HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08a - Appeal for Proposed Two-Story Residence at 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
DATE: August 16, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
Prepared By: Edwin Arreola, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF THE APPEAL
OF SINGLE-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR
21-13 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) FOR A PROPOSED TWO-
STORY RESIDENCE AT 26 E. SANTA ANITA TERRACE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 7454 to Deny the Appeal
and Uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision
SUMMARY
The Appellants, Yang Liu and Jun Dai, Marianne Martin, Maxine McClellan, Bingbing
Zhang, Wei Cong, Li Chen and Chi Liang, and Lesley Ma, are appealing the Planning
Commission’s denial of the appeal of Single-Family Architectural Design Review No.
SFADR 21-13. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and
uphold the Development Services Department’s approval of SFADR 21-13 for a new
3,169 square foot, two-story residence with an attached 443 square foot two-car
garage, an attached 268 square foot covered patio, and a 633 square foot basement
located at 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace. The Planning Commission determined that the
project was consistent with the City of Arcadia’s (“City”) Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines. The Appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision on June 6, 2022. It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No.
7454 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is an 8,283 square foot vacant lot at the terminus of E. Santa Anita
Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The surrounding
properties are all zoned R-1 and consist of one-story homes on E. Santa Anita Terrace
and two-story homes to the north and south, on different streets but abutting the subject
site.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 2 of 15
The subject property was previously part of a larger 31,040 square foot lot at 1512 S.
Santa Anita Avenue. In 2009, a Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot subdivision was
approved, which resulted in a 20,918 square foot lot with access from Santa Anita
Avenue (Lot No. 1 in Figure 1 below) and an 8,283 square foot lot with direct access
from Santa Anita Terrace (Lot No. 2, the subject site, in Figure 1 below).
Figure 1 – Parcel Map
The Final Parcel Map for the subdivision was approved on June 19, 2018. Multiple
Assembly Bills passed by the State in response to the recession in 2009 and a one-
time, one-year extension granted by the City allowed the Tentative Parcel Map to stay
active until the date of approval of the Final Parcel Map. The Final Parcel Map also
included the right for the City to accept a street and easement dedication in the future
for the construction of a half cul-de-sac, which would ultimately become a full cul-de-sac
should the property owner at 1504 S. Santa Anita Avenue dedicate the other half of the
cul-de-sac.
Since the approval of the parcel map, a new 6,693 square foot two-story house was
approved at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue last December. The subject property currently
has no dividing wall on its westerly property line, but once the site is developed, a wall
will be constructed. The lot is bounded by walls/fencing on the north, east, and south.
On April 26, 2021, the Applicant filed a Single-Family Architectural Design Review
application for a new two-story house. Along with the home, the half cul-de-sac area in
front of the property was initially to be constructed and dedicated, which would require
the driveway apron of the adjacent property at 28 E. Santa Anita Terrace to be modified
and adjusted in order for the subject site to have access from the street. All the
improvements will occur within the public right-of-way and it will not affect the owner’s
legal lot. Also, a portion of the existing 6-foot block wall at the end of E. Santa Anita
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 3 of 15
Terrace and along the easterly property line of the subject property would need to be
removed to allow access. In September 2021, City Staff met with the property owner of
28 E. Santa Anita Terrace, Mr. Jun Dai (one of the Appellants), to make him aware of
the proposed development and alteration to his driveway apron. He was unaware of the
access since he was not the property owner at the time the tentative map was
approved.
The project was first noticed on October 11, 2021, at which time the City received a total
of 5 letters of concern from the neighbors. After taking the neighbors’ comments into
consideration, the project was revised with the following changes:
• The proposal to construct and dedicate the half cul-de-sac was removed and a
hammerhead driveway was proposed instead with private access to the property
since the neighbors did not like the appearance, design, or functionality of the
half cul-de-sac. Regardless, the revised driveway would still require a portion of
the neighbor’s driveway access in the public right-of-way to be altered to allow
access to the subject site. The end result would be a new narrow drive approach
at the end of the street next to the neighbor’s altered drive approach (see Figures
2 and 3 below). The offer of dedication would still remain on the Parcel Map in
case the other half of the cul-de-sac is dedicated in the future.
• Reduced the overall square footage of the two-story house from 3,386 square
feet to 3,169 square feet.
• Reduced the floor area of the second floor from 1,365 square feet to 1,111
square feet, including high ceiling area.
• Increased the second story setback on the easterly side from 15’-0” to 20’-6” and
kept the second story footprint towards the west and south of the building.
• Limited the easterly facing windows on the second floor to one obscured glass
window.
• Added a 633 square foot basement.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 4 of 15
Figure 2 – New Driveway Approach
Street Area to be Paved New Driveway Apron Wall in the Right-of-way to be Removed
Figure 3 – Current Terminus of E. Santa Anita Terrace Showing Extent of Proposed Driveway for 28 E. Santa Anita Ter.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 5 of 15
On February 2, 2022, a second notice was sent to all the property owners within the
300-foot radius for the revised project. During the notification period, the City received
five new letters from the neighbors. On February 28, 2022, the Development Services
Department conditionally approved the project on the basis that the proposed design for
the two-story house was found to be consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines and will comply with all of the required development standards.
On March 10, 2022, the Appellants filed an appeal of the Development Services
Department’s decision. The Appellants had concerns with the project depriving the
existing residents of on-street parking, the proposed driveway conflicting with the feng
shui of the neighborhood, the two-story house creating a privacy issue to the
surrounding neighbors, safety pertaining to visibility when accessing the new driveway,
potential construction impacts, and other concerns that pertain to the subdivision, which
is not a part of this approval. On April 14, 2022, prior to the Planning Commission
hearing, City staff met with the Appellants to discuss their questions and concerns and
explained that the map and the half cul-de-sac was not a part of this project, since the
map was approved back in 2009 and recorded in 2018.
On May 24, 2022, the appeal was heard by the Planning Commission. Following
consideration of all the facts, details, and public comments, the Planning Commission
found the project compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City’s
Residential Design Guidelines (refer to the Planning Commission Minutes – Attachment
“C”; For the Planning Commission Staff Report and all the relevant exhibits, please see
Attachment “D”). The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and
conditionally approve Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 21-13.
On June 6, 2022, the Appellants, Yang Liu and Jun Dai, Marianne Martin, Maxine
McClellan, Bingbing Zhang, Wei Cong, Li Chen and Chi Liang, and Lesley Ma, filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the new two-story home (refer
to Attachment “B”). The Appellants object to the Planning Commission’s decision and
state that three of their main concerns were not fully answered. These concerns include
the risk of collision between vehicles exiting the driveways of 26 and 28 E. Santa Anita
Terrace, insufficient privacy screening, and construction impacts.
DISCUSSION
In their appeal letter, the Appellants state that they hope the project is re-evaluated to
address their main concerns, which include the risk of collision of vehicles between the
subject property and adjacent property due to the proximity of their driveways, lack of
sufficient privacy screening, and construction impacts, such as noise, traffic, road
closures, and street cleaning.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 6 of 15
Below is an analysis of each of the Appellant’s concerns shown in italics.
1. The collision risk between vehicles coming out from this new property and the
neighboring driveway still remains unaccounted for. Cars coming out of the
hammerhead driveway has, on average, only close to one foot of clearance with
any neighbor’s parked car. Furthermore, there is very limited visibility between
any neighbor’s car and the exit of the private driveway, which we believe only
increases the risk of collision.
Although the driveways of 26 and 28 E. Santa Anita Terrace are close in proximity, the
collision risk between vehicles exiting the driveways is expected to be minimal. The
private hammerhead driveway on the subject property would create a large, paved turn
around area, making it possible for vehicles to make a 3-point turn and head nose first
out of the driveway and onto the street, allowing for greater visibility. A portion of the
existing 6’-0” high wall along the easterly property line of the subject property and
adjacent to the public right-of-way will be removed, approximately seven feet beyond
the width of the driveway, allowing vehicles exiting the subject property to clearly see
any vehicles backing out of the adjacent driveway. A Condition of Approval has been
added to ensure that the wall is removed along this portion. With these measures the
driveway situation is not unlike other easement or flag-lot conditions on many single-
family lots. Therefore, the approved layout should not create a safety risk.
Figure 4 – Proposed Hammerhead Driveway Existing Wall to Be Removed
2. The planned development continues to invade the privacy of bordering
neighbor’s homes. The existing trees are not dense enough to provide the
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 7 of 15
privacy screening needed, specifically for the neighbors directly north and south
of the property. In addition, all existing measurements provided by the revised
plan do not offer any semblance of sufficient privacy for bordering neighbors.
After neighbors’ comments were received from the first notice, the Applicant revised the
design of the home to provide a greater second story setback on the easterly side of the
house. The second story setback was increased from 15’-0” to 20’-6” (an additional 5’-
6”), and that side of the house will only have one window on the second floor with an
obscured glass, as shown in Figure 4 below. There is virtually no privacy concern for
the neighboring properties to the east.
Figure 5 – East Elevation
Along the westerly elevation of the home, there is only one small, second story window
facing out from a bathroom. There is a second story setback of 35 feet from the property
to the south and approximately a 67-foot second story setback to the north. In addition
to these large distances, there are existing trees and landscaping on these sites that
provide added screening, as seen in the images in Figure 6 below. Furthermore, the
Property Owner will provide tall hedges along the side and rear yards, as the City’s
Residential Design Guidelines recommend utilizing landscaping to provide screening
and enhance privacy between properties, and this is included as a Condition of
Approval. Lastly, there will be no privacy issue to the adjacent properties due to the
orientation of the house on this site in relation to the adjacent homes. The existing
foliage would not only provide privacy screening, but it also helps soften the appearance
of the two-story home next to the one-story home. Taking into account the placement of
second story windows, setback distances, and the location of existing and proposed
landscaping, there is expected to be little to no impact on the privacy of the surrounding
neighbors.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 8 of 15
Facing East of Subject Site
Facing South of Subject Site
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 9 of 15
Facing North of Subject Site
Figure 6 – Existing Landscaping on Adjacent Properties
3. The safety and quality of life measurements we had earlier requested during
construction were not committed to in writing. The proposed development has
not committed to minimizing the following, inexhaustive list of impacts: noise
concerns, traffic jams, street cleanliness, road blockage, etc.
As with all other construction projects in the City, any construction might be an
inconvenience to the neighbors, but the impact is only temporary and is unavoidable.
Staff will work with the Applicant to ensure that they comply with all best management
practices for construction and, if possible, have their contractors park on the subject site
during construction. No traffic is expected to be blocked from accessing Santa Anita
Terrace and only the modification to the driveway on the adjacent property and the
paving of the street will temporarily block access for vehicles on to the driveway of 28 E.
Santa Anita Terrace for a couple of days. Street cleanliness is required of all
construction projects. A Condition has been placed on the project stating that any debris
left on the street shall be cleaned up at the end of each day – refer to Condition No. 5.
Also, a Condition of Approval was placed on this project indicating that the Applicant
must inform all of the property owners on this street and any properties that abut the
property line at least 2 weeks prior to any grading/construction on this site and provide
the Superintendent’s contact information should any of the neighbors have any
concerns – refer to Condition No. 4.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 10 of 15
It should be noted that, subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, Development
Services Department Staff has continued to work with the property owner of 28 E. Santa
Anita Terrace on alternative alignments. A meeting was held with Mr. Dai on August 5,
2022, and a shared driveway approach was provided as an option. As of drafting this
staff report, however, Mr. Dai had not agreed on this alternative. As a result, the
approved driveway is the still the best option since the improvements will result in two
independent driveway approaches and there will not be any parking conflicts. Also,
there will be no sightline issues for egress conflicts, and the conflicts will be extremely
rare because vehicles will be travelling at very low speeds. In single-family subdivisions,
especially cul-de-sacs, there are often unique backing motions into the street. While not
“standard” the proposed alignment does not present unique safety concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On May 24, 2022, the Planning Commission considered Appeal No. 22-02 of Single-
Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 21-13. The Planning Commission
carefully considered all the facts, points of appeal, the neighborhood characteristics, the
public comments, and the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, and ultimately
found the project to be consistent with the objectives of the Design Guidelines and
compatible with the established neighborhood. They determined that the overall mass
and scale was appropriate for the neighborhood. They also determined that the
proposed design and orientation of the project was the best available option for the
construction of this home.
Specifically, Commissioner Thompson felt that many of the concerns brought forward by
the Appellants were regarding the access to the property and were not applicable due to
the Parcel Map already being approved. He felt that the mass and scale of the house
are not concerns since the second floor is half the size of the first floor and that the
proposed design of the driveway is the best available option for access to the site. Vice
Chair Chan, Commissioner Wilander, and Commissioner Tsoi acknowledged that the
project had addressed the Appellant’s concerns of safety with the design of the
hammerhead driveway and privacy with the window placement and landscape
screening provided. Chair Lin also agreed with all of the Commissioners and believed
that the Applicant followed the proper regulations of the Development Code and
applicable laws in the design of the project.
Commissioner Thompson made a motion to deny the appeal and approve Single-Family
Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 for a proposed two-story home. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilander. The Planning Commission voted 5-0
to deny the appeal – refer to Attachment “C” and “D” for the Planning Commission
Minutes for the May 24, 2022, Meeting and Staff Report for the May 24, 2022, Planning
Commission Meeting.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 11 of 15
FINDINGS
Section 9107.19.050 of the Development Code requires that the Review Authority may
approve a Site Plan and Design Review application, only if it first makes all the following
findings:
1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable
development standards and regulations in the Development Code.
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential Zone, which allows for the development of a single-family residence.
Aside from the design review criteria addressed hereafter, the proposed project
will not change the use or density allowed in this zone and meets all of the
development standards and regulations required, including but not limited to
setbacks, height, and floor area.
2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and
standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project will be consistent with the
City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the overall mass and scale
of the home transitions well between the adjacent two-story homes to the west of
this site and the single-story homes on Santa Anita Terrace. The proposed
residence will have a limited street presence on Santa Anita Terrace because the
orientation of this lot hardly has any street frontage other than a driveway. The
proposed home is tucked away and there are large Cypress trees on the
adjacent property to further screen the second floor. The Traditional architectural
style is coherent, consistent with the neighborhood, and adequately executes the
style.
3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and
aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed Traditional style home would be
compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of the architectural
design since the subject site is in a residential neighborhood that is comprised of
Ranch or Traditional style homes. The traditional style house is consistent with
the City’s Design Guidelines in terms of form, roof, articulations, design features
and details, and color. The architectural design, overall articulation, greater
second story setbacks, and placing of the proposed residence towards the rear
of the lot helps minimize the scale and soften the appearance of the home.
4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout
in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 12 of 15
Facts to Support This Finding: Due to the limitations of the lot, the only access
to the property is off of a street frontage at the end of E. Santa Anita Terrace. A
driveway, along with improvements in the public right-of-way, will be constructed
in order to provide adequate access to the site. Additionally, to improve vehicular
circulation, a hammerhead driveway is proposed on the property to allow
vehicles to drive on to E. Santa Anita Terrace safely facing forward. Required
parking is being provided with a two-car garage and adequate landscaping will
be provided throughout the property, which would also enhance the privacy for
the surrounding neighbors and the overall appearance of the neighborhood.
5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable
criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for a Site Plan and
Design Review application.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project would be in compliance
with all the applicable criteria set forth in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5,
including all other applicable sections of the Development Code. The project is in
compliance with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the
proposed home will have an appropriate mass, scale, and design that fits in with
the homes it is bounded by. The site layout and design is harmonious with the
neighborhood as its smaller two-story design will provide a transition between the
larger two-story home to the west and single-story home to the east. The project
is situated in a location that presents minimal privacy issues and is well
landscaped throughout the site. The driveway for the site is designed to provide
efficient and safe access to the residents and neighbors. No major impacts on or
off-site are expected from this project. Therefore, the proposed home will be
consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and
General Plan.
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve Single-Family Architectural Design
Review No. SFADR 21-13 for a proposed two-story residence at the subject property.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines for the construction of a new single-family home. Refer to Attachment
“F” for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 13 of 15
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this item were mailed on July 29, 2022, to the property
owners of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the public hearing notice was published in the
Arcadia Weekly on July 28, 2022. As of the date of this Staff Report, staff has not
received any comments from the public.
FISCAL IMPACT
Any decision on the appeal would not have a significant fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7454, upholding the
Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal of Single-Family Architectural Design
Review No. SFADR 21-13 with a categorical exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for a proposed two-story residence at 26 E. Santa
Anita Terrace, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Owner/Applicant in a manner
that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Single-
Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
& Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The project shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
(“WELO”). The application shall be submitted with the plans for plan check in
Building Services.
3. The Owner/Applicant shall construct the following improvements:
a. Remove the block wall for the entire width of the public right-of-way extension
of Santa Anita Terrace along the property frontage of 26 E. Santa Anita
Terrace.
b. Remove the curved curb and gutter, and the driveway extension in front of 28
E. Santa Anita Terrace and construct a new curb, gutter, and drive approach to
follow the normal street extension to the westerly Santa Anita Terrace terminus.
c. Construct a standard drive approach for the property at 26 E. Santa Anita
Terrace at the terminus of the current street.
4. The Owner/Applicant shall inform all the property owners on E. Santa Anita Terrace
and those that abut the subject site at least two weeks prior to commencing any
work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction). The notice should include the
Superintendent’s contact information. The Owner/Applicant shall also inform the
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 14 of 15
property owner of 28 E. Santa Anita Terrace at least two weeks prior to commencing
any work on the driveway leading on to their property.
5. The Owner/Applicant shall clear the public right-of-way on E. Santa Anita Terrace of
any construction related debris at the end of each day during construction.
6. Prior to the start of work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction), if the site is
developed prior to the adjacent property to the west at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue,
the Applicant/Owner shall be required to construct a new 6’-0” high wall along the
westerly property line. This shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
& Community Development Administrator, or designee.
7. Landscaping shall be planted in the right-of-way dedication area as indicated on the
plans. All landscape and hardscape areas within the dedication area shall be
maintained by the Property Owner.
8. The hedges/shrubs along the side and rear yard areas shall be planted at a height of
6’-0” or taller prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from Building Services.
The landscaping must comply with the approved landscape plans and be
maintained.
9. The Owner/Applicant 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, or their respective designees. 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.
10. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify, and
hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of
the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials,
agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability
for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal
injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all
other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by
reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with Single-Family Design Review
No. SFADR 21-13 on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or
indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents,
tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate
to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision
applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as
described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the
plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.
Resolution No. 7454 – Appeal No. 22-04 of SFADR 21-13
August 16, 2022
Page 15 of 15
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation
of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the
Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings
and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant
must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with
respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the
City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from
the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to City a cash deposit to cover
legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any
legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney.
City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5
business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below
the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order
for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. City shall only refund to
Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-
appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or
(ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select
legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties
hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily
assist in any such third-party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the
Applicant in connection with such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for
approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s)
related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the
Applicant.
Attachment “A” Resolution No. 7454
Attachment “B” Appeal Application and Letter, dated June 6, 2022
Attachment “C” Planning Commission Minutes for the May 24, 2022, Meeting
Attachment “D” Staff Report for the May 24, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting,
including all the Original Attachments
Attachment “E” Architectural Plans approved by the Planning Commission May 24,
2022
Attachment “F” Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment A
Attachment A
Resolution No. 7454
Attachment B
Attachment B
$SSHDOApplication and Letter,
dated June 6, 2022
Attachment C
Attachment C
Planning Commission Minutes
for the May 24, 2022 Meeting
Attachment '
Attachment '
6WDII5HSRUWIRUWKH0D\
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0HHWLQJ
LQFOXGLQJDOO$WWDFKPHQWV
DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Edwin Arreola, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2097 – DENYING THE APPEAL OF SINGLE FAMILY
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 21-13 FOR A
PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) AT 26 E SANTA ANITA TERRACE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2097
SUMMARY
The Appellants, Yang Liu and Jun Dai, Maxine McClellan, Bingbing Zhang, Wei Cong,
Marianne Martin, Li Chen and Chi Liang, and Lesley Ma, are appealing the Development
Services Department’s approval of Single-Family Architectural Design Review No.
SFADR 21-13 for a new 3,169 square foot, two-story residence with an attached 443
square foot two-car garage, a 268 square foot attached covered patio and a 633 square
foot basement located at 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace. The appeal was filed on March 10,
2022. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2097,
thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Development Services Department’s
decision.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is an 8,283 square foot, unimproved vacant lot at the end of a cul-
de-sac at E. Santa Anita Terrace (see Figure 1) which was once part of a larger lot that
was subdivided in 2018. The structures that were previously on this property were
demolished in 2018 as part of the Final Parcel Map approval. The property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential – refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning
Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Surrounding Properties. The
surrounding properties are all zoned R-1 and consist of one-story homes on E. Santa
Anita Terrace and two-story homes to the north and south, on different streets but abutting
the subject site.
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 2 of 15
The subject property was part of a larger property that was 31,040 square feet at 1512 S.
Santa Anita Avenue. In 2009, a Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot subdivision was
approved. The subdivision resulted in a 20,918 square foot lot area for Lot No. 1 with
access from Santa Anita Avenue (1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue) and Lot No. 2 was 8,283
square feet with direct access from Santa Anita Terrace (26 E. Santa Anita Terrace, the
subject site) – refer to Figure 1 below.
The tentative parcel map was valid for two years. Because of the recession in 2009,
multiple Assembly Bills were passed by the State to automatically extend all the parcel
and tract maps. As a result, the tentative parcel map for this site expired on July 14, 2018,
which included a one-time, one-year extension that was granted by the City. The Final
Parcel Map was approved by the City Council on June 19, 2018, that included a right-of-
way dedication for the future construction of a half cul-de-sac (refer to Figure 1 above and
Attachment No. 8 – Parcel Map No. 70963). Ultimately, it would become a full cul-de-sac
should the property owner at 1504 S. Santa Anita Avenue dedicate the other half of the
cul-de-sac. The dedication does require that the driveway apron be altered at 28 E. Santa
Anita Terrace in order for the subject site to have access from the street.
Since the approval of the parcel map, a new 6,693 square foot two-story house was
approved at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue last December. The subject property currently
has no dividing wall on its westerly property line but once the site is developed it will have
a wall between both properties. The lot is bounded by walls/fencing on the north, east,
and south.
Figure 1 – Parcel Map
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 3 of 15
Project Description
On April 26, 2021, the Applicant filed a Single-Family Architectural Design Review
application to develop the last lot of this subdivision with a new house. Now that the lot is
being developed, it would require the driveway apron to be modified and adjusted at 28
E. Santa Anita Terrace in order for this site to have access from the street (see Figure 2).
All the improvements will occur within the public right-of-way and it will not affect the
owner’s legal lot. Also, a portion of the existing 6-foot high block wall at the end of E.
Santa Anita Terrace and along the easterly property line of the subject property would
need to be removed to allow access.
Back in September 2021, City Staff met with the affected owner next door, Mr. Jun Dai
(one of the Appellants), to make him aware of the proposed development and alteration
to his driveway apron since he would be most directly impacted by this project. He was
unaware of the access since he was not the property owner at the time the tentative map
Figure 2 – New Driveway Approach
Street Area to be Paved New Driveway Apron (28. E Santa Anita Ter.) Subject Site
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 4 of 15
was approved. Since then, the Applicant and City kept him apprised of all the changes
that were made throughout the process.
In terms of the design, the Applicant originally proposed a 3,386 square foot, two-story,
Traditional style home with an attached 443 square foot, two-car garage and 268 square
foot covered patio. The half cul-de-sac area in front of the property was also to be
constructed and dedicated with the project.
The project was first noticed on October 11, 2021, at which time the City received a total
of 5 letters of concerns from the neighbors. The neighbors were mainly concerned with
the potential safety hazards, appearance, and functionality of the proposed half cul-de-
sac, the first two-story house being proposed on this street, and potential construction
impacts. Additionally, the neighbors to the east had concerns regarding the modification
of their driveway access within the public right-of-way for the potential installation of a cul-
de-sac – refer to Attachment No. 7 for those comments.
After taking the neighbors’ comments into consideration, the project was revised with the
following changes:
x The proposal to construct the half cul-de-sac was removed and a hammerhead
driveway was proposed instead with private access to the property since the
neighbors did not like the appearance, design or functionality of the half cul-de-
sac. Regardless, the revised driveway would still require a portion of the
neighbor’s driveway access in the public right-of-way to be altered to allow access
to the subject site. The end result would be a new narrow drive approach at the
end of the street next to the neighbor’s altered drive approach.
x Reduced the overall square footage of the two-story house from 3,386 square feet
to 3,169 square feet.
x Reduced the floor area of the second floor from 1,365 square feet to 1,111 square
feet, including high ceiling area.
x Increased the second story setback on the easterly side from 15’-0” to 20’-6” and
kept the second story footprint towards the west and south of the building.
x Limited the easterly facing windows on the second floor to one obscured glass
window.
x Added a 633 square foot basement.
As a result of the changes, the revised project is a 3,169 square foot, Traditional style,
two-story residence. The proposed home will consist of 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, an
attached 443 square foot, two-car garage, a 268 square foot attached covered patio, and
a 633 square foot basement – refer to Attachment No. 5 for Architectural Plans. The total
floor area ratio (FAR) of the residence will be 3,232 square feet, whereas 3,727 square
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 5 of 15
feet is allowed. The site will have a total lot coverage of 34% (2,832 square feet), whereas
35% (2,899 square feet) is allowed.
On February 2, 2022, a second notice was sent to all the property owners within the 300-
foot radius that included all the changes that were made to the project, as stated above.
During the notification period, the City received five letters from the neighbors– refer to
Attachment No. 6.
On February 28, 2022, the project was approved on the basis that the proposed design
for the two-story house was found to be consistent with the City’s Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines, as the overall mass and scale along with its style helped
transition this new home from a two-story home that is to the west of this site into the
single-story homes on Santa Anita Terrace. Also, due to the orientation of this lot, the
house will not have a street presence like the other homes on Santa Anita Terrace. In
Figure 3 – Site Plan
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 6 of 15
fact, only the driveway is visible from the street. The house will be screened by large
mature Cypress trees and foliage on the adjacent property, and the subject site will also
have tall hedges and trees within the side and rear yard areas to provide further screening
and help soften the appearance of the two-story house. The Traditional architectural style
is coherent, consistent with the neighborhood, and adequately executes the style.
Furthermore, the proposed home will comply with all of the required development
standards.
On March 10, 2022, the Appellants filed an appeal within the prescribed 10-day appeal
period (refer to Attachment No. 3 – Appeal Letter).
On April 14, 2022, City staff met with the Appellants to discuss their concerns and explain
that the map and the half cul-de-sac was not a part of this project since the map was
approved back in 2009 and recorded in 2018. Furthermore, Staff went over the history of
the subject property as it relates to the subdivision, answered any questions about the
proposed project, and addressed the Appellants' concerns and assured them that the half
cul-de-sac would not be constructed for this project.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants had concerns with the new house depriving the other residents of on-
street parking since it is a short street, the proposed driveway conflicting with the feng
shui of the neighborhood, the two-story house creating a privacy issue to the surrounding
neighbors, safety pertaining to visibility when accessing the new driveway, potential
construction impacts, and other concerns that pertain to the subdivision which is not a
part of this approval – refer to Attachment No. 3.
Below is an analysis to the Appellants concerns shown in italics.
Figure 4 – North (Front) Elevation
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 7 of 15
1. Adding another house deprives other residents of parking spaces for their
own uses and for visitors. This address already has seven houses on a
small, short street.
The City does not restrict the use of on-street parking to the property owners. As a result,
a new residence on a lot that was legally subdivided is allowed the same privilege as the
other property owners and/or visitors on this street.
2. This new project breaks the Feng Shui of the neighborhood, generating a
leakage of chi by cutting a hole into an otherwise whole cul-de-sac.
The City does not take feng shui into account as part of the design review process and
the only access into this property is from Santa Anita Terrace. The property owner is
allowed to develop this property and have access, as any other legal lot.
3. Building a two-story house deprives the privacy of all surrounding neighbors
that are in the direct view of the new property. In fact, other than a traditional
farm-style house, all nearby affected properties are one-story. The new
house can easily see into all houses in the area outlined by E. Santa Anita
Terrace, Louise Avenue, and E. Camino Real Avenue.
Regarding the privacy concern, the Applicant revised the design to provide a greater
setback on the second floor on the easterly side of the house to ensure that there is no
privacy concern to the property next door at 28 E. Santa Anita Terrace. The second story
setback was increased from 15’-0” to 20’-6” (an additional 5’-6”), and that side of the
house will only one window with an obscured glass, as shown in Figure 5 below. There
will be no privacy issue to the adjacent properties due to the orientation of the house on
this site in relations to the adjacent homes. Furthermore, there are tall mature Cypress
trees and landscaping on the adjacent properties that provide additional screening to the
neighboring sites and the subject property owner will provide tall hedges and trees on the
site – refer to the photos under Attachment No. 2.
Figure 5 – East Elevation
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 8 of 15
4. The proposed street frontage and the private driveway create a safety risk
for the adjacent neighbor. The plan does not demonstrate that vehicles
coming out of the new property are clearly visible to those of the adjacent
neighbor.
The hammerhead driveway would create a large, paved turn around area making it
possible for vehicles to make a 3-point turn and head nose first out of the driveway and
onto the street allowing for greater visibility, as shown below. Therefore, the approved
layout should not create a safety risk.
5. The proposed street frontage [of the subject lot will be shortened] to less
than 44’, which does not meet the city regulation of 44’ required at the end
of the cul-de-sac. This was clearly stated and rejected in the 2009 analysis
of the parcel map modification, TPM 09-10.
The site contains a half cul-de-sac area that is to be dedicated to the City should the
property to the north dedicate the area to construct a standard cul-de-sac. The lot has an
89’-9” frontage along this dedication. Although a dedication was proposed for this half of
the cul-de-sac, a driveway is being proposed instead to alleviate the neighbors’ concerns.
The end result would be a new narrow drive approach at the end of the street next to the
neighbor’s altered drive approach.
Figure 6 – Proposed Hammerhead Driveway
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 9 of 15
6. The parcel map change, which created the “26 E Santa Anita Terrace”
address, was not [recorded] in the city’s public record until 2019. The 2009
notice was unclear. Residents who resided on E. Santa Anita Terrace we’re
not clearly notified that Lot 2 would have an “E. Santa Anita Terrace”
address. And none of the residents that moved-in after 2009 were aware of
this change because of negligence in updating the public record.
As stated earlier in this staff report, the property owners within the 300 foot radius were
notified of the tentative parcel map to subdivide the subject lot into two lots. The final
parcel map was recorded within the allowed time frame, which included multiple
automatic extensions from the State. The final parcel map process does not require
notification to the neighbors, just approval by the City Council. The parcel map that was
recorded by the Los Angeles County’s Recorder’s Office in 2018 had been noted as “For
Condominium Purposes” so it was corrected in 2019 since this property is not zoned for
condominiums. Lot No. 2 of the subdivision always had access off of E. Santa Anita
Terrace since any access from Santa Anita Avenue would require a driveway easement
over Lot No. 1, thereby creating a flag lot and the City has not allowed flag lots since the
early 1970’s.
7. The proposed project poses a public safety risk to all residents on this
street, including significantly reduced parking space for other residents
during the construction period, and causing an easy access for criminals to
the otherwise self-contained neighborhood at E. Santa Anita Terrace.
Figure 7 – Current Terminus of E. Santa Anita Ter.
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 10 of 15
The City will work with the Applicant to ensure that they comply with all best management
practices for construction and if possible, have their contractors park on the subject site
during construction. Staff acknowledges that any construction might an inconvenience to
the neighbors, but the duration is temporary. Also, a condition of approval has been
placed on this project that the Applicant must inform all of the property owners on this
street and any properties that abut the property line at least 2 weeks prior to any
grading/construction on this site and provide the Superintendent’s contact information
should any of the neighbors have any concerns – refer to condition no. 4.
In terms of easy access from Santa Anita Avenue to E. Santa Anita Terrace, a new 6 foot
high wall is approved for the new house at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue between the two
properties and it would provide a barrier for any potential trespassers off of Santa Anita
Avenue. If this site is developed prior the adjacent property, the Applicant shall be
required to build the new wall first – refer to condition no. 5.
FINDINGS
Section 9107.19.050 of the Development Code requires that the Review Authority may
approve a Site Plan and Design Review application, only if it first makes all the following
findings:
1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable
development standards and regulations in the Development Code.
Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential Zone, which allows for the development of a single-family residence.
Aside from the design review criteria addressed hereafter, the proposed project
will not change the use or density allowed in this zone and meets all of the
development standards and regulations required, including but not limited to
setbacks, height, and floor area.
2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and
standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project will be consistent with the
City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the overall mass and scale
of the home transitions well between the adjacent two-story homes to the west of
this site and the single-story homes on Santa Anita Terrace. The proposed
residence will not have any street presence like the other homes on Santa Anita
Terrace because the orientation of this lot hardly has any street frontage other than
a driveway, the proposed home is tucked away, and there are large Cypress trees
on the adjacent property to further screen the second floor. The Traditional
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 11 of 15
architectural style is coherent, consistent with the neighborhood, and adequately
executes the style.
3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and
aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed Traditional style home would be
compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of the architectural
design since the subject site is in a residential neighborhood that is comprised of
Ranch or Traditional style homes. The traditional style house is consistent with the
City’s design guidelines in terms of form, roof, articulations, design features and
details, and color. The architectural design, overall articulation, greater second
story setbacks, and placing of the proposed residence towards the rear of the lot
helps minimize the scale and soften the appearance of the home.
4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in
terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.
Facts to Support This Finding: Due to the limitations of the lot, the only access
to the property is off of a street frontage at the end of E. Santa Anita Terrace. A
driveway, along with improvements in the public right-of-way, will be constructed
in order to provide adequate access to the site. Additionally, to improve vehicular
circulation, a hammerhead driveway is proposed on the property to allow vehicles
to drive on to E. Santa Anita Terrace safely facing forward. Required parking is
being provided with a two-car garage and adequate landscaping will be provided
throughout the property which would also enhance the privacy for the surrounding
neighbors.
5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable
criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for a Site Plan and Design
Review application.
Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed project would be in compliance
with all the applicable criteria set forth in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5, including
all other applicable sections of the Development Code. The project is in
compliance with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines as the
proposed home will have an appropriate mass, scale, and design that fits in with
the homes it is bounded by. The site layout and design is harmonious with the
neighborhood as its smaller two-story design will provide a transition between the
larger two-story home to the west and single story home to the east. The project
is situated in a location that presents minimal privacy issues and is well landscaped
throughout the site. The driveway for the site is designed to provide efficient and
safe access to the residents and neighbors. No major impacts on or off-site are
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 12 of 15
expected from this project. Therefore, the proposed home will be consistent with
the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the
CEQA Guidelines for the construction of a new single-family home. Refer to Attachment
No. 9 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed to the owners of the properties that are
located within 300 feet of the subject property and published in Arcadia Weekly on May
12, 2022. As of May 19, 2022, staff has not received any comments from the public.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2097 to deny the
Appeal and uphold the Development Services Department’s approval of SFADR 21-13
with a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Owner/Applicant in a manner
that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for Single-
Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
& Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The project shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
(WELO). The application shall be submitted with the plans for plan check in Building
Services.
3. The Owner/Applicant shall construct the following improvements:
a. Remove the block wall for the entire width of the public right-of-way extension
of Santa Anita Terrace along the property frontage of 26 E. Santa Anita
Terrace.
b. Remove the curved curb and gutter, and the driveway extension in front of 28
E. Santa Anita Terrace and construct a new curb, gutter and drive approach to
follow the normal street extension to the westerly Santa Anita Terrace terminus
c. Construct a standard drive approach for the property at 26 E. Santa Anita
Terrace at the terminus of the current street.
4. The Owner/Applicant shall inform all the property owners on E. Santa Anita Terrace
and those that abuts the subject site at least two weeks prior to commencing any
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 13 of 15
work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction) and the notice should include the
Superintendent’s contact information.
5. Prior to the start of work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction), if the site is
developed prior to the adjacent property to the west at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue,
the Applicant/Owner shall be required to construct a new 6’-0” high wall along the
westerly property line. This shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning
& Community Development Administrator, or designee.
6. Landscaping shall be planted in the right-of-way dedication area as indicated on the
plans. All landscape and hardscape areas within the dedication area shall be
maintained by the Property Owner.
7. The hedges/shrubs along the side and rear yard areas shall be planted at a height
of 6’-0” or taller prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from Building
Services. The landscaping must comply with the approved landscape plans and
maintained.
8. The Owner/Applicant 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, or their respective designees. 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. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and
hold City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the
City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents,
employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for
damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries,
including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions
and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the
Applicant’s activities in connection with Single-Family Design Review No. SFADR
21-13 on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations
of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees
or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development
and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages
and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of
whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other
documents for the Project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation
of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 14 of 15
Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings
and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant
must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with
respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the
City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from
the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to City a cash deposit to cover
legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any
legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney.
City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5
business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below
the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order
for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. City shall only refund to
Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-
appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action;
or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to
select legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties
hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily
assist in any such third-party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the
Applicant in connection with such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for
approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s)
related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the
Applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the Development
Services Department’s decision of the project, the Commission should pass a motion to
approve the Appeal, stating that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and the findings cannot be made for Single
Family Architectural Design Review, and that the project is exempt per Section 15303(a)
of the CEQA Guidelines, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next
meeting that incorporates the Commission’s decision and specific findings.
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the Development
Services Department’s approval of the project, the Commission should pass a motion to
deny the Appeal, stating that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Single-
Family Residential Design Guidelines and the findings can be made for Single Family
Architectural Design Review, as stated in this staff report.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the May 24, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting, please
Appeal 22-02 of SFADR 21-13
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
May 24, 2022 – Page 15 of 15
contact Edwin Arreola, Assistant Planner by calling (626) 821-4334, or by email to
earreola@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2097
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3: Appeal Letter
Attachment No. 4: Decision Letter for SFADR 21-13
Attachment No. 5: Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 6: Public Comments from February 2, 2022, Notice
Attachment No. 7: Public Comments from the October 11, 2021, Notice
Attachment No. 8: Parcel Map No. 70963
Attachment No. 9: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Resolution No. 20
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2097
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF SINGLE FAMILY
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 21-13 FOR A
PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) AT 26 E SANTA ANITA TERRACE
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2021, an application for Single Family Architectural
Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 was filed by Eric Tsang on behalf of the property owner,
Johnny Ngo, for a new 3,386 square foot, two-story, Traditional style residence with an
attached 443 square foot two-car garage and a 268 square foot attached covered patio
at 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2022 a notice was sent to all of the property owners
within a 300 foot radius from the subject site informing them of a revised project. The
revised project was for a smaller two-story, Traditional style residence consisting of 3,169
square feet in floor area with an attached 443 square foot two-car garage, a 268 square
foot covered patio, and a 633 square foot basement. During the notification period, the
City received a total of five comment letters; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022, after reviewing the neighbors’ concerns
carefully the Development Services Department approved SFADR 21-13 on the basis
that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Single Family Residential Design
Guidelines, the revised proposal was an improvement since it provided greater setbacks
on the second floor, and adequate access to the house was provided to the subject site
from the street; and
2
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2022, within the 10-day appeal period, the project was
appealed by Yang Liu and Jun Dai, Maxine McClellan, Bingbing Zhang, Wei Cong,
Marianne Martin, Li Chen and Chi Liang, and Lesley Ma (“Appellant”) appealing the
Development Services Department Planning Division’s approval of SFADR 21-13; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2022, Planning Services completed an environmental
assessment for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the
proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption under CEQA pursuant to
Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines for the construction of a single-family home;
and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2022, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on said application, at which time all interested persons were given
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Community Development Division
in the staff report dated May 24, 2022 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds that based upon the entire record, pursuant to
Section 9107.19.050 of the Arcadia Development Code, all of the following findings can
be made.
1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable
development standards and regulations in the Development Code.
3
FACT: The subject site is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential Zone, which allows
for the development of a single-family residence. Aside from the design review criteria
addressed hereafter, the proposed project will not change the use or density allowed in
this zone and meets all of the development standards and regulations required, including
but not limited to setbacks, height, and floor area.
2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and
standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.
FACT: The proposed project will be consistent with the City’s Single-Family
Residential Design Guidelines as the overall mass and scale of the home transitions well
between the adjacent two-story homes to the west of this site and the single-story homes
on Santa Anita Terrace. The proposed residence will not have any street presence like
the other homes on Santa Anita Terrace because the orientation of this lot hardly has any
street frontage other than a driveway, the proposed home is tucked away, and there are
large Cypress trees on the adjacent property to further screen the second floor. The
Traditional architectural style is coherent, consistent with the neighborhood, and
adequately executes the style.
3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and
aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.
FACT: The proposed Traditional style home would be compatible with the
character of the neighborhood in terms of the architectural design since the subject site
is in a residential neighborhood that is comprised of Ranch or Traditional style homes.
The traditional style house is consistent with the City’s design guidelines in terms of form,
roof, articulations, design features and details, and color. The architectural design, overall
4
articulation, greater second story setbacks, and placing of the proposed residence
towards the rear of the lot helps minimize the scale and soften the appearance of the
home.
4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout
in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.
FACT: Due to the limitations of the lot, the only access to the property is off of a
street frontage at the end of E. Santa Anita Terrace. A driveway, along with improvements
in the public right-of-way, will be constructed in order to provide adequate access to the
site. Additionally, to improve vehicular circulation, a hammerhead driveway is proposed
on the property to allow vehicles to drive on to E. Santa Anita Terrace safely facing
forward. Required parking is being provided with a two-car garage and adequate
landscaping will be provided throughout the property which would also enhance the
privacy for the surrounding neighbors.
5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable
criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for a Site Plan and Design Review
application.
FACT: The proposed project would be in compliance with all the applicable criteria
set forth in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5, including all other applicable sections of the
Development Code. The project is in compliance with the City’s Single-Family Residential
Design Guidelines as the proposed home will have an appropriate mass, scale, and
design that fits in with the homes it is bounded by. The site layout and design is
harmonious with the neighborhood as its smaller two-story design will provide a transition
between the larger two-story home to the west and single story home to the east. The
5
project is situated in a location that presents minimal privacy issues and is well
landscaped throughout the site. The driveway for the site is designed to provide efficient
and safe access to the residents and neighbors. No major impacts on or off-site are
expected from this project. Therefore, the proposed home will be consistent with the City’s
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and General Plan.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), this Project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for the construction of a new
single-family home per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4: For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission determines that
the proposed project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) Section 15303(a), Class 3, and denies the appeal and upholds the
Development Services Department’s decision to approve Single Family Architectural
Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 for a new 3,169 square foot, two-story residence with
an attached 443 square foot two-car garage, a 268 square foot attached covered patio,
and a 633 square foot basement at 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace, subject to the conditions of
approval attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
7
Page Intentionally Left Blank
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2097
Conditions of Approval
1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Owner/Applicant in a
manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for
Single-Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning & Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The project shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
(WELO). The application shall be submitted with the plans for plan check in
Building Services.
3. The Owner/Applicant shall construct the following improvements:
a. Remove the block wall for the entire width of the public right-of-way
extension of Santa Anita Terrace along the property frontage of 26 E. Santa
Anita Terrace.
b. Remove the curved curb and gutter, and the driveway extension in front of
28 E. Santa Anita Terrace and construct a new curb, gutter and drive
approach to follow the normal street extension to the westerly Santa Anita
Terrace terminus
c. Construct a standard drive approach for the property at 26 E. Santa Anita
Terrace at the terminus of the current street.
4. The Owner/Applicant shall inform all the property owners on E. Santa Anita
Terrace and those that abuts the subject site at least two weeks prior to
commencing any work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction) and the
notice should include the Superintendent’s contact information.
5. Prior to the start of work on the subject site (i.e. grading/construction), if the site
is developed prior to the adjacent property to the west at 1512 S. Santa Anita
Avenue, the Applicant/Owner shall be required to construct a new 6’-0” high wall
along the westerly property line. This shall be subject to review and approval by
the Planning & Community Development Administrator, or designee.
6. Landscaping shall be planted in the right-of-way dedication area as indicated on
the plans. All landscape and hardscape areas within the dedication area shall be
maintained by the Property Owner.
7. The hedges/shrubs along the side and rear yard areas shall be planted at a
height of 6’-0” or taller prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from
Building Services. The landscaping must comply with the approved landscape
plans and maintained.
9
8. The Owner/Applicant 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, or their respective designees. 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. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and
hold City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of
the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials,
agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from
liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for
personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with
respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have
been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with Single-
Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 on the Project site, and which may
arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the
Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting
on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the
Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or
proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the Project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation
of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the
Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings
and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant
must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with
respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the
City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from
the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to City a cash deposit to cover
legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any
legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney.
City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5
business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below
the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order
for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. City shall only refund to
Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-
appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action;
10
or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to
select legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties
hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily
assist in any such third-party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the
Applicant in connection with such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for
approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s)
related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, whether or not at the request of the
Applicant.
----
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo ZLWK Zoning Information
Photos of Subject PropertyDQG9LFLQLW\
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
Number of Units:
Property Characteristics
0
Property Owner
Site Address:
Parcel Number: 5781-001-035
Zoning:
General Plan:
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay:
Residential Flex Overlay:
Special Height Overlay:
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 18-May-2022
Page 1 of 1
68%-(&76,7()$&,1*($6772:$5'6(6$17$$1,7$7(5
68%-(&76,7()$&,1*6287+72:$5'6(&$0,125($/$9(
68%-(&76,7()$&,1*1257+72:$5'666$17$$1,7$$9(
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
$SSHDO/HWWHU
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
'HFLVLRQ/HWWHUIRU6)$'5
City of
Arcadia
Development
Services
Department
Jason Kruckeberg
Assistant City Manager/
Development Services
Director
240 West Huntington Drive
Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
(626) 574-5415
(626) 447-3309 Fax
www.ArcadiaCA.gov
February 28, 2022
Eric Tsang
440 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 356
Arcadia, CA 91006
SUBJECT: Single-Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13
PROJECT ADDRESS: 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
Dear Mr. Tsang,
The proposed project was first noticed on October 11, 2021. The public
comment period for that Notice of Pending Decision ended on October 25,
2021. Staff received five comments in opposition of the proposed project.
The neighbors had concerns with the proposed half cul-de-sac that would
be constructed within the public right-of-way and the new two-story home.
After consultation with City staff, a half cul-de-sac was no longer required.
As a result, a driveway was proposed. The Applicant also significantly
reduced the area of the second floor to better blend with the other one story
homes in this neighborhood and, due to the orientation of the lot, the
placement of the house, and the existing foliage that exists along the side
property lines, most of the house will not be visible from the street. The
project was re-noticed on February 2, 2022. Staff received five comments
in opposition of the revised project with concerns from the neighbors
regarding the new driveway access from the street and that the house is a
still a two-story house. After careful review, staff determined that the design
of the house is consistent with the Single-Family Design Guidelines and
access to the house is being adequately provided through the public right-
of-way. Therefore, the Development Services Department has
conditionally approved the single-family design review project for a new
3,169 square foot, two-story, Traditional-style residence with an attached
two-car garage, an attached 268 square foot covered patio, and a 633
square foot basement. This project is subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the
Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans
submitted and conditionally approved for Single-Family Design
Review No. SFADR 21-13, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning
& Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The project shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance (WELO). The application shall be submitted with the plans
for plan check in Building Services.
3. The driveway leading to the subject property shall be a private
driveway and be constructed in accordance with any requirements
from the Engineering Division. A private driveway sign shall be
placed at the end of E. Santa Anita Terrace.
4. Landscaping shall be planted in the public right-of-way as indicated on the plans.
All landscape and hardscape areas within the public right-of-way shall be
maintained by the Property Owner.
5. The hedges/shrubs along the property lines shall be planted at a height of 6’-0” or
taller prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from Building Services.
6. The Property Owner/Applicant 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, or their respective designees.
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.
7. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Applicant must defend, indemnify, and
hold City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of
the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials,
agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from
liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for
personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with
respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have
been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with Single-
Family Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 on the Project site, and which may
arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the
Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting
on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the
Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or
proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the Project.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or
interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document
relating to the Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action,
or proceedings and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified,
the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and
each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or
awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action.
Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, Applicant shall provide to
City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in
connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably
determined by the City Attorney. City may draw funds from the deposit for such
fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from
City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish
the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working
on the matter. City shall only refund to Developer any unexpended funds from the
deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non-appealable decision by a court of
competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement
of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice
that the Applicant reasonably approves. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in
defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party
challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with such
third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition
shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or
revoked, whether or not at the request of the Applicant.
There is a ten (10) day appeal period for this application. To file an appeal, a completed
Appeal Application form must be submitted to the Development Services Department
along with a $630.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2022.
Approval of SFARD 21-13 shall not be of effect unless the property owner and applicant
have executed and filed the enclosed Acceptance Form to indicate awareness and
acceptance of these conditions of approval. The Acceptance Form is due now and if it is
not received by March 30, 2022 or if the project is appealed, this approval will become
null and void.
This design approval shall expire in one year (March 11, 2023) from the effective date
unless plans are submitted to Building Services for plan-check, a building permit is issued
and the construction is diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or
the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design
concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved
design concept plans may preclude the issuance of a building permit.
An extension may be granted by the Development Services Director or designee, or the
Review Authority that approved the project for a maximum period of one (1) year from the
initial expiration date. An extension can only be granted if the required findings can be
made. Please note that acceptance of an extension request does not indicate approval
of an extension.
A building permit must be obtained prior to any construction activity. Please contact
Building Services at (626) 574-5416 to determine the type of documentation, plans, and
fees for the appropriate permit. This approval letter must be presented to Building
Services to initiate the permitting process.
You may visit the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/noticesanddecisions to view this
letter. If you have any questions regarding the above approval, please contact me at (626)
821-4334 or by email at earreola@ArcadiaCA.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division / Planning Services
Edwin Arreola
Assistant Planner
Enclosed
c: Johnny Ngo, Property Owner
Bingbing Zhang, Neighboring Resident
Wei Cong, Neighboring Resident
Lesley Ma, Neighboring Resident
Li Chen and Chi Liang, Neighboring Residents
Yang Liu and Jun Dai, Neighboring Residents
Marianne Martin, Neighboring Resident
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
Architectural Plans
83
':
83
7:
+
5(
)
5(
)
6 $17 $$1,7 $7 (5
0(;,&$1)$13$/072%(5(029('
3,1(725(0$,1
+7%/2&.:$//725(0$,1
+7+2*:,5(725(0$,1
+7)(1&(725(0$,1
6
(
6
(
1
(
1
(
5(4
')52176(7%$&.
5(4
'67)/56(7%$&.
5(4
'1')/56(7%$&.
5(4
'67)/56(7%$&.
5(4
'1')/56(7%$&.
5(4
'
1')/56(7%$&.
5(
4
'
6
7
)
/
5
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
$6+725(0$,1
6725<
6,1*/()$0,/<
5(6,'(1&(
),5(3,7
),
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
1
+7'(&25$7,9(%/2&.:$//
1
+7'(&25$7,9(%/2&.:$//
1
+7'(&25$7,9(*$5'(1:$//
*5
$
6
6
&
5
(
7
(
'
5
,
9
(
:
$
<
&21&5(7(3$7,2
(
+7%/2&.:$//72%(5(029('
(
+7%/2&.:$//
725(0$,1
35,9$7('5,9(:$<6,*1
3$9(5'5,9(:$<,152:
/$1'6&$3,1*,152:
/$1'6&$3,1*
/$:1$5($
/$:1$5($/$:1$5($
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
6,7(3/$1
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɶ
V
B
ʣɷʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
]0dV=C
$33/,&$172:1(5
2:1(5 '$9,'1*2
$''5(66 9$&$17 (6$17$$1,7$7(55$&(
$5&$',$&$ $31
7(/
(0$,/ 0$,/#(5,&'(6,*1&20
$33/,&$17 (5,&&76$1*
$''5(66 (+817,1*721'568,7(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
(0$,/ 0$,/#(5,&'(6,*1&20
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
352-(&71$0( 1*25(6,'(1&(
352-(&7$''5(66 9$&$17 (6$17$$1,7$7(55$&(
$5&$',$&$ $31
$31
-2%'(6&5,37,21 1(:6725<75$16,7,21$/67</(6)5
=21,1* 5
180%(52)6725<
2&&83$1&<*5283 58
&216758&7,217<3( 9%
'(02/,7,21 $//(;,67,1*81,76
352-(&7'$7$
/276,=( 6)
67)/225/,9,1*$5($ 6)
1')/225/,9,1*$5($ 6)
%$6(0(17$5($ 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ :,7+%$6(0(17 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ 67 1')/225 6)
+,*+&(,/,1*$5($ 6)
*$5$*($5($ 6)
&29(5('3$7,2 6)
/27&29(5$*( 6)6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ 6)
)/225$5($5$7,2 6)6) 6)
$//2:$%/()$5
6)0$;
6,'(:$/.&85%$1'*877(56+$//%(5(3/$&('3(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
':
7:
+
5(
)
5(
)
',1,1*5220
"
*5($75220.,7&+(1
&$5*$5$*(
%('5220
:2.
%('5220
;
*$5$*(
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
[
&6
6,//+7
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
;
*/$667*
[
'%/&66,//+7
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
;
6/
;
6/
;
6&
[
$:6,//+7
7*
;
)2/',1*7*
;
7*
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
7*
[
$:
6,//+7
7*
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
%('5220
0$67(5
%('5220
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
[
&6
6,//+7
7*
;
6&
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
;
6&
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
$:6,//+7
[
$:6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
7*
[
$:6,//+7
7*2%6&85('
*$0(5220
2)),&(
[
&66,//+7
;
6&
;
'%/)'
67
2
5
$
*
(
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɸ
V
B
ʣɸʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
(=IIYV=C
67)/225
1')/225
:,1'2:6&+('8/(
:,1'2:7<3( :' +7 6,//+7 127(6
&$6(0(17
7*
'%/&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
$:1,1*
7*
$:1,1*
7*
),;('
),;('
),;('
),;('
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
$:1,1*
$:1,1*
),;('
),;('
),;('
$:1,1*
7*
2%6&85('
&$6(0(17
),;('
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
7*
&$6(0(17
7*
&$6(0(17
'2256&+('8/(
'2257<3( :' +7 127(6
3$1(/*$5$*(
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
*/$66
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
)2/',1*
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
'%/)/86+
6,1*/()/86+
32&.(7'225
32&.(7'225
'28%/()5(1&+
$%%5(9,$7,216)25:,1'2:6 '2256
$: $:1,1*
&/67 &/26(7
&6 &$6(0(17
'$ '28%/($&7,1*'225
'%/ '28%/(
)' )5(1&+'225
+)5' +$/)5281'
2%6& 2%6&85('
6& 62/,'&25(
6+ 6,1*/(+81*
6/ 6/,'(5
7* 7(03(5('*/$66
753/ 75,3/(
%$6(0(17)/225
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
3/3/
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
'(*
5
(
(
(1 &5 2 $&+0 (1 7 3 /$1 (
3/
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɹ
V
B
ʣɹʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
=td0IC]
1257+(/(9$7,21 )5217
:(67(/(9$7,21 6,'(
0$7(5,$//(*(1'
&21&5(7(522)7,/(
%25$/522),1*
6$;21<6/$7(
(%21<
9(57,&$/6,',1*
-$0(6+$5',(
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(176,',1*
)$50+286(:+,7(
)$6&,$
;3$,17('
'811(':$5'6-(7'(
*$5$*('225
&+,*$5$*('225
29(5/$<&$55,$*(
&('$5
'2256 :,1'2:6
-(/':(1256,0,/$5
:22'&/$'6'/
%/$&.
%5,&.9(1((5
0(5,',$1%5,&.
.(/2:1$
*5(<*5287
(;7(5,25:$///,*+7
6$92<+286((//,-$<
/,*+7 7$//
287'225:$//6&21&(
:22'3$1(/
5(&(663$1(/6
'811(':$5'66:,66&2))((
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
3/3/
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
'(*5((
(1&52$&+0(173/$1(
3/
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɻ
V
B
ʣɹʒɷ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
=td0IC]
6287+(/(9$7,21 5($5
($67(/(9$7,21 6,'(
0$7(5,$//(*(1'
&21&5(7(522)7,/(
%25$/522),1*
6$;21<6/$7(
(%21<
9(57,&$/6,',1*
-$0(6+$5',(
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(176,',1*
)$50+286(:+,7(
)$6&,$
;3$,17('
'811(':$5'6-(7'(
*$5$*('225
&+,*$5$*('225
29(5/$<&$55,$*(
&('$5
'2256 :,1'2:6
-(/':(1256,0,/$5
:22'&/$'6'/
%/$&.
%5,&.9(1((5
0(5,',$1%5,&.
.(/2:1$
*5(<*5287
(;7(5,25:$///,*+7
6$92<+286((//,-$<
/,*+7 7$//
287'225:$//6&21&(
:22'3$1(/
5(&(663$1(/6
'811(':$5'66:,66&2))((
7:
+
(;7(5,25),16,+3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(56753/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5:,1'2:6&+('8/(
5(&(66
C
(;7(5,25),16,+3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(56753/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5:,1'2:6&+('8/(
5
(
&
(
6
6
C
(;7(5,25),16,+
3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(5675
3/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5
:,1'2:6&+('8/(
6/23(
5(&(66
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɻ
V
B
ʣɺʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
YII(V=CʘdyVʒ
d0=
522)3/$1
176:,1'2:+($'
176:,1'2:-$0%
176:,1'2:6,//$75(&(66:,1'2:6
SANTA AN
I
T
A
T
E
R
2-STORY
RESIDENCE
LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY:
TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA: 4,075 SF.
898 SF. OF WST USE ON LAWN (22%)
337 SF. OF MEDIUM WATER USE PLANTS (8.3%)
2,681 SF. OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS (65.8%)
159 SF. OF NONE WATER USE IN GRAVEL (3.9%)
HARDSCAPE IN FRONT SETBACK: 617 SF. (28.1%) < 40%
(TOTAL FRONT SETBACK AREA: 2,198.5 SF.)
RE
F
.
UP
DATE REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
SHEET NO.
OF 1 SHEETS
TW
O
T
R
E
E
S
DE
S
I
G
N
,
I
N
C
.
(
P
D
L
O
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
26
E
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
I
T
A
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
AR
C
A
D
I
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
0
0
6
12-05-2021
CP
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
R
L
A
#
5
8
4
0
18
3
2
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
S
T
.
W
E
S
T
C
O
V
I
N
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
9
0
AS SHOWN
P2113
CHIAC H E N G PERNG NO.
5
8
4
0
ÁÁ
ÁÁ
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
L-1
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
3XEOLF&RPPHQWVIURP
)HEUXDU\1RWLFH
Yang Liu and Jun Dai
28 E Santa Anita Ter
Arcadia, CA 91006
2/16/2022
Edwin Arreola
City of Arcadia
Planning Services
240 W Huntington Drive
P.O Box 60021
Re: SFADR No. 21-13 rev 1
Dear Mr. Arreola,
We are providing written comments regarding the revised building project of a two-story single family in
26 E Santa Anita Terrace (SFADR No. 21-13 sent for commenting between 02/08-02/16). As the residents
neighboring this new project, we are writing to express our strong objections to this pending project,
specifically the associated modification of the street.
Here are specific objections:
1. The proposed street frontage is not acceptable. The proposed modification will cut the
existing cul-de-sac in half. This is incompliant with city regulation. In fact, your 2009 review
explicitly concluded that a similar proposal does not meet the requirement and rejected.
The current proposal still violates the minimum 44 ft required for cul-de-sac at the end of
the Santa Anita Terrace. As such, the proposed modification poses great safety risks, as
there is insufficient turnaround space for cars, coming into the cul-de-sac, in and out of this
new lot or from our driveway. Moreover, the proposed modification will significantly
narrow our parking space, causing additional safety issues with city and public service
vehicles. Therefore, we are strongly against this modification of the cul-de-sac.
2. The proposed modification to the street will destroy the landscape of the cul-de-sac,
generating an oddly shaped terminus. Alteration of the cul-de-sac landscape has the
potential to devalue the properties on this street. In particular, the proposed drive way
encroaches upon our parking space and driveway by cutting away max 20 ft in front of our
garage. The crowded appearance will deface the landscape of our house, impacting the re-
sale value of our property.
3. The proposed modification also violates city regulation of a minimum 32 feet setback of our
house front from the curb. Our house’s setback is currently closer to the curb than this rule
but is legally grandfathered. Removing the driveway by several feet will narrow current
setback further, and thus prevent any future house improvement that we would like to take
to increase our house value. This again implies devaluation of our house.
4. As commented in the last period, the creation of this new lot, with the ‘26 E Santa Anita
Ter’ address, was not corrected in public record until 2019, nearly one year after we bought
our house. This lack of public disclosure affected the purchase price of our house. We
request compensation, but more importantly, we object this change in the concern of re-
sale of our house.
5. As commented in October 2021, we are still concerned about the risk to public safety.
During the construction, the project will open our neighborhood to traffic from Santa Anita
Avenue because the east lot is empty. This will provide easy access to criminals and increase
the risk for burglary and property theft. We require the project to demonstrate a plan that
will remove such risk, and we also require written agreement from the project to pay for
any loss or damage to residents’ properties owing to burglary or property theft caused by
the construction.
6. As commented last time, the revised description did not address our concerns about our
access to main roads nor noise mitigation. One of us needs to go to work place and the
other of us is working from home. The new project poses two threats to our employment.
First, the construction trucks for the new project will likely block our access to the streets.
This impedes our access to Camino Real and Santa Anita Avenue, meaning it will affect us
getting to work on time. Second, the severe noise from the construction will affect our
ability to concentrate on work or tele-conferencing with co-workers. We require that the
project present a detailed plan to manage the traffic caused by construction as well as how
the project plans on mitigating the noise. We require written agreement that the project will
offer compensation for any work hours lost due to noise or traffic within the neighborhood.
In summary, the proposed change to Santa Anita Terrace is not acceptable to us. We require the city
gives this careful evaluation and looks for an alternative solution.
Sincerely yours,
Yang Liu and Jun Dai
Concerned residents
From:Li Chen
To:Edwin Arreola
Subject:SFADR No. 21-13 rev 1
Date:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:17:43 PM
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon-color.png> IRONSCALES couldn't recognize
this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender lic91776 @ gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mr. Arreola,
We are providing written comments regarding the revised building project of a two-story single family in 26 E Santa
Anita Terrace (SFADR No. 21-13). As the residents in the cul-de-sac of this new project, we are writing to express
our strong objections to this pending project, specifically the associated modification of the street.
1. The proposed modification will destroy the landscape of the cul-de-sac, generating an odd shaped terminus.
Alteration of the cul-de-sac landscape has the potential to devalue the properties on this street.
2. The proposed project of a two-story house also affects the privacy of our house. Plus, there is no two-story
house around the proposed project. Building a two-story house is not accepted.
In summary, we are very concerned about this pending project and the proposed access to Santa Anita Terrace is not
acceptable. We require the city to give this careful evaluation and look for an alternative solution.
Sincerely yours,
Li Chen and Chi Liang
1523 Louise Ave
Arcadia, 91006
From:Lesley Ma
To:Edwin Arreola; young yang
Cc:bbzhang.ucd@gmail.com; Jun; anniexure@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Questions about your revised SFADR No. 21-13
Date:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:55:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Service,
After reviewing the plan, I think opening a road at the end of the cul-de-sac is awkward and it destroys the harmonic
and the master plan of the whole neighborhood. The original lot was facing Santa Anita Ave. The entrance of this
property is not supposed to be on this end, it should be from the Santa Anita Ave where original of the lot faces. The
approval of splitting the lot into two lots and one of the entrances is on the cul-de-sac was a mistake. It destroys this
nice and peace community. The parking of the property (28 E Santa Anita Ter) will be too small and it will cause
safety issue. The decision is in favor of the seller, it doesn’t consider the loss of the current affected property (28 E
Santa Anita Ter) and the whole neighborhood. If the opening is still facing Santa Anita Ave and design the lot as an
easement, I would have no opposition to it.
In addition, the construction will cause safety issues if the wall is open. All our neighbors have big concern on it.
In conclusion, we strongly against this project!
Lesley Ma
Residence of 37 E Santa Anita Ter
From:Wei Cong
To:Edwin Arreola; congwei
Subject:Re: Comments on proposed construction project on 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace (SFADR No. 21-13)
Date:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:41:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Services staff,
I am a property owner on E. Santa Anita Terrace. After reviewing the revised proposal of building a 3169 square
feet, two-story residence on 26 E Santa Anita Terrace, under SFADR No. 21-13, I am listing my comments below:
First of all, I still strongly object to the proposed plan of building a two-story residence. Not only is there no
existence of a two-story residence on the entire street, but also the proposed two-story residence will violate the
harmony of our community. I expressed such concern in my email sent in October 2021, but the revised plan makes
no mention of it.
Secondly and most importantly, I completely object to the plan of adding this 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace residence
on our street. The design of the driveway and the proposed opening on the existing street is unsightly. The house’s
driveway, placed near another, poses potential driving hazards. The proposed plan is not only a violation of the
current homeowners’ rights, but also will destroy the original beautiful plan of the neighborhood. We, as
homeowners, did not purchase our homes with the knowledge of such a potential major change on our street.
Last but not least, due to the unique location of the residence, safety concerns will arise if construction starts.
Passing such a lot plan in 2009 was not a careful decision by the Arcadia City, and there might be violations of
regulations. I request the City to release more information on this lot change decision, including the hearing and
panel discussion details, to the public.
In conclusion, we strongly object to the proposed plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Wei Cong
27 E Santa Anita Terrace, Arcadia
From:Bingbing Zhang
To:Edwin Arreola; bbzhang.ucd
Subject:Re: Comments on project on 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace (SFADR No. 21-13)
Date:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:42:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mr. Arreola,
I am a property owner on E. Santa Anita Terrace in Arcadia. After reviewing the revised building project of building
a 3169 square feet, two-story residence in 26 E Santa Anita Terrace (SFADR No. 21-13, referred herein as “This
Revised Plan”), I would like to express my strong objections to the proposed plan. I feel my previous concern has
not been fully addressed with the revised plan.
In my comment from October 25, 2021, I strongly objected to the proposed plan of building a two-story residence.
There is no presence of a two-story house on the street, so building one will destroy the harmony of the community.
However, This Revised Plan is still proposing to build a two-story house.
In the same comment, I had stated:
l “I completely object to the plan of adding this 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace residence on our street. The design of the
driveway and the proposed opening on the existing street is unsightly, and prone to potential accidents with the two
houses’ driveways next to each other.”
This Revised Plan stated that there will be a private driveway leading to the proposed property. I feel this
modification is a similar approach to the previous proposal and does not address my safety concern at all. I also
recently learned from a document, (dated July 14, 2009 and provided by the City Planning Office), that the Revised
Plan is actually incompliant with the city requirement of a 44 ft minimum at the end of Santa Anita Terrace.
l The proposed plan of adding a house at the end of the cul-de-sac will also break the current balance of the street
and is a violation of the current homeowners’ right. We, as homeowners, did not purchase our homes knowing that a
major change on the street would take place which may negatively affect our home values.
This concern is being shared strongly in our neighborhood. To emphasize my concern, This Revised Plan will
destroy the landscape of the cul-de-sac, generating an odd and absurd shaped terminus. I question whether there is
any cul-de-sac in Arcadia being built this way. As a result, the proposed alteration of the cul-de-sac landscape has
the potential to devalue the properties on this street.
Last but not least, in my October 25, 2021 comment, I stated that we, as residents on the street, have safety concerns
if the construction starts due to the unique location of this residence. The Revised Plan did not address this concern.
Again, to summarize, we strongly object to the proposed plan!
Thank you for your consideration.
Bingbing Zhang
33 E Santa Anita Terrace, Arcadia
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
3XEOLF&RPPHQWVIURPWKH
2FWREHU1RWLFH
Yang Liu and Jun Dai
28 E Santa Anita Ter
Arcadia, CA 91006
Edwin Arreola
City of Arcadia
Planning Services
240 W Huntington Drive
P.O Box 60021
Dear Mr. Arreola,
We are providing written comments regarding the new building project of a two-story single family in 26
E Santa Anita Terrace. As the residents neighboring this new project, we are writing to express our
strong objections to this pending project and the associated modification of the street and cul-de-sac of
E Santa Anita Terrace. We have listed 7 objections below:
1. The creation of ’26 E Santa Anita Ter’ was not disclosed until after we purchased our
property at 28 E Santa Anita Terrace when we closed the escrow around October 5th of
2018. This lack of disclosure affected the purchase price of our house. And if the project is
approved, it may affect the future sales price of our property.
2. Construction of a two-story house at 26 E Santa Anita Ter allows its residents to easily view
our home and backyard, essentially robbing us of our right to privacy. Therefore, we object
to any plans of construction of a two-story house at 26 E Santa Anita Ter unless the project
provides a detailed plan regarding how our privacy will be respected.
3. E Santa Anita Terrace is a quaint and pretty street. The new project will extend the cul-de-
sac into an odd shape. It destroys the image of the street and may decrease the property
values in the long run. We request the city and the project to provide a better modification
plan of the street.
4. To accommodate the new location at ’26 E Santa Anita Ter’, the street will cut away up to 5
feet of our current driveway. This will significantly diminish our currently available parking
space, risking accidents with cars from the new location (26 E Santa Anita Ter) and the city
service vehicles (garbage trucks, utility vehicles, etc). If the project was approved, we need
written agreement from the project and the city that any damage to our vehicles incurred
during and after construction will be paid in full by the project and the city, respectively.
5. The city restricts any construction within a certain distance from the curb. Since the city will
shorten the distance between our house and the street, if this project is approved, we need
written proof from the city that the city will lift the construction restriction on our house.
6. The new project will be a public safety risk to our neighborhood. For the past three years
we’ve resided at 28 E. Santa Anita, the cul-de-sac protected our neighborhood from burglary
and property theft by isolating it from any main streets. During the construction, the project
will open our neighborhood to traffic from Santa Anita Ave because the other lot is empty.
This will provide easy access to criminals and increase the risk for burglary and property
theft. We require the project to demonstrate a plan that will remove such risk, and we also
require written agreement from the project to pay for any loss or damage to residents’
properties owing to burglary or property theft caused by the construction.
7. Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, we have hybrid models of employment that require
us to alternate between being at work in person and working from home. The new project
poses two threats to our employment. First, the construction trucks for the new project may
block our access to the streets. This impedes our access to Camino Real and Santa Anita,
meaning it will affect us getting to work on time. Second, construction results in severe
noise that will affect our ability to concentrate on work on days we work remotely. We
require that the project present a detailed plan to manage the traffic caused by construction
as well as how the project plans on mitigating the noise. We require written agreement that
the project will offer compensation for any work hours lost due to noise or traffic within the
neighborhood.
As residents of Arcadia for 8 years and hopefully many more years to come, we wish our concerns are
heard and addressed before the city council considers the approval of the project. However, if these
concerns are not all addressed, we will be pursuing further legal action.
Sincerely yours,
Yang Liu and Jun Dai
From:Lesley Ma
To:Edwin Arreola
Subject:Comments on project location 26 E Santa Anita Terrace
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:12:07 AM
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon-color.png> IRONSCALES couldn't recognize
this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender hongma99@hotmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Service,
After reviewing the plan, I don’t feel this lot is suitable for a 3,386 two-story residence. The shape of the proposed
cul-de-sac is awkward and it destroys the harmonic and the master plan of the whole neighborhood. A normal cul-
de-sac is round sharp ending but this one is half 90-degree-corner (with a tall wall) and half round shape which
looks extremely abnormal. Putting a two-story house in such a rare shape boundary at the end of the street makes
the street looked like some kind of un-planned community.
I believe in Fengshui. Destroying the half round shape of the cul-de-sac will cause bad luck to this nice and peace
community. The entrance of this property is not supposed to be on this end, it should be from the Santa Anita Ave
where original of the lot faces.
In addition, the construction will cause safety issues if the wall is open. All our neighbors have big concern on it.
In conclusion, we strongly against this project!
Lesley Ma
Residence of 37 E Santa Anita Ter
From:W Cong
To:Edwin Arreola
Cc:Wei Cong
Subject:Re: Comments on proposed construction project on 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace (APN: 5781-001-035)
Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 8:51:21 PM
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon-color.png> IRONSCALES couldn't recognize
this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender congwei@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Services staff,
I am a property owner on E. Santa Anita Terrace. After reviewing the proposed plan of building a 3386 square feet,
two-story residence on a 8283 square feet lot, I am listing my comments below:
1. First of all, I strongly object to the proposed plan of building a two-story residence. Not only is there no
existence of a two-story residence on the entire street, but also the proposed two-story residence will violate the
harmony of our community.
2. Secondly and most importantly, I completely object to the plan of adding this 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
residence on our street. The design of the driveway and the proposed opening on the existing street is unsightly, and
it poses potential driving hazards with the two houses’ drive ways next to each other. The proposed plan will also
destroy the original beautiful plan of the neighborhood and is a violation of the current homeowners’ right. We, as
homeowners, did not purchase our homes knowing that a major change on the street would take place.
3. Last but not least, there will be safety concerns if the construction starts due to the unique location of this
residence.
In a summary, we strongly object to the proposed plan!
Thank you for your consideration.
Wei Cong
27 E Santa Anita Terrace, Arcadia
From:Bingbing Zhang
To:Edwin Arreola
Subject:Re: Comments on proposed construction project on 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace
Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 2:33:03 PM
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon-color.png> IRONSCALES couldn't recognize
this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender bbzhang.ucd@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Planning Services Office,
I am a property owner on E. Santa Anita Terrace. After reviewing the proposed plan of building a 3386 square feet,
two-story residence on a 8283 square feet lot, I am obligated to express my strong objections on the proposed plan.
First of all, I strongly object to the proposed plan of building a two-story residence. There is not a single two-story
residence on the entire street, so building one will destroy the harmony of the community.
Secondly, I completely object to the plan of adding this 26 E. Santa Anita Terrace residence on our street. The
design of the driveway and the proposed opening on the existing street is unsightly, and prone to potential accidents
with the two houses’ driveways next to each other. The proposed plan of adding a house at the end of the cul de sac
will also break the current balance of the street and is a violation of the current homeowners’ right. We, as
homeowners, did not purchase our homes knowing that a major change on the street would take place which may
negatively affect our home values.
Last but not least, we, as residents on the street, have safety concerns if the construction starts due to the unique
location of this residence.
Again, to summarize, we strongly object to the proposed plan!
Thank you for your consideration.
Bingbing Zhang
33 E Santa Anita Terrace, Arcadia
From:Marianne Martin
To:Edwin Arreola
Subject:Re: 26 E Santa Anita Ter
Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 3:18:17 PM
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/staticmediafiles/media/sights/iron-icon.png> IRONSCALES finds this email
suspicious! We know MARIANNE MARTIN by name, but the email was sent from an unfamiliar address
mmartin@ausd.net | Know this sender?
<https://members.ironscales.com/sights/info/MTk1NTQ2MTQ2:1mf8IN:o5qmQnKjJ6i23rscKXao5GuTmmU/>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or
clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Edwin Arreola,
As residents whose property borders the project at 26 E Santa Anita Terrace, we have serious concerns about this
proposal.
Having half a cul-de-sac dead end into our fence is awkward, unattractive, and unnecessary. We will not give or sell
our land, so the cul-de-sac, as designed, will never be completed. There is absolutely no need for a partial cul-de-
sac there; it has no function. There are other options for access to that lot.
Creating this half cul-de-sac is unfair to the homeowners at 28 E Santa Anita Terrace.. For many years, they and the
previous owners have been allowed to use some of the land in question as part of their driveway access. Under the
concept of adverse possession, they in fact have a claim to some of this land because of many years of allowed use.
The current residents of 28 E Santa Anita Terrace have notified you of the loss of five feet of access to their own
driveway, which could create a dangerous and unmanageable situation for them.
In talking with other residents on E Santa Anita Terrace, it is clear that they are also unhappy about this project
because adding this unsightly and incomplete cul-de-sac ruins the aesthetic of the neighborhood and lowers their
property values.
It is important to consider the wishes of all residents when making this decision. Multiple residents are unhappy
with this plan. You will have to decide if you want to accommodate the wishes of one builder or listen to the wishes
of many residents in this neighborhood. We are proud long-time residents of Arcadia -- 42 years at this house and
47 years in total. We have always valued and respected Arcadia's desire to create and maintain attractive
neighborhoods and feel this half cul-de-sac is a big mistake. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on this
matter.
Sincerely,
Marianne and William Martin
1504 S Santa Anita Ave
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626)446-9070
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
3DUFHO0DS1R
Attachment No.
Attachment No.
3UHOLPLQDU\([HPSWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1.Name or description of project: Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 – A
request to construct a new 3,169 square foot, two-story home with
an attached 443 square foot two-car garage , a 268 square foot
attached covered patio and a 633 square foot basement.
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):
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace – The closest intersection is located
east of the property at E. Santa Anita Terrace and Louise Avenue.
3.Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B.Other (Private)
(1)Name Eric Tsang, Applicant
(2)Address 440 E. Huntington Drive, #356
Arcadia, CA 91006
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: 15303(a) – Class 3 (Construction of a single-family
home)
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: May 5, 2022 Staff: Edwin Arreola, Assistant Planner
Attachment (
Attachment (
$UFKLWHFWXUDO3ODQVDSSURYHGE\WKH
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0D\
83
':
83
7:
+
5(
)
5(
)
6 $17 $$1,7 $7 (5
0(;,&$1 )$1 3$/0 72 %(5(029('
3,1(72 5(0$,1
+7
%/2&.
:$//
72
5(0$,1
+7+2*:,5(72 5(0$,1
+7)(1&(72 5(0$,1
6
(
6
(
1
(
1
(
5(4
')52176(7%$&.
5(4
'67)/56(7%$&.
5(4
'1')/56(7%$&.
5(4
'67)/56(7%$&.
5(4
'1')/56(7%$&.
5(4
'
1'
)/5
6(7%$&.
5(
4
'
6
7
)
/
5
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
$6+72 5(0$,1
6725<
6,1*/()$0,/<
5(6,'(1&(
),5(3,7
),
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
1
+7 '(&25$7,9(%/2&.:$//
1
+7
'(&25$7,9(
%/2&.
:$//
1
+7
'(&25$7,9(
*$5'(1
:$//
*5
$
6
6
&
5
(
7
(
'
5
,
9
(
:
$
<
&21&5(7(3$7,2
(
+7
%/2&.
:$//
72
%(
5(029('
(
+7
%/2&.
:$//
72
5(0$,1
35,9$7('5,9(:$<6,*1
3$9(5'5,9(:$<,152:
/$1'6&$3,1*,152:
/$1'6&$3,1*
/$:1$5($
/$:1$5($/$:1$5($
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
/$
1
'
6
&
$
3
,
1
*
6,7(3/$1
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɶ
V
B
ʣɷʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
]0dV=C
$33/,&$172:1(5
2:1(5 '$9,'1*2
$''5(66 9$&$17 (6$17$$1,7$7(55$&(
$5&$',$&$ $31
7(/
(0$,/ 0$,/#(5,&'(6,*1&20
$33/,&$17 (5,&&76$1*
$''5(66 (+817,1*721'568,7(
$5&$',$&$
7(/
(0$,/ 0$,/#(5,&'(6,*1&20
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
352-(&71$0( 1*25(6,'(1&(
352-(&7$''5(66 9$&$17 (6$17$$1,7$7(55$&(
$5&$',$&$ $31
$31
-2%'(6&5,37,21 1(:6725<75$16,7,21$/67</(6)5
=21,1* 5
180%(52)6725<
2&&83$1&<*5283 58
&216758&7,217<3( 9%
'(02/,7,21 $//(;,67,1*81,76
352-(&7'$7$
/276,=( 6)
67)/225/,9,1*$5($ 6)
1')/225/,9,1*$5($ 6)
%$6(0(17$5($ 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ :,7+%$6(0(17 6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ 67 1')/225 6)
+,*+&(,/,1*$5($ 6)
*$5$*($5($ 6)
&29(5('3$7,2 6)
/27&29(5$*( 6)6)
727$//,9,1*$5($ 6)
)/225$5($5$7,2 6)6) 6)
$//2:$%/()$5
6)0$;
6,'(:$/.&85%$1'*877(56+$//%(5(3/$&('3(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
dit
i
o
dit
i
o
Co
n
d
i
titioititiio
dittdititddddititdddittititititioio
didnndndnnd
oononon
CooCCooCCoCCooCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCoCoCoCoooooonnnonndnnddndnddnno
di
ndn
C
nd
on
CoC
nd
onoCC
nn
CoCoCoCoCCC
o
dididi
oo
nonono
ditio
n
tioioioioooononon
a
l
l
y
onon
dddi
ononna
on
a
tioooooio
Ap
p
r
o
rov
e
d
byby
the
an
Pla
nan
n
i
n
iinnning
ingingingngnggin
CoCo
m
m
i
s
s
ssion
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
y
Ma
y
y
Ma
y
Ma
y
Ma
y
Ma
y
Ma
y
2224
,
24242424
,
24
,
2020
2
2
20
2
20
2
20
2
2
20
2
2
222222222
':
7:
+
5(
)
5(
)
',1,1*5220
"
*5($75220.,7&+(1
&$5*$5$*(
%('5220
:2.
%('5220
;
*$5$*(
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
[
&6
6,//+7
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
;
*/$667*
[
'%/&66,//+7
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
;
6/
;
6/
;
6&
[
$:6,//+7
7*
;
)2/',1*7*
;
7*
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
7*
[
$:
6,//+7
7*
;
6&
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
%('5220
0$67(5
%('5220
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
;
6&
[
&6
6,//+7
7*
;
6&
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
[
&66,//+7
;
6&
[
);6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
$:6,//+7
[
$:6,//+7
[
);6,//+7
[
&66,//+7
7*
[
$:6,//+7
7*2%6&85('
*$0(5220
2)),&(
[
&66,//+7
;
6&
;
'%/)'
67
2
5
$
*
(
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɸ
V
B
ʣɸʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
(=IIYV=C
67)/225
1')/225
:,1'2:6&+('8/(
:,1'2:7<3( :' +7 6,//+7 127(6
&$6(0(17
7*
'%/&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
$:1,1*
7*
$:1,1*
7*
),;('
),;('
),;('
),;('
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
$:1,1*
$:1,1*
),;('
),;('
),;('
$:1,1*
7*
2%6&85('
&$6(0(17
),;('
&$6(0(17
&$6(0(17
7*
&$6(0(17
7*
&$6(0(17
'2256&+('8/(
'2257<3( :' +7 127(6
3$1(/*$5$*(
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
*/$66
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
)2/',1*
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6/,',1*3$1(/
7*
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
6,1*/()/86+
'%/)/86+
6,1*/()/86+
32&.(7'225
32&.(7'225
'28%/()5(1&+
$%%5(9,$7,216)25:,1'2:6 '2256
$: $:1,1*
&/67 &/26(7
&6 &$6(0(17
'$ '28%/($&7,1*'225
'%/ '28%/(
)' )5(1&+'225
+)5' +$/)5281'
2%6& 2%6&85('
6& 62/,'&25(
6+ 6,1*/(+81*
6/ 6/,'(5
7* 7(03(5('*/$66
753/ 75,3/(
%$6(0(17)/225
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
all
yly
tio
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
pp
rppr
pp
rpp
voovovovovoorororoproprorrooopro
v
prpro
v
prooooroooopro
v
ppppppppppppppppppppp
ed
ddeded
bybybbbbybbbbbby yyyyyyyyythe
heheeheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheeheheheheheeeheeheeeeet
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
laPPla
Pan
g gCo
m
m
i
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
C
mi
s
s
i
o
n
nnn
ss
i
m
nnnn
ss
i
iisisii
C
ioisisiion
mimmm
MaMMMMa
y
MMM
yyyy
MMMMMM
&
MaMMMM
242424
,
24%('5220%('52205
20
2
2
20
2
2
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
3/3/
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
'(*
5
(
(
(1 &52 $&+0 (1 7 3 /$1 (
3/
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɹ
V
B
ʣɹʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
=td0IC]
1257+(/(9$7,21 )5217
:(67(/(9$7,21 6,'(
0$7(5,$//(*(1'
&21&5(7(522)7,/(
%25$/522),1*
6$;21<6/$7(
(%21<
9(57,&$/6,',1*
-$0(6+$5',(
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(176,',1*
)$50+286(:+,7(
)$6&,$
;3$,17('
'811(':$5'6-(7'(
*$5$*('225
&+,*$5$*('225
29(5/$<&$55,$*(
&('$5
'2256 :,1'2:6
-(/':(1256,0,/$5
:22'&/$'6'/
%/$&.
%5,&.9(1((5
0(5,',$1%5,&.
.(/2:1$
*5(<*5287
(;7(5,25:$///,*+7
6$92<+286((//,-$<
/,*+7 7$//
287'225:$//6&21&(
:22'3$1(/
5(&(663$1(/6
'811(':$5'66:,66&2))((
Co
n
Co
n
n
CooConn
CooCCCooCCCCCCooon
CCCCon
d
i
t
dit
i
dit
i
o
iititiitiiti
dit
i
ditditditdiddddddddiditditittoooioiotiotioitioiti
dit
i
ditditditdiddddddddditditdit
iititiiiititiititiitttitiotioioottitiotioiooooooo
on
on
a
l
l
y
all
y
alllyyy
all
y
y
alalallalallalallalallalal
yyyy
ditditdit
o
Cooon
CCConon
dnd
ono
AAp
p
r
o
v
AAAppppp
rproov
AA
pro
v
ppro
v
e
ve
d
veedd
ve
pro
v
v
pro
v
vv
pro
v
vv
AAA
rovrov
ApApAppp
by
bbbyybybbbybybybyyyyyyybybyyybbyyyyyybybyybybybybybybbybyybybyyyyythe
tthheeeeeet
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
PlPPPlPlaPlaPlPla
n
Plaana
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
sio
n
mm
i
s
s
i
o
sssiioonn
sssiosisisisi
iss
mim
sio
sss
mi
s
s
mm
sssiss
mmmmmmmmmmi
s
sssi
mmmmmiiissssio
mmmmmiisssiosiooiosio
Co
m
aMa
y
MMMaayyaaaaaaayyy yyyy2224
,
244242444442
20
2
2
2222222222222220
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
3/3/
67))
6753
$9(5$*((;,67,1**5$'(
1'))
1'53
55
'(*5((
(1&
52$&+0(173/$1(
3/
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɻ
V
B
ʣɹʒɷ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
=td0IC]
6287+(/(9$7,21 5($5
($67(/(9$7,21 6,'(
0$7(5,$//(*(1'
&21&5(7(522)7,/(
%25$/522),1*
6$;21<6/$7(
(%21<
9(57,&$/6,',1*
-$0(6+$5',(
9(57,&$/),%(5&(0(176,',1*
)$50+286(:+,7(
)$6&,$
;3$,17('
'811(':$5'6-(7'(
*$5$*('225
&+,*$5$*('225
29(5/$<&$55,$*(
&('$5
'2256 :,1'2:6
-(/':(1256,0,/$5
:22'&/$'6'/
%/$&.
%5,&.9(1((5
0(5,',$1%5,&.
.(/2:1$
*5(<*5287
(;7(5,25:$///,*+7
6$92<+286((//,-$<
/,*+7 7$//
287'225:$//6&21&(
:22'3$1(/
5(&(663$1(/6
'811(':$5'66:,66&2))((
CoCoCo
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
Coonddiititiooitio
n
tiootioiotiotioionioniononionononnnnonna
l
l
naallall
y
llyy
all
itio
n
nnonoiotioti
nnnnioioitiootioioitio
nonnon
itiititiitio
n
ition
itiitiitioition
CoCCoCCoCCCoCCCooCCCCooCCCCooCo
nononoCo
Ap
p
r
AAAppppr
Ap
p
r
o
pp
r
o
rorororoproprprppppppppppppppppprprrrprprrrprprororoprorororororoooooooooov
e
d
oovve
d
ve
d
dddddededededeveeeededddeedededddeeededddddddddddd
vevevevevvvveeeeeedddd
Ap
p
r
vee
Ap
p
r
ve
ro
pp
r
o
ve
d
ApAp
byyyybybybybybybybybby ybbbbbbbbbbbbbybybybyyybbybybybyybbybybybyyyyybyb
ththththeththe
thtththeeeePla
n
n
i
n
g
ala
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
iss
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
ss
i
iissssioonn
ss
i
ss
i
ss
i
ss
i
ss
i
ss
i
isisssssiosi
iisis
miis
mmmmomm
iis
mmmmmmmmmi
mmmmmoom
Coommmmmmi
Coommmmmmi
s
oommmmmmmiisisssisisisi
CC
Ma
y
MMMaayyy242424
,
22444444,
24
,
24
,
22442424424442424444444444444,,,,
2424242424424
,44
20
2
2
2020
2
202222222220222022022002020202
20
2
20202022222202002020200202000202020
2020202
2020
2
7:
+
(;7(5,25),16,+3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(56753/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5:,1'2:6&+('8/(
5(&(66
C
(;7(5,25),16,+3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(56753/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5:,1'2:6&+('8/(
5
(
&
(
6
6
C
(;7(5,25),16,+
3(5(/(9$7,216
/$<(56*5$'(
'
3$3(5
:,'(
02,6723
)/$6+,1*3$3(5
)5$0,1*3(5675
3/$1
;)855,1*
,168/$7,213(57
,17(5,25),1,6+
:,1'2:3(5
:,1'2:6&+('8/(
6/23(
5(&(66
].dCIʒ
ɺɺɶʒ.hCd0C*dICYʒʍʑɹɻɼʍY0ʍɿɷɶɶɼ
ɿɶɿʒɻɼɿʒɹɽɹɽ
B0=˫Y0ʣ]0*CʒIB
Y0.0wC*d]C*ʍ0
ɷɸ
ʘ
ɷ
ɽ
ʘ
ɸ
ɶ
ɸ
ɷ
ɺ
ʌ
ɶ
ɶ
ʌ
ɺ
ɻ
V
B
ʣɺʒɶ
C*
I
Y
]
0
C
ʞt
C
d
ʟ
]
C
d
C
0
d
d
Y
ʞ
V
C
ʌ
ɻ
ɽ
ɾ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɶ
ɷ
ʣ
ɶ
ɹ
ɻ
ʟ
Y
0
ʍ
ɿ
ɷ
ɶ
ɶ
ɼ
YII(V=CʘdyVʒ
d0=
522)3/$1
176:,1'2:+($'
176:,1'2:-$0%
176:,1'2:6,//$75(&(66:,1'2:6
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
na
laaaalallll
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
ed
by
the
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
ing
nnnnnnn
ngnggggg
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
CCC
Ma
y
24
,
20
2
2
SANTA AN
I
T
A
T
E
R
2-STORY
RESIDENCE
LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY:
TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA: 4,075 SF.
898 SF. OF WST USE ON LAWN (22%)
337 SF. OF MEDIUM WATER USE PLANTS (8.3%)
2,681 SF. OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS (65.8%)
159 SF. OF NONE WATER USE IN GRAVEL (3.9%)
HARDSCAPE IN FRONT SETBACK: 617 SF. (28.1%) < 40%
(TOTAL FRONT SETBACK AREA: 2,198.5 SF.)
RE
F
.
UP
DATE REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY
SHEET NO.
OF 1 SHEETS
TW
O
T
R
E
E
S
DE
S
I
G
N
,
I
N
C
.
(
P
D
L
O
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
26
E
S
A
N
T
A
A
N
I
T
A
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
AR
C
A
D
I
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
0
0
6
12-05-2021
CP
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
R
L
A
#
5
8
4
0
18
3
2
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
S
T
.
W
E
S
T
C
O
V
I
N
A
,
C
A
.
9
1
7
9
0
AS SHOWN
P2113
CHIAC H E N G PERNG NO.
5
8
4
0
ÁÁ
ÁÁ
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
PL
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
L-1
CoCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCoCCCoCCCCCCo
n
d
i
t
on
Co
n
Co
n
Co
n
Co
non
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
ioootititioootitiioioiotititiononon
alalal
ioitiioitioon
alal
on
a
ioioioioioioioioioioioioioiotitititititititititititiititiititiotiotiotiotiotiitioitiotio
y
tio
n
a
l
l
y
CoCoon
d
i
t
i
dit
i
o
onon
d
i
t
dit
i
o
io
Ap
ppppApApAAppppppppp
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAppppppppppropppp
r
o
pp
r
o
v
e
d
rororovovvvvovovovovovovooororoovovvvevv
ppppoooooororoproroprroprpooooooorororoprororopprprrppooooooorororoproproroprprprppoooorororororoproprprrpppppp
r
pppropro
by
bybybybyy y ybybybybybybybybbb
the
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
nnnnng
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ma
y
yyyyy24
,
2
,
2224244,4
20
2
2
2222222
02022202
2222222
Attachment F
Attachment F
3UHOLPLQDU\([HPSWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
1. Name or description of project: Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 21-13 – A
request to construct a new 3,169 square foot, two-story home with
an attached 443 square foot two-car garage, a 268 square foot
attached covered patio and a 633 square foot basement.
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):
26 E. Santa Anita Terrace – The closest intersection is located
east of the property at E. Santa Anita Terrace and Louise Avenue.
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private)
(1) Name Eric Tsang, Applicant
(2) Address 440 E. Huntington Drive, #356
Arcadia, CA 91006
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: 15303(a) – Class 3 (Construction of a single-family
home)
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:
May 5, 2022
Staff:
Edwin Arreola, Assistant Planner