 (at the rear):
The vehicle required eight (8) maneuvers to exit backwards and it was tight.
Had it been a smaller vehicle it would be easier for the car to back out. In
addition, a car in this location can of course back straight down the driveway,
which is also common in older multi-family projects.
Staff observed that while some of these maneuvers were tight, as is expected with these
narrow lots, mid-size vehicles can enter and exit the garages and guest spaces , as
proposed. However, having an extra two feet of concrete along the driveway instead of the
landscape strip would help improve the on-site circulation. Therefore, Staff is
recommending this change as a condition of approval.
In response to the Commission’s concerns with egress from the garage of Unit C, the
Applicant revised the site plan so that the rear guest parking space is closer to the rear
property line which will provide an additional 4’-6” of maneuvering space for vehicles to
back out. As shown below and under Attachment No. 4.
Figure 1 - Revised Site Plan
While Staff acknowledges that vehicular access for the proposed development will be tight,
the project complies with Code and is functional for mid-size vehicles. The proposed
changes of moving the rear guest space forward by another 4’-6” toward the rear property
line, and replacing the landscape strip along the driveway with concrete which will expand
the driveway by another 2’-0” will help improve maneuverability on the site. Therefore, Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project and adopt
Resolution No. 2071, with the addition of two new conditions of approval, as listed below:
N
Resolution No. 2071 - MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113)
147 Alice Street
February 9, 2021 – Page 4 of 5
Proposed Conditions of Approval:
1. The guest space located at the rear of the property shall be moved forward 4’-6”
to provide additional maneuvering space for vehicles to back out.
2. The 2’-0” landscaped strip along the east property line shall be replaced with
concrete and become a part of the driveway area. This shall begin 40’-0” from
the front property line to the end of the driveway.
It should also be noted that for these types of projects in the future, additional analysis will
be provided on the functionality of all parking spaces. This may result in modified unit sizes,
additional garage width and depth, or enhanced back up analysis to ensure that these
projects are as accessible as they can be. It is important that there be a balance between
allowing density where it has been directed by the General Plan, and ensuring sites are
well planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move
to approve Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19-04 and Tentative
Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113), state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings,
and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2071 that incorporates the requisite environmental
and subdivision findings, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or
as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission is to deny this project, the Commission should state the specific
findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific
reasons for denial, and move to deny Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No.
MFADR 19-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113) and direct staff to prepare
a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission’s decision
and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the February 9, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting, please
contact Senior Planner, Luis Torrico at (626) 574-5442, or ltorrico@Arcadiaca.gov, or
Planning & Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores at (626) 574-5445, or
lflores@Arcadiaca.gov.
Resolution No. 2071 - MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113)
147 Alice Street
February 9, 2021 – Page 5 of 5
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1:
Attachment No. 2:
Attachment No. 3:
Attachment No. 4:
Attachment No. 5:
Attachment No. 6:
Attachment No. 7:
Attachment No. 8:
Resolution No. 2071
Architectural Plans
Email and Diagrams provided by Commissioner Thompson
Revised Site Plan & Response from Applicant, dated February
2, 2021
Site Plan at 155-159 Alice Street
Videos of the mid-size vehicle and its maneuverability on February 2,
2021 – The following URL can be used to view the videos:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aa23q-
DpEGyQO7apVBtnAvr3LOIXNzu1?usp=sharing
Planning Commission Staff Report with all the attachments, dated
January 26, 2021
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 2071
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Email & Diagrams provided by
Commissioner Thompson
1
From: Dilesh Sheth <dilesh.sheth@webbassociates.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 5:27 PM
To: Brad Thompson <bthompson@thompsonvaluation.com>
Cc: Matthew Webb <matt.webb@webbassociates.com>; Nicholas Lowe <nick.lowe@webbassociates.com>
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Input (Arcadia)
Brad,
Please see Nick’s email and analysis below.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Dilesh R. Sheth, PE | TE ‐ Senior Vice President
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA 92506
t: 951.248.4237 m: 951.830.4305
e: dilesh.sheth@webbassociates.com w: www.webbassociates.com
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
From: Nicholas Lowe <nick.lowe@webbassociates.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 4:52 PM
To: Dilesh Sheth <dilesh.sheth@webbassociates.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Input (Arcadia)
See attached for the three different cars.
It is very difficult to get into the Unit A garage. If the car is able to enter the garage head‐in somehow, backing out of the
garage into the main drive aisle to leave the development is not possible. To get in, the car has to back into the garage.
However, once the car backs into the garage, it is not possible to leave without turning further into the drive aisle and
backing up onto Alice Street. Not able to leave onto Alice Street head‐out.
Unit B has similar issues as Unit A.
Unit C is relatively easy to access, but difficult to exit. Needs at least 1 extra maneuver for the far right garage space
depending on the size of vehicle to back out of the garage. The possibility of this movement can also depend on if a
vehicle is parked in the guest space.
Overall, the drive aisle and access to garages is extremely tight. Only a very small vehicle would be able to make some of
these turns. It is not convenient at all to park vehicles in garage locations for each unit. Unit A is unable to have vehicles
exit the development head‐on while Units B and C would only be able to comfortably park 1 car.
Nicholas R. Lowe, MS|PE ‐ Senior Engineer
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA 92506
t: 951.248.4289
e: nick.lowe@webbassociates.com w: www.webbassociates.com
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
From: Matthew Webb <matt.webb@webbassociates.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:59 PM
Email from Transportation Engineer
2
To: Dilesh Sheth <dilesh.sheth@webbassociates.com>
Cc: Brad Thompson <bthompson@thompsonvaluation.com>
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Input (Arcadia)
Dilesh, could you give Brad some quick input on this via email? One question I have is whether the garages have clear
space of 18’ x 19’. Dilesh, we are trying to help Brad get ready for a planning commission meeting tomorrow night.
Matthew E. Webb, PE | TE | LLS ‐ President/Chief Executive Officer
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA 92506
t: 951.686.1070
e: matt.webb@webbassociates.com w: www.webbassociates.com
LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube
From: Brad Thompson <bthompson@thompsonvaluation.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Matthew Webb <matt.webb@webbassociates.com>
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Input (Arcadia)
Matt:
Aside from the garages only being 18’ x 19’, I have some other concerns:
1) Ingress to Unit A driveway‐facing space doesn’t appear feasible without a 3‐point turn maneuver. Also, a backing
sight/view hazard may exist.
2) Ingress to Unit B southerly driveway‐facing space doesn’t appear feasible without a 3‐point turn maneuver. Also,
a backing sight/view hazard may exist.
3) Egress from Unit C northerly driveway‐facing space doesn’t appear feasible without backing all the way out of
the driveway in reverse
Just looking for your opinion to make sure that my observations are in line.
Brad
Bradford Thompson, MAI, AI-GRS, SR/WA
Phone: 626.317.5158
Fax: 626.317.5168
bthompson@thompsonvaluation.com
www.thompsonvaluation.com
This message is sent for the benefit of or on behalf of a lawyer or Law Firm. This message is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity that
is the named addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the
named addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain,
copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper
copies and delete all electronic files of this message.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Join our mailing list!
Protection Notice
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Revised Site Plan & Response from
Applicant, dated February 2, 2021
Addressing Arcadia Planning Commission’s Concerns
Date: February 2, 2021
Project: 147 Alice St. – A Proposed New Three-unit Condominium Project
To the Arcadia Planning Commission,
Thank you for your time in considering the project at 147 Alice Street. At the January 26, 2021
Planning Commission meeting, a concern was raised regarding the on-site maneuverability from
certain parking stalls, with the last side-facing garage space being of most concern. It was
questioned whether a vehicle parked in subject spot would be able to back out and exit with the
provided 25’ back out space. Commissioner Thompson suggested that the project be redesigned
to two units to avoid this situation. As the public hearing is currently closed, I’ve prepared a list
to address the statements:
1. The plans have been modified to provide a 4’-6” deep by 13’-0” wide space behind the
open guest parking space to increase maneuverability from the garage spaces of the
back unit. Commissioner Thompson expressed concern about the adequacy of the back
out space for Unit C’s last garage space, especially when the back guest parking space is
in use. To mitigate this concern, the guest parking space has been moved forward to
provide a 4’-6” deep by 13’-0” wide area to increase maneuverability. A vehicle may now
utilize that space behind the guest parking even when a vehicle is parked in the
designated guest parking space. The actual clearance will likely be more than that
considering the average car length is around 16’-0”, and the provided parking space depth
is 19’-0”, plus a 3’-0” landscape buffer in front of the space.
2. The 25’ clear back out space has been the gold standard for years in the area. It is
consistent with the current requirements of all neighboring cities, with the exception of
Temple City, which has a sliding scale based on the width of the garage opening. The City
of Pasadena only requires a 24’ clear back out area in their high density multiple family
zone. Also, Arcadia’s Code allows for encroachments into the direct back out area with
an alternative design, which is a 25’ turning radius. This project provides a 25’ direct clear
path and complies with the standards.
3. This is an established layout in the area. During early 2000’s, the Planning Commission
had granted multiple set back modifications to allow the garages of multiple-family
projects to encroach 5’-0” into the required 10’-0” setback. This modification was granted
with such frequency that the Code was subsequently revised to allow a setback
encroachment specifically to allow garages to face the sides on a narrow lot. Almost all
projects in this area for the past 20 years have been developed with a similar layout. This
has not just set a precedence, but has become the standard, established design layout.
To my knowledge, with dozens of these projects in use over the last 20 years, the City has
received zero complaints, and zero incidents/accidents. With a perfect track record, it
has been the City’s experience that this layout works, and no real-world evidence to
suggest otherwise. If there has ever been a reported issue, the City would have reacted
and reevaluated this Code standard.
4. The City would not meet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers if limited
to two units. The standard lot width of the R-3 lots within this area is 50’-0”. This area
includes all residential properties south of Huntington Drive, north of Duarte Road, east
of Santa Anita Avenue, and west of Second Avenue. Requesting the applicant to reduce
the number of units from a minimum required three units to two units is effectively down-
zoning the property to R-2, and would also result in a net loss of one unit (there are
currently three units on the subject property). Effectively, the Commission would be
down-zoning the entire R-3 area if this layout is not allowed, and only two units is
permitted. When this area is down-zoned, the City would be further from meeting its
RHNA numbers. Also, the City had imposed a minimum density in the R-3 zone to combat
the development trend to build below the R-3 density in favor of larger, more expensive
homes, which is against the principles of a high density multiple family residential zone.
Restricting the subject property to build below the minimum density is a step back in
implementing the Code and meeting RHNA numbers.
5. Building below the required density is not permitted by right. Although the January 26,
2021 staff report stated that a lot may be developed with less than the required density
if a lot is 50 feet wide or less, it should be noted that it is not a Code provision by right.
Building below the density will require the approval of a modification application, which
requires specific findings to gain approval. In this case, there is no unique circumstance
to justify a modification to allow a reduced density development. Almost every lot has
the same lot width in this area.
In conclusion, it is the City’s duty to uphold the City’s own Codes and regulations, including
density and parking requirements. This project fully complies with all applicable City Codes and
is consistent with the parking layout of existing developments, and now we are asked to deviate
from the Code to build below density due to a perceived issue that has not been realized through
years of real world experience. In the meantime, the City has been trying to provide additional
housing units to satisfy RHNA numbers while asking this project to result in a net loss of one unit.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the Arcadia Planning Commission uphold the City’s Codes
and regulations, and approve the subject applications based on the findings as listed in the staff
report. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Li
Prestige Design, Planning, and Development, Inc.
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Site Plan at 155-159 Alice Street
PCPAPPROVED 2-27-18
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Videos of the mid-size vehicle and its
maneuverability on February 2, 2021
The following URL can be used to view
the videos:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aa23q-
DpEGyQO7apVBtnAvr3LOIXNzu1?usp=sharing
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Planning Commission Staff Report with all
the attachments, dated January 26, 2021
DATE: January 26, 2021
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Luis Torrico, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: APPROVING MULTIPLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
NO. MFADR 19-04 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 20-03
(83113), WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A THREE-UNIT, MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 147 ALICE
STREET
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2071
SUMMARY
The Applicant, Tom Li of Prestige Design, Planning & Developmen t, on behalf of the
property owner, Soliel Homes Inc, is requesting approval of Multiple Family Architectural
Design Review No. MFADR 19-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113), for
a new three (3) unit, three-story, multi-family residential condominium development at 147
Alice Street. The proposed development and subdivision are consistent with the City’s
General Plan, Development Code, and Subdivision Code. As an infill development project,
the proposed development qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). It is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113) subject to the conditions listed in this staff
report, and adopt Resolution No. 2071 – refer to Attachment No. 1.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 7,500 square foot interior lot, located on the north side of Alice
Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenues. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Multiple
Family Residential with a General Plan Land Use Designation of High Density Residential.
The property is surrounded by other R-3 zoned properties to the north, south, east, and to
the west. The project site is improved with three units - one single-family dwelling and one
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
duplex, and one carport with three parking spaces that were built in 1950 – refer to
Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject
Property.
A Certificate of Demolition (COD) for the subject property was approved on March 2, 2020,
however the structures have not yet been demolished due to the City’s replacement policy
for residential projects that the owners cannot demolish the structures until a project has
been approved. Based on the evaluation by an Architectural Historian, the property does
not meet any of the minimum requirements for designation as a historical resource under
federal, state and local criteria. The residence is not a good example of a particular
architectural style and is not representative of or associated with any important historical
events or people.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to demolish all the existing structures on the property to
construct a new three unit, three-story, multi-family residential condominium development
with surface parking – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Tentative Parcel Map and
Attachment No. 4 for the proposed Architectural Plans. The project will be of Spanish
architectural style, which will be compatible with the existing multi-family developments in
the neighborhood, which include a variety of architectural styles including two Spanish style
developments adjacent to the subject site. The front unit will consist of three (3) bedrooms
and the rear two units will consist of four (4) bedrooms. E ach unit will vary between 1,659
to 2,177 square feet in floor area. The front unit will have direct access from Alice Street
and the remaining two (2) units will have a pedestrian walkway along the north side of the
property (see Figure 1).
The proposed development will have an overall ridge height of 32’-7”, whereas a maximum
of 30’-0” is allowed, unless it is a pitched roof then the structure can extend up to three (3)
feet above the maximum height limit. T herefore, the proposed development will comply
with the height requirement. The building provides the minimum front yard setback of 25’-
0” as well as all the other minimum setbacks required in the R-3 zone, for lots that are 65’
in width of less. Each unit requires a minimum of 100 square feet of open space, which will
be provided through rooftop patios located on the third floor, for units A & B, and an at-
grade patio for unit C.
Figure 1 – Site Plan Alice St. N
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
The front unit will have two oversized one-car garages with separate access. One garage
is approximately 9’-6” x 21’-6”, and the second one is approximately 9’-6” x 19’-0”. Given
the property’s narrow lot width of 50 feet, the rear units will each have a two-car garage at
the minimum dimensions of 18’-0” x 19’-0”. Two (2) open guest spaces will be provided to
comply with Code. The garages for all the units and guest spaces will be accessed from
Alice Street. Additionally, there will be two (2) bicycle parking spaces provided toward the
rear of the property. Based on the number of parking spaces provided, the project meets
the required parking per the Development Code.
ANALYSIS
The R-3 zone requires a minimum density of one dwelling unit per 2,200 square feet of lot
area, and a maximum density of one unit per 1,450 square feet of lot area. This calculates
to a minimum density of three (3) units and a maximum of five (5) units . If a lot has a lot
width that is 50 feet or less such as this one, it may be developed with less than the required
minimum density, but not less than two (2) dwelling units. The Code requires two (2)
covered spaces per unit and one (1) guest space for every two (2) units. Parking for t he
project will be provided through at-grade garages for each unit, and two (2) open guest
spaces. The project will also provide two (2) bicycle racks located at the rear of the
property. Therefore, the proposed development will comply with the parking requirements
of the R-3 Zone. Lastly, the project will comply with the adjacent development standards
of the R-3 Zone, including, but not limited to setbacks, height and open space.
The proposed development will be the first three -story development on this street. As
previously mentioned, the code allows a maximum height of 30’-0”, unless it’s a pitched
roof then the structure can extend up to three (3) feet above the maximum height limit. The
project will have an overall building height of 32’-7”. However, it will not be out of character
with the new development since a two-story condominium at 141-145 Alice Street, west
and next door to the subject site, was approved at 29’-0” in height. To mitigate the overall
bulk and mass and to ensure the new development will blend with other development within
this neighborhood, the third floor was stepped back approximately 16 feet from the first and
second levels (see Figure 3). Therefore, while this will be the first three-story development
on the street, it will be compatible with the other multi-family developments in the area
since the front unit will only be two-story tall.
Concurrent with the subdivision application, the Planning Commission must approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the architectural design of the proposed project. The project
is designed in a Spanish architectural style (refer to Attachment No. 4) with a stucco
exterior finish. The roof consists of concrete “S” tile roofing material and moldings along
the eaves (see Figures 2 & 3). Additional architectural features will include, but not limited
to, decorative window trim, wrought iron railings/features, fabric window awnings, and
various building projections, which provide roof breaks with multiple rooflines. The
proposed Spanish style development will be compatible with other contemporary style
existing multi-family developments along Alice Street, including recently completed multi-
family developments on adjoining lots, as the massing and scale of this project is consistent
with others found in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will also provide
landscaping throughout the property, with an emphasis along the front yard and the side
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
yards to offer additional screening and privacy for the adjacent multi-family residences on
both sides.
Figure 2. Proposed front elevation
FINDINGS
Tentative Parcel Map
The proposal to subdivide the airspace for three (3) residential condominium units requires
a subdivision through the Tentative Parcel Map process – see Attachment No. 3 for
Figure 3. Proposed side elevations
Alice St. Alice St. 16’-0”
16’-0”
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113). The proposed subdivision complies with the
subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act, and
will not violate any requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
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 in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative parcel map for a three-
unit multi-family residential condominium development and subdivision of the
airspace has been reviewed for compliance with the City’s General Plan,
Development Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act. It has been determined th at
the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan High Density
Residential Land Use designation and the R-3, High Density Multiple Family
Residential zoning designation. These designations are intended to accommodate
high density, attached or detached residential units such as condominiums, withi n
the appropriate neighborhoods. The proposed tentative parcel map complies with
the Subdivision Map Act regulations and there is no specific plan applicable to this
project. The project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan and
is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are
consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing
uses.
Policy LU-4.1: Require that new multi-family residential development be
visually and functionally integrated and consistent in scale, mass, and
character with structures in the surrounding neighborhood.
B. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The project site is physically suitable for the
proposed multi-family residential development. The R-3 zone requires a minimum
density of one dwelling unit per 2,200 square feet of lot area, and a maximum density
of one unit per 1,450 square feet of lot area. This calculates to a minimum density
of three (3) units and a maximum of five (5) units. Therefore, the proposed three-
unit development complies with the density requirements of the underlying zone as
well as all other applicable zoning requirements including but not limited to parking,
setbacks, height, and open space.
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.
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative parcel map for three (3)
multi-family residential condominium units is a subdivision of an infill site within an
urbanized area and does not serve as a habitat for endangered or rare species. The
project will not cause substantial environmental damage or impact wildlife.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health or safety problems.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision will construct three (3)
multi-family residential units in compliance with all applicable Building and Fire
Codes to ensure public health and safety. The project will maintain a density that is
allowed in the R-3 zone and the proposed development 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 (This finding shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body
to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision).
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed design of the subdivision does not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. There are no known easements on the
subject property.
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 in Support of 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.
Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative parcel map and three-
unit multi-family condominium development have been reviewed by Building
Services to ensure compliance with the California Building Code, which includes
requirements associated with heating and cooling requirements.
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
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 in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision as conditioned,
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.
Architectural Design Review
The proposed development is located in the R-3 zone (High Density Multiple Family
Residential), which is intended to provide high density residential development. The
proposed design of the three-unit condominium project is compatible with existing multi-
family developments in the surrounding neighborhood in terms of massing and scale. While
this development will be the first three-story development on this street, stepping the third
floor from the street level by an additional 16 feet will help reduce the overall bulk and mass
of the building, and the change in height will help transition with the other existing multi-
family developments. The proposed development will also be similar in height to the 29 -
foot tall multi-family condominium development approved west and next door to the subject
site. The proposed Spanish style architecture will be consistent with other Spanish
influenced styles of architecture that exist along Alice Street, including the two recently
completed adjacent multi-family developments. In addition, the proposed design is
consistent with the City’s Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines.
All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building
safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation
compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property
owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Planning &
Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director,
or their respective designees.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
It has been determined that the project site is less than five (5) acres; the project site has
no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; the proposed project will
not have any significant effects upon the environment, and the site can be adequately
served by all the required utilities and public services. Therefore, the project is exempt
under Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 5 for the
Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this item were mailed to the owners of those properties that are
located within 300 feet of the subject property and published in the Arcadia Weekly on
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 14, 2021. As of January 22, 2021, staff has not received any comments from the
public.
On January 11, 2021, the Applicant sent each tenant a notice informing them of the
proposed project. The notice was sent through Certified Mail.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Multiple Family Architectural
Design Review No. MFADR 19-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113),
subject to the following conditions, find that the project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt Resolution No. 2071, subject to
the following conditions of approval:
1. All the windows shall be recessed a minimum of two (2) inches from the building walls.
A construction detail indicating the 2-inch recess shall be included on the plans
submitted to the Building Division for plan check.
2. Any required mechanical equipment, such as backflow devices, visible from the public
right-of-way shall be screened from public view. Screening may include landscaping,
solid walls or other methods deemed appropriate for the development. The placement
and height of said screening shall subject to review and approval by the Planning &
Community Development Administrator, or designee.
3. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant/Property Owner in a
manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for
MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113) subject to the approval of the Planning &
Community Development Administrator, or designee.
4. The project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as
applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
5. All utility conductors, cables, conduits and wiring supplying electrical, cable and
telephone service to a multiple family building shall be installed underground except
risers which are adjacent to and attached to a building.
6. Grading plans shall be submitted to, and approved by the Building Services Division.
The grading plans shall indicate all on- and off-site improvements, and shall indicate
complete drainage paths of all drainage water run -off.
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
7. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the removal and/or demolition of structures.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the Applicant/Property Owner shall:
a) Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from property line to property
line.
b) Construct sidewalk from property line to property line.
c) Install new driveway approaches (minimum 12' wide) per City’s Standard Plan.
Install transitions to the driveways just inside the property lines to transition
from the 12.5' to the 10' wide driveway approaches.
d) Repair asphalt street damages caused by the development, as necessary.
9. The Applicant/Property Owner shall coordinate with Public W orks Services
Department for the installation of new street trees per the City’s Street Tree Master
Plan.
10. All structures shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system per the City of
Arcadia Fire Department’s Multi-Family Dwelling Sprinkler Standard.
11. There is a 6-inch cast iron water main with 72 psi static pressure that the development
shall connect to on Alice Street for domestic water and/or fire services. The
Applicant/Property Owner shall provide calculations to the Public Works Services
Department to determine the total combined maximum domestic and fire demand,
and verify the water service size required.
12. The Applicant/Property Owner shall install separate water meter for each
condominium unit. The water meter for each unit can be used to supply both domestic
water services and fire services. The Applicant/Property Owner shall separate the fire
service from domestic water service with an approved back flow device.
13. All condominiums shall require a separate water service and meter for common area
landscape irrigation.
14. A Water Meter Permit Application shall be submitted to the Public Works Services
Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the new development.
15. New water service installations shall be by the Applicant/Property Owner. Installation
shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department,
Engineering Section. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, shall be
carried out by the Applicant/Property, according to Public Works Services
Department.
16. An 8” Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) City sewer line is available on Alice Street to provide
sanitary sewer service for the project. The Applicant/Property Owner shall utilize
existing sewer lateral if possible.
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
17. If any drainage fixture elevation is lower than the elevation of the next upstream
manhole cover (444.97’), an approved type of backwater valve is required to be
installed on the lateral within the City’s right-of-way.
18. The proposed project shall be subject to low impact development (LID) requirements.
These requirements include but are not limited to using infiltration trenches, bio-
retention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious
concrete/paver, etc.
19. The Applicant/Property Owner shall provide, and accommodate for, a total of three
trash containers for trash, recycling and green waste for each unit, to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Services Director, or designee.
20. 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 Planning & Community Development
Administrator. 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.
21. The Applicant/Property Owner 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 applicabl e 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.
22. Approval of MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113) shall not be in effect unless the
Property Owner and Applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the
City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has adopted the
Resolution. The executed Acceptance Form submitted to the Development Services
Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move
to approve Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19-04 and Tentative
Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113), state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings,
and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2071 that incorporates the requisite environmental
and subdivision findings, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or
as modified by the Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission is to deny this project, the Commission should state the specific
findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific
reasons for denial, and move to deny Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No.
MFADR 19-04 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113) and direct staff to prepare
a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission’s decision
and specific findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the January 26, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting, please
contact Senior Planner, Luis Torrico at (626) 574-5442, or ltorrico@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2071
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject
Property and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-03 (83113)
Attachment No. 4: Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 5: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 2071
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and
Photos of the Subject Site
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
R-3
Number of Units:
HDR
Property Characteristics
1947
1,797
3
LIU,DIAN WEN AND QIU,MAGGIE Y
Site Address:147 ALICE ST
Parcel Number: 5779-017-005
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
N/A
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay:N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
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 19-Jan-2021
Page 1 of 1January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
155 Alice Street – East neighbor next door
Subject site
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
141 – 145 Alice Street – West neighbor next door
Existing multi-family developments across the street from the subject site
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Existing multi-family developments across the street from the subject site
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Tentative Parcel Map
No. TPM 20-03 (83113)
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
Architectural Plans
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1. Name or description of project: MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113) – A tentative parcel
map for a three-unit residential condominium development with
a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”)
2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
147 Alice Street (Alice Street & S. 2nd Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Tom Li of Prestige Design, Planning &
Development, Applicant
(2) Address PO Box 660866
Arcadia, CA 91066
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental
assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15332 – Class 32 (In-Fill Development)
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise
exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency, which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date:
January 26, 2021
Staff:
Luis Torrico, Senior Planner
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Public comment received after Staff Report was published
January 26, 2021 Staff Report with all Attachments
Attachment No. 8
Attachment No. 8
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1. Name or description of project: MFADR 19-04 and TPM 20-03 (83113) – A tentative parcel
map for a three-unit residential condominium development with
a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”)
2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
147 Alice Street (Alice Street & S. 2nd Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Tom Li of Prestige Design, Planning &
Development, Applicant
(2) Address PO Box 660866
Arcadia, CA 91066
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental
assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15332 – Class 32 (In-Fill Development)
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise
exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency, which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date:
February 9, 2021
Staff:
Luis Torrico, Senior Planner