Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1469 . . . RESOLUTION 1469 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-007 TO CONSTRUCT TWO THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND WITHIN 100 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND SECOND AVENUE WHEREAS, on June 3,1991, an application was filed by WLA Arcon and Schaefer Brothers (joint venture), to construct two three-story office buildings; one of which is in excess of 20,000 square feet and will be located within 100 feet of residential properties, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P. 91-007 at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in Block 72 of Arcadia Santa Anita Tract in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 15, Pages 89 and 90 of Miscellaneous Records, in the office of the County Recorder of Said County except right-of-way dedications. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on August 13 and September 10, 1991, 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 HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning Department in the attached report is true and correct. Section 2. This Commission finds: . 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. There is adequate on-site parking to accommodate the proposed use. -1- 1469 . . . 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit to construct two three-story office buildings upon the following conditions: 1. That the following conditions from the Department of Public Works shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 1) Submit grading and draining plan prepared by a.registered civil engineer on City provided drawing sheets subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. Provide calculations for both the gravity drainage system and the pump drainage system. Computations should show hydrology, hydraulics, elevations and all the details requested on the City's' "Puinp Drainage" sheet. NOTE: Show all existing and proposed parkway trees, pull boxes,meters, hydrants, power poles, street lights, driveways, sidewalks and handicap ramps on grading/drainage plan. 2) Existing parkway trees in good condition west of the center driveway shall remain and sidewalk will be constructed around them to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 3) No trees will be planted nor will any structures be erected within ten feet nO') of the water and sewer line easement located on the vacated right-of-way of Second Avenue. Only groundcover landscaping and paved parking is permitted over the existing underground utilities. 4) Close existing driveways not to be used and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk to match existing. 5) Construct seven foot (7') P.c.c. sidewalk on Huntington Drive from the westerly property line to the center driveway and then continue with a five foot (5') P.c.c. sidewalk easterly to Second Avenue and around to the alley, as per Arcadia City Standard 5-17. 6) A two foot (2') encroachment into the public right-of-way will be permitted on Huntington Drive for landscaping purposes, however, the necessary encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to the work. -2- 1469 . 7) Dedicate seven foot (7') easement adjacent to Second Avenue for sidewalk purposes. 8) Construct P.c.c. driveway ramps per Arcadia City Standard Drawing No. 5-10. 9) Remove and replace deficient or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and/or pavement to satisfaction of the City Engineer. Contact Public Works Department for exact locations of removal and' replacement. 10) Obtain approval from the Department of Public Works prior to removal of the portion of the existing gutter. 11) Construct P.c.c. commercial driveway aprons according to the Arcadia Standard Drawing No. S-ll. No driveway shall be constructed closer than three feet (3') from any curb return, fire hydrant, ornamental light standard, telephone or electrical pole, metcr box or underground vault or manhole. NOTE: No portions of existing gutter and A.C. pavement shall be removed unless prior approval is obtained from the Director of Public Works. 12) Gravity drainage outlets and commercial driveway aprons shall be constructed to conform to Arcadia City Standard Drawing No. 5-11. 13) The owner shall entcr into an Improvement Agreement with the City of Arcadia prior to start of any off-site improvement work and shall post appropriate security subjcct to approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. 14) Submit street improvement and striping plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on City provided drawing sheets subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. The striping plan shall indicate all necessary signs and pavement markings. 15) Construction access to the project site shall be from Huntington Drive or Second Avenue. No construction equipment shall be permitted access to the alley. 16) Removal or excavation of any portion of the alley surface is prohibited. The developer shall post a $10,000 bond for repair or replacement of improvements within the alley right-of-way which are damaged as a result of project work. 17) The developer shall slurry seal the alley surface from First Avenue to Second Avenue upon completion of the project and prior to final acceptance. 18) The developer shall pay the pro rata share in the amount of $18,000.00 for future maintenance and overl"y of the alley between First Avenue and Second Avenue. 19) Dedicate portions of Huntington Drive for street and highway purposes as approved by the Departments of Public Works and Economic Development. . . -3- 1469 . . . 20) Arrange for underground utility service and dedicate easements to utility companies. 21) Obtain all necessary permits to perform offsite improvement work. Developer shall be responsible for all inspection charges in connection with offsite improvements. 22) Public Works Inspector shall be contacted at (818) 574-5400, extension 289 at least 24 hours prior to construction of offsite improvements. All Public Works improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final acceptance by Building and Safety Department and prior to occupancy. 23) All survey monuments, certerline ties and survey reference points shall be protected in plhce or re-established where disturbed. This work will be the responsibility of the permittee and shall be at the permittee's expense. 2. That fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction oHhe Fire Department, including but not limited to: 1) Both buildings shall be fire sprinklered per NFP A 13. This includes the underground parking area. Standpipe connections are required on each floor and in the parking area. Location of the standpipes to be approved by the Fire Department. 2) A water flow and tamper alarm are required to monitor and sprinkler system. A local alarm within the building(s) will notify the occupants in the event of a fire. 3) The existing fire hydrant in Cozad Park shall be relocated to the northeast corner of the property. Fire and Water to approve the location. 4) Access to the alley shall be maintained at all times for emergency vehicle access. 5) A "Knox Box" shall be installed on the front of each building to allow immediate access for the Fire Department. 3. That water service shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Water Manager, including, but not limited to the following: 1) Eight existing water services to be abandoned at developer's expense by the Arcadia Water Department. 2) New services to be installed by the Arcadia Water Department at the developer's expense. 3) Existing water line on the west side.of Second Avenue may remain in place with easement if no wall of the building or subterranean parking structure is -4- 1469 . . . closer than eighteen feet (18') to the waterline. Otherwise the water line must be relocated at developer's expense. 4) Fire protection per Arcadia Fire Department. NOTE: The existing fire hydTant is to be upgraded to 6x4x4x21/2. 5) All landscape irrigation and fire sprinklers to have approved backflow protection. 4. That a modification shall be granted for 50 compact spaces (25%) in lieu of 20% allowed by code. 5. That the applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's report dated June 14. 6. That a modification shall be granted to allow the buildings openings (windows) within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. 7. That the nine parking spaces located along the alley on the south side of the general office building shall be designated as "Employee Parking Only". 8. That the two driveways on Huntington Drive shall be posted with "Right Turn Only" signs. 9. That the landscape plan shall provide sufficiently sized containers for trees which are located on the surface (1f the underground parking area. 10. That the architectural design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. 11. That C.U.P. 91-007 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 12. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of said Permit. Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of September 10, 1991 and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Clark NOES: Commissioners Hedlund and Szany Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. -5- 1469 . . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24 day of September, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: - ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany None C irman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: 1wL~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -- -6- 1469 , , , , . . . September 10, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR CASE NO.: ADDENDUM TO Cu.P. 91-007 FROM: The Planning Commission at its August 13 meeting continued its consideration of CU.P. 91-007 for two three-story office buildings at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue to tonight's meeting. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant (WLA Arcon and Schaefer Brothers) adequate time to prepare revised plans and to obtain additional information relating to traffic and circulation. On August 14, we sent a letter to Mr. Lortie requesting: (1) a revised completely dimensioned site plan and garage plan locating all columns within the garage and identifying all compact spaces. (2) a plan indicating the height of all walls around the planter' areas, stairways and trash areas. (3) the total square footage of all landscape areas - both net and gross (not including hardscape). In addition, the Public Works Department prepared a preliminary design of Second Avenue at Huntington Drive. On August 28, the Planning Department received a letter (Exhibit A) from WLA Arcon expressing their disappointment in the delay of approving their proposed plans. They note in their letter, the following concerns about the effect of internalized circulation as proposed: "1. Traffic to and from Huntington should be minimized. Although necessary for guests, initial visits, and impulse visitors, tenants and regular visitors will more likely prefer the alley access off First or Second. During race season, the alley will allow the project to function when traffic is difficult to impossible on Huntington. ADDENDUM Cu.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 1 . . . 2. The only exit possible on Huntington will be a right turn to accommodate someone traveling east. At one drive, this maneuver will be across a "right turn only" lane. Turning from the alley left on Second, then right at the signal onto Huntington appears safer and seemingly should be encouraged. 3.. Alleys are typically used for recirculation and parking access in downtown areas. This increases site utilization and hence maximizes parking and property value. We do not feel that the scope of our project or the number of cars being proposed warrants changing existing design or planning review criteria. " WLA Arcon further states: "In reviewing our design criteria and the considerations stated above, we are resolved that the alternate plan is unacceptable. Denial of our proposed plan with the imposition of 'internalized' parking circulation, will necessitate a project redesign and thus require an additional time and financial commitmen t." The applicant has submitted revised "original" plans dated September 6 which show the columns on the second floor and a "schematic traffic plan" including the intersection of Second and Huntington. ORIGINAL REOUEST The applicant has requested approval of a conditional Use Permit to construct two three-story office buildings. One office building will contain 16,667 square feet and be located 93'-0" from the residential property to the south; the other building will contain 25,000 square feet and be located 50' from the residential properties to the south. Section 9263.6.7 requires a conditional use permit for any building exceeding 20,000 square feet which is located within 100'-0" of residentially zoned property. The applicant is also requesting the following modifications: 1) 25.2% (51) of the parking spaces to be compact spaces in lieu of 20% (40) allowed (9269.5.1). 2) Window openings facing the residential property to the south. REVISED PLANS Buildings The applicant is proposing to construct two three-story office buildings. The westerly building (A) contains 16,667 square feet and will be used for medical offices. The easterly building (B) is for general office purposes and will contain 25,000 square feet. (Total building area of 41,667 sq. ft.) ADDENDUM Cu.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 2 . There have been no changes to the building. Parking Based upon code requirements, 200 parking spaces are required. The revised plans indicate 201 parking spaces. There will be 83 surface parking spaces and 118 spaces within the underground garage. The revised plans propose 51 compact parking spaces (25.2%). Code allows a maximum of 40 compact spaces (20%). The City's compact car space size is 8'x16'. The compact spaces shown on the plan are as follows: CL CW C Compact with standard length Compact with standard width Compact 8' x 20' 9' x 20' 8' x 18' 20 spaces provided 15 spaces provided 16 spaces provided 51 compact spaces total All the compact spaces exceed the city's minimum standards. As noted above, 15 of the compact spaces meet the minimum full-size car width and are deficient in depth by only 2'-0". . The Planning Department would recommend approval of a maximum of 25% of the parking spaces to be compact. It is staffs opinion that the 15 CW spaces (compact with standard width) provide adequate width and depth for a standard automobile. Six handicap spaces are shown on the plans which comply with Title 24 requirements. Circulation There are no changes to the parking design as previously submitted by the applicant and included in the August 13 report. Access to the site is from two right-turn in and out driveways on Huntington Drive and four driveways off the alley. The underground parking garage is served from one of the driveways off the alley. The other three driveways serve the on-ground parking lots. In addition to the four driveways onto the alley, there are nine parking spaces which are accessed directly from the alley. The proposed design by the applicant does not provide for any internal circulation (with the exception of the underground parking). In order to drive from one building's parking lot to another a person would have to access the parking lots through either the alley or Huntington Drive. . ADDENDUM C.U.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 3 Pedestrian Circulation . Access to the various parking spaces around the building is from a walkway adjacent to the building. With the exception of the south side of the professional office building, the walkway is 3'-0" in width on the north, south east and west sides of each building. However the walkway is only 2'-0":t in width on the south side of the professional office building; this walkway should be increased to a minimum width of 3'-0". This may result in a loss of 1'-0" in the landscape buffer adjacent to the building. Landscaping The applicant indicates that 10,775 sq. ft. (18%) of the site will be landscape; this is the gross square footage, including the landscape area in front of the building. The applicant is also, at the request of the Redevelopment Agency and preliminarily approved in concept by Public Works, providing two feet of landscaping along Huntington Drive within the public right-of-way. Plans show numerous trees within the parking area. With the exception of the easterly parking area, the surface parking is directly over the underground parking. . Special consideration will have to be given to trees planted in this area and the majority, because of the root system, may have to be planted in containers. . MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 1989 Parking Study In August 1989, Barton-Aschman, Inc. (BA) prepared a "Comprehensive Traffic Analysis for the Central Redevelopment Project Area". The purpose of the traffic analysis was to investigate the cumulative effects of: (1) approved, (2) probable and (3) speculative development projects. The objective of the study was to identify mitigation measures that would allow both the development of planned projects and probable projectsand acceptable roadway operation. The study focused on 15 key intersections using projected peak-hour traffic volumes. The traffic analysis was designed to recognize the unique traffic characteristics of the City including regional attractions such as the Santa Anita Race Track and Santa Anita Fashion Park. One important aspect noted in the study is that "Arcadia's thoroughfares are increasingly being used for non-Arcadia commuter traffic". Quality of intersection operation is descri~ in terms of "levels of service" (LoS). Levels range from A to F with Level of Service A indicating virtually no delay or congestion while Level of Service F represents stop-and-go conditions. In Arcadia, Level of Service D has been defined as the limit of acceptable operation ona non- race day, while Level of Service E is the limit on race days. . ADDENDUM c.u.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 4 . . . Level of Service D refers to "congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-standing lines formed" Level of Service E refers to "severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements." The first section of the report was based upon existing development and "approved projects" including: Arcadia Gateway Center - Gribble Project including both restaurants Arcadia Regional Business Center (301-321 East Huntington Drive - Souplantation, Hampton Inn, Residence Inn) Arcadia Landmark Development - including the offices and restaurants Home Depot in Monrovia Huntington Plaza in Monrovia Pharmacia in Monrovia A one percent average annual growth factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes to simulate the effects of additional developments outside the study area. Based upon this information, the morning peak hours the intersections continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service although two of the intersections are projected to operate at LoS D (Huntington Drive/Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive/Second Avenue). On an evening non-race track day, satisfactory conditions were also projected with three intersections operating at LoS D (Huntington Drive/Santa Anita Avenue, Huntington Drive/First Avenue and Huntington Drive/Second Avenue). On race days two intersections are projected to operate at LoS E, Huntington Drive/First Avenue and Huntington Drive/Second Avenue. The study also reviewed "Probable Projects Impacts". Three potential development projects were identified as "probable projects": · The southwest corner of Huntington Drive/Second Avenue · The northwest corner of Huntington Drive/Second Avenue · The expansion of Santa Anita Fashion Park Based upon the analysisrit was noted that a potential of 100,000 sq. ft. of office development was possible on the two sites at Huntington and Second combined. It ADDENDUM c.u.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 5 was recommended that the development be distributed with 40% (40,000 sq. ft.) at . the southwest corner and 60% on the northwest corner (60,000 sq. ft.) With the addition of the traffic generated by these probable projects plus the existing plus approved projects scenario, the study concluded: . In the morning peak hour, none of the intersections will exceed LoS D (this includes Huntington and Second). . During the evening peak hour of a non race day, one intersection (Huntington Drive and Second Avenue) is projected to operate at LoS E, though only marginally. . During the evening peak hour of a race day, Huntington Drive and Second Avenue and Huntington Drive and First Avenue are projected to operate at LoS E. However, the report notes that all intersections are under the manual control of the Arcadia Police Department on race days, which mitigates the traffic problem. The report states that "Upon completion of the six approved and three probably projects, the study area roadway system will be operating virtually at capacity." . Current Parking Study In reviewing the plans submitted .by the applicant, the Planning Department, Redevelopment Agency and Public Works staff expressed concern regarding the location of the ramp and the driveways along the alley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., (BA) at the request of the City Redevelopment Agency, reviewed the preliminary design plan submitted by the applicant (see the attached report dated July 16). In regards to site access parking and circulation system, BA noted that two of their concerns are the number of driveways (4) along the alley and the nine parking spaces which access directly to the alley. BA also expressed concern regarding the easterly parking lot since it is "segregated" from the remainder of the site and is a "dead end". BA suggested that this parking area be reserved for employee parking only which would reduce the turnover'of parking spaces and the number of vehicles entering and existing the driveway. In their report BA noted that 'While the elimination of the nine alley spaces would be desirable, an alternative to the reduction of parking movements in the alley would be to permit these parking spaces but to designate them for employees of the office and medical buildings only." . ADDENDUM C.U.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 6 . BA prepared a concept plan that eliminates two driveways along the alley and the nine alley parking spaces. The plan also relocates the garage ramp adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west orientation. The relocation of the ramp based upon BA's design resulted in an overall parking deficiency of 11 spaces; 191 spaces in lieu of 202 shown (5.5% reduction). BA prepared a concept plan that eliminates two driveways along the alley and the nine alley parking spaces. The plan also relocates the garage ramp adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west orientation. On July 24,1991, staff from the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Redevelopment Agency along with Paul Kitsakos of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. met with the applicants, Warren Lortie and Howard Schaefer to review the parking and circulation plan. Staff felt that the internalized plan suggest~ by Barton-Aschman (shown in the August 13 staff report) provided better on-site circulation and reduced the number of driveways along the alley from four to two. The location of the ramp (south of the building) allows vehicles entering the site from Huntington Drive direct access to the garage driveway (without having to go into the alley) and provides better internal circulation between the parking areas. The design will also reduced traffic on the alley by providing access to the garage ramp from Huntington Drive. . Parking Requirement Analysis If the ramp is relocated to the center of the site, there will be a reduction of 11 parking spaces, resulting in a 5.5% parking deficiency. Based upon a "Parking Generation Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), during peak parking rates for medical clinic/office uses, based upon 1000 gross square feet of building area, the average number of cars parked during peak parking hours was 3.1 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. However, the parking ranged from 1.5 to 5.1 cars. The City's parking standards require 6 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for medical offices. During peak parking rates for general offices less than 50,000 sq. ft. in area, the average number of parking during peak parking hours was 2.6 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, with parking ranging from .75 to 4.7 cars per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The City's parking standards require 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor area for general office space. The Planning Department does not believe that a 5.5% deficiency in parking would create an adverse impact on the parking. . ADDENDUM c.u.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 7 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW . The subject property is located within the Redevelopment area and subject to Redevelopment Agency Design Review. Final design plans will be submitted to the Redevelopment staff for review by the Redevelopment Agency. REDEVELOPMENT COMMENTS The Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the most recent plans submitted by the applicant and notes: "We are in agreement with Planning and Public Works staff and Barton-Aschman Associates concerning the orientation of the access ramp to the underground parking. We urge that a condition of approval for the project be that A/SB move the ramp off the alley and internalize it within the parking area." Mr. Kinnahan further notes that in the attached letter dated February 15, 1991 to Warren Lortie from Dale Connors' "Dale asks that the ramp be relocated and internalized per Barton-Aschman's request. While we are currently dealing with a different set of plans for the site, the concerns expressed in that letter still apply". ANALYSIS The proposed offices are permitted uses in the C-2 zone. . Parkin~ and On-site Circulation During the August 13 public hearing Mr. Lortie noted that "we were very surprised that the traffic study came in with a recommendation to have internalized circula tion". On February 15. 1991. the Redevelopment Agency sent a letter to Mr. Lortie regarding their preliminary site plan for a project on that comer. The letter notes: "City Departments and Barton-Aschman have preliminarily reviewed your proposed site plan of February 15, 1991. Barton-Aschman's concerns are: a. There are three proposed driveways exiting/entering the alley. Can you reduce this number and orient the parking structure ramp within the site toward the center to permit better traffic circulation? b. Can the parking spaces on the alley to the south of the professional office building be redesigned so they won't interfere with alley traffic or alternatively designated as 'reserved for employees only'?" In Mr. Lortie's most recent letter to the City he has indicated that "the alternate plan {internalized parking circulation} is unacceptable." . ADDENDUM C.U.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 8 . Based upon the September 6, 1991 site plan submitted by WLA Arcon, Planning staff, using the dimensions of the ramp located off the alley, determined that if the project were designed with anJnternalized east/west ramp, approximately five parking spaces, not elevent spaces, would be eliminated (4 regular, 1 compact), resulting in a 2.5:t% reduction in parking. It is staffs opinion that the internalized east/west ramp provides for access to the underground parking from the parking lot and eliminates two driveways off the alley. The design also provides for internal on-site circulation between the medical building and the professional building. Staff further concurs with Barton Aschman's recommendation that the nine spaces fronting on the alley be limited to employee parking only. Although the plan with an internalized ramp will result in a loss of 5:f: spaces (2.5%), based upon the ITE parking analysis and review of parking needs for larger office buildings, staff does not think that a reduction of up to 5% in the number of parking spaces would result in a parking problem. It is staff's opinion that a parking space deficiency of 5 to 10 parking spaces is a minor trade off for a better parking and circulation design, particularly since the current plans (September 6) show compact space widths and lengths in excess of the City requirements. Off-Site Circulation . The Schematic Traffic Plan submitted by the applicant includes the intersection of Second and Huntington Drive. The proposed project includes the landscape island at Second and Huntington Drive. Currently persons turning south onto Second Avenue from east bound Huntington Drive, turn into a separate lane between the properties at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and the landscape island. Persons exiting the alley to go north on Second A venue are required to cross three southbound lanes on Second Avenue. The proposed plan extends the alley an additional 80' to Second Avenue, which eliminates one south bound lane. It is staff's opinion that elimination of one south bound lane creates a safer transition from the alley onto Second Avenue. U the ramp is internalized, it will further reduce the circulation conflicts in the alley as illustrated on the "Schematic Traffic Plan" submitted by the applicant on September 6, 1991. . ADDENDUM c.u.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 9 . . . As noted in the original staff report, alleys are designed for access to and from adjacent properties, they should not be used in lieu of through streets. Alleys are not designed or built to the same construction standards or design widths as public streets. As per Mr. Lortie's letter, "this location would also encourage traffic to access and exit the site by way of the alley...". Based upon code definition, an "alley is a public or private way permanently reserved as a secondary means of access to abutting property". Compact Parking Modification In regards to the requested modification for 25.2% (51) compact parking spaces in lieu of 20% allowed, as noted above, 15 of-these spaces are 9'-0" in width and 18'-0" in depth, complying with the standard size parking stall width requirement and deficient in depth by only 2'-0". Staff would recommend a maximum of 25% compact spaces (50). Building Modification The second modification request relates to window openings facing residential. Currently the properties to the south are developed with older .single-family dwellings. One lot at 143-145 Alta is developed with an eight unit condominium. Building A, the medical office is set back 93' from the residential property and Building B, the general office is set back 50' from the residential properties to the south. The properties to the south are zoned R-3 and the units have been designed in a north-south direction. The project at 143-145 Alta is designed so that the rear of the buildings face the alley. There are two windows in each building that face north. It is staff's opinion that the visual impact on these properties will be minimal, based upon the typical design of the multiple-family projects in the area. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration are: 1. An aerial of the existing site and street layout. 2. Revised site plan submitted by WLA Arcon on September 6, 1991. ADDENDUM C.u.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 10 3. . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Exhibit A - August 28, 1991 letter from Warren Lortie Exhibit B - September 5 memo from Pete Kinnahan with attached letter of February 15, 1991 to Warren Lortie Exhibit C - Public Works Intersection Plans of Second Avenue and Huntington Drive and Second Avenue and the alley. Exhibit D - Excerpts from the 1989 Traffic study prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates. A copy of the August 13, 1991 minutes relating to this project. The August 13 staff report with attachments RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends approval of c.u.P. 91-007 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the conditions as outlined in the attached report from the Department of Public Works shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. That fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. That water service shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Water Manager. . 4. That the design of the project shall provide for an internalized ramp adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west direction and reduction of the number of driveways off of the alley to two. A revised plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and approval. 5. That a modification shall be granted for a maximum. 5% reduction in the number of parking spaces to allow for the internalized ramp. 6. That a modification shall be granted for 50 compact spaces (25%) in lieu of 20% allowed by code. 7. That the applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's report dated Jime 14. . 8. That a modification shall be granted to allow the buildings. openings (windows) within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. 9. That the nine parking spaces located along the alley on the south side of the general office building shall be designated as "Employee Parking Only". 10. That the two driveways on Huntington Drive shall be posted with "Right Turn Only" signs. ADDENDUM Cu.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 11 . . . 11. That the landscape plan shall provide sufficiently sized containers for trees which are located on the surface of the underground parking area. 12. That the architectural design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. 12. ThatC.U.P. 91-007 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 13. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of said Permit. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS The Planning Commission may: 1. Approve the c.u.P. as submitted by the applicant subject to the conditions of approval set forth above with the deletion of conditions 4 and 5 which relate to the internalized ramp, or as modified by the Commission; or 2. Approve the C.U.P. as recommended by the Planning Department subject to the conditions set forth above or as modified by the Commission; or 3. Deny the C.U.P. with the appropriate findings. Approval If the Commission intends to take action to approve this project, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings and conditions of approval set forth in the staff report (or as modified by the Commission). Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. ADDENDUM C.U.P. 91-007 September 10, 1991 Page 12 . . . RECEIVED SEP 0 3 1991 lR~';f:':10 &fy of Artad/~ ('(If) 4blr 57:;.t ili~~ ARCOn AI<:HfTKT/(ONffiJCfQ< rKCRFCIRATID August 28, 1991 CITY O~ A."CAOlA ~HH\MC DEPT. William Woolard Donna L. Butler Planning Department, City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91066-0060 RE: C.U.P. 91-007 Dear Bill and Donna: As you are aware, we are very disappointed that our site plan approval is being delayed. Our plan was developed with much consideration and we feel it is a very efficient plan for the proposed use. Parking circulation and lower level access arc essentially unchanged from previous proposals to the Redevelopment Agency and include the following design considerations: 1. Lower level parking is reserved for professionals and staff. Access is direct to and from alley, without need to enter or cross surface/visitor parking areas. 2. Surface parking is reserved for clients and patients. Access is to and from street and alley, avoiding "cross" aisles and minimizing circulation conflicts from other parking areas. 3. Pedestrian access from client/patient parking is "at grade" and minimizes need to cross or traverse traffic aisles. 4. Client/patient parking has an implicit division between the buildings which has been requested by all ienant participants. Although recirculation and Sharing is possible, it is not encouraged and a logical division of gucst or short term parking is readily possible. It was not anticipated that these project criteria would be subject to review or approval of planning or traffic consultants. The normal application of sight-lines, dimensions, siopes, etc., however, have been considerea ana any revisions meet City codes or to increase safety and comfort of tenant or guest are encouraged. To reiterate our concern about the effect of internalized circulation as proposed, please consider the fOllowing: 1. Traffic to and from Huntington should be minimized. Although necessary for guests, initial visits, and impulse visitors, tenants and regular visitors will more likely prefer the alley access off First or Second. During race season, the alley will allow th.e project to function when traffic is difficult to impossible on Huntington. The only exit possible on Huntington will be a right turn to accommodate someone traveling east. At one drive. this maneuver will be across a "right turn only" lane. Turning from the alley left on Second, then right at thc signal onto Huntington appears safer and seemingly should be encouraged. 2. WLAArcon Inc.. 18652 F1oridaSl, Sune200, Huntington 8eacI\CA92848(7141848-7262 FAX(7141B43-6168 Lie. B4605n . . . con t'd 8/28/91 pa8e 2 3. Alleys are typically used for recirculation and parking access in downtown areas. This increases site utilization and hence maximizes parking and property value. We do not feel that the scope of our project or the number of cars being proposed warrants changing existing design or planning review criteria. In reviewing our design criteria and the considerations stated above, we are resolved that the alternate plan is unacceptable. Denial of our proposed plan with the imposition of "internalized" parking circulation, w.ill necessitate a project redesign and thus require an additional time and financial commitment. If site capacity for parking is reduced by over 5%, there are also value con- siderations which need to be considered in the analysis. Although planning could "allow" the project [0 be l;uilt, t1iere is concern that options to add retail or medical tenants in the second building would not be possible. We also would not be able to accomodate tenants that require "extra" parking. To retain these options it would be necessary, even if not required, to reduce the rentable area to match the parking provided. In this case, the purchase cost of the property would need to 'be reconsidered in order to determine if cost of redesign and the smaller project are acceptable as a viable development. However, pursuant to commentS and requests by Planning Commissioners at our original hearing, I will be amending our submittal as follows: 1. Revised plan will show the proposed building and parking structure as effects parking in the lower level. 2. Parking data will be amended to show compact spaces, and plan will identify spaces which are "optional" but included to enhance landscaping opportunities and those which are wider than the minimum requirement. 3. A site section at the lower level access ramp will be added, demonstrating slope, line of sight, and clearance. 4. An expanded site plan will be included showing all areas of traffic movement around site and identifying vehicle access and egress from the site. I look forward to reviewing our presentation with the Planning Commission at th~ir rcgu:ur i11ceticg Sep(;:.nbcr. 10, 1991. 'rh:ase notify us if yuu have any additional items or information you would' like us to include to facilitate your analysis. WHL/lm cc: Peter Kinnahan/Redevelopment Agency All Tenant/Investors Pat Gibson/Barton Aschman Schaefer Brothers Dave Powell/Hay & Co. rrJemotanJum DATE: 9/5/91 TO: 0 Donna Butler, Senior Planner FROM: Vl,../peter P. Kinnahan, Assistant City Manager for Economic \ Development SUBJECT: Arconlschaefer Brothers' Proposed Parking Ramp Orientation for the Southwest Corner Project Please be advised that Agency staff has reviewed the most recent Arcon/Schaefer Brothers' (A/SB) submittal for the Southwest Corner Project. We are in agreement with Planning and Public works staff and Barton-Aschman Assoc. (the traffic engineers for tllis project) concerning the orientation of the access ramp to the underground parking. We urge that a condition of approval for the project be that A/SB move the ramp off the alley and internalize it within the parking area. . I have attached a copy of Dale Connors' February 15, 1991 to Mr. Warren Lortie in which Dale asks that the ramp be relocated and internalized per Barton-Aschman's request. we are currently dealing with a differnt set of plans for site, the concerns expressed in that letter still apply. letter While the PPK:dc arcon2.91m , F:i<:, ~~~ CHARLES E. GILB MAYOR PROTlMPORl 240 Wost Huntington Dri.e Arcadia. California 91007 (818) 574-5400 JOSEPH C. ORAL'LO GEORGE FASCH[:,\G ROBERT C. HARBICHT COUl'CILMlMlIlRS ','-. GEORGE J. WAITS CITY MANAGER MARY B. YOUNG MAYOR JUNE D. ALFORD CITi CLERK February 15, 1991 WLA Arcon Attn: Mr. Warren Lortie 18652 Florida street, Suite 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: proposed SWC site Plan dated 2/6/91 Dear Mr. Lortie: City Departments and Barton-Aschman have preliminarily reviewed your proposed site plan of February 15, 1991. Barton-Aschman's concerns are: . a. There are three proposed driveways exiting/entering the alley. Can you reduce this number and orient the parking structure ramp within the site toward the center to permit better traffic circulation? b. Can the parking spaces on the alley to the south of the professional office building be redesigned so they won 't interfere with alley traffic or alternatively designated as "reserved for employees only?" Planning and Fire Department comments consideration. I will transmit comments Department as soon as they are available. are enclosed for your from the Public WorKS I have requested that Barton-Aschman do no further work on your draft plan until we receive your reply to this letter. We .will need that as soon as possible along with your prO-forma if we are going to be able to finish the reuse appraisal, traffic study and environmental assessment in time to begin DDA negotiations pursuant to the Schedule of Performance. I have however, authorized them by copy of this letter to analyze the impact of the proposed rail station at st. Joseph/First on your project. We will need this as part of the environmental assessment. , , . ~ ~r. Warren Lortie February 15, 1991 Page 2 On another matter, I am enclosing a proposed Sign Authorization Agreement for your consideration. This document has been reviewed by the Agency General Counsel and is intended to establish the framework within which A/SB will be allowed to erect a marketing sign on the Southwest Corner Site. If acceptable, please sign the Agreement and return to me at your earliest convenience. There is no permit fee; however, Planning must approve your "final" sign before it can be erected. Please call me or Dale if you have any questions Sincerely, fJoL 1(..., ~ Dale R. Connors Economic Development Associate Arcadia Redevelopment Agency cc: Howard Schaefer (letter only) Neal Liddicoat, Barton-Aschman (letter only) DRC:dc arcon4.91l . EXHmrrc pUBLIC WORKS INTERSECTION PLANS OF SECOND A VENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND SECOND A VENUE AND THE ALLEY Prepared by PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August, .1991 . . . . ~ .----..... ------- ~ ~ - - ~ ~ 4k -...... - -. ~ ~ --. -. , ~- --.- ."-- .-.~-- -----+--.---- Z r--..... . I'" ij~1 II?'. rk' 0' ,I"J-... II~ ''.. I h L.. ~ I , , _.._~____T_ i' . -J - , I ,/ - -;--~. / . <)1 , " 1/ I I I I / I ' , I~ . ~~I' . - "- ... 31 , . I ~ H(/"nl'(1J .fo_v:_-.!}~ _______ \-. - .----- -.------- I ' oJ ~ .... ". , -,. "- + I 4-~ ---- -)\_- '" .' \ .:,;, i ,~ - . . !r-~ L -.., :: .' ; ~-~'--~---- 1 , \ ; I 1 Z. r--. - ., - - r- ,A::<:: WAc.c )~~r:--- ;l.:......t I ..L-____ ----- w .5 /1 ( ~\ ,--- "~ Jl ~ -~~---: -, '\ ~ . I, II II II I' II II Jl L..::'cc J . .' ~ -" 2:5' ~ ~ I I t I I I I 25' - .30/ ~ C) /c::l' i I .::, I ~ I~ ~I ~ I I t I I .., I I -d \') ~ (v .55 . L' ~ ~ /~' - -- . . . EXHIBIT D EXCERPTS FROM COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. . August, 1989 . ~ ",. "'- ~ rWiII rM. I~ i W II... 111M , .. .. ,. ..... .- .... ..- --. __ _ ~'- . --- .. ---- ... --- '.. ~-- FOot!,. ... "'It tll ~ -0 ~~... ~~ wm . . -- . . . .. . I . li . I I I . I I I ,....v. .- ARCADIA CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BARTON.ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. --. .... Ioolii.lr "- ~ J.:.... .L- oJ..... .w;... ..t...- ...... ...... ., . . -'" ~364 Inler\l.lle 210 ~~ "-12 J~ r342 ~ < c 'i 't:l '" lQ "'''' ~ -0_ -....112 "'IIlN 4-1147 J~'- rl02 196J1 "'It,.. 602-+ -"'Ill 67. ....IIlN NUl... ("I 9- o ~ 0> 0- o ~ IB2J1 fl" 3..... ..TO 325.. ~ .... N:?l", "-149 100.....0\ .-479 J~I,. rB7 43J1 "'1ft" 121..... "'.,.'" 41. ~R'" .J.i5..I ~.Ji..1... ..u:.... ~ ("I 9- o ~ 0> 0- o ::9. 0> n C1l ~57 4-1026 '" - . c Ql Jl~ ~ C\I';O ~24 (\JC\f..... ~84 J!I,. ..12 BJ "' t ,.. 31..... 0"'''' 5.. "'~ <Xlg~ "-23 <\1- .-120 J!I,. .17 12J1 "'It,. 34- N"'''' 19.. N....- >- '" ~ Ql - .. l) ...."'N --- 1IL152 -N..... .....1026 HI,. rtl6 79J1 "'I f,. 354-. ........CD 93""'-- ",.or- .. ...", 4 ~ ~ ~ _....N "-101 0 '" "-23 <Xl '" "-104 0 '" 62 nt :=tJJ2 :n~ ~336 j!,C :=~~05nt ::llB6 40Jl "'Ifl" 33.J' "'1ft" 26.J' Hunlington Dr. 400..... 00-11I 516_ 00"'- 511-+ '\ t,. 529..... 55. ~~~ 20.. '" 7.. Ill....'" 8.. ... .. '\ ,.. <DO ....... ~ OJ ~ 't:l c N OJ ~ ..c .. '" .... '" .... A.M. PEAK HOUR (RACE DAY)--EXISTING CONDITIONS BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIA fE-S. INC. . ..t..'''" .~.w:.-- Colorado Illvd. Santa Oara SI. "-51 --72 109-" " .0- n N f IGURl U 2 ..... ..... ~ <' c 'i ~ .. m "'''''' .. "'_"'....130 ''''''- ~1020 J~'- .338 245..1' ~ t I' 'J34-. ",,, 0 .53"'lr .,-" _.0_ .... .... .- .. "- .- "- .- . ..."'''' "''''a> '-115 -4'_ +-500 n'. .155 102..J' ~tl' 1429.... 1/)"'0 159"'lr -U)", ...", .. ~ - .. - .. .JiiiM diiiia .. llliII liiIrI It'I "'0 '-24 Q)..:tM ~44 JLl,. ..17 22..)' ~ t f 187~ U)a>_ 39"'), ::l'" ~~,,'-6 ,.......N .....31 .ILl. .27 48-" ~tl' 142.... a-Ul 46. ....c;t\I >- .. ~ .. - .. U Inlerslale 210 ('I 9- o ~ .. 0.. o v: ('I 9- o ~ .. 0- o ~ .. R. 158...... t,.. 14..... "'u) 213~ "'''' "'u) "'''' "''''''' '-159 10....... -130 .ILl. .54 255-" ~ t I' 1000..... "'.. '" 262. Q)o~ - ",~:\l '-75 "''''' ......79 Jr. ..34 ~ jl~ fd,.. "'~N .t'q, ,... ..'" AU) a>"'''' '-80 ... '-65 ....a>... ~497 ~ ......668 JLl,. .41 138-" ~ t I' 1352-. ""'''' 126"'lr ,,-- il\1 -\0... ... C < .. - . c .. -'l~ ---- _ HIIIili . Colorado Blvd. Santa Oara 51. '" '" "'o.... '-81 "'>DIll '-22 ... 0 '\..122 52 "'''' '" 656 10...... -756 "'''''' ......I41 ......... JL'. :=163 JLI. ..21 JLI.. 5 JL'. :=772 86-" ... t,.. 42..)' ~ t I' 36..J' HuntinRton Dr. 1542-' ....a>a> 1628~ 0.0....1685..... ... t I' "1688_ 112"'lr a>o.", 17....... 10"'), ......'" 26~ ",... - - ..." -.... "'''' oj ~ 'U C N P.M. PEAK HOUR (RACE DAY)--EXISTING CONDITIONS BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. .. ~ .c - 11\ '\..443 +-621 73 J> 13' -6 n N fiGURE U 3 . . '. ~ < .6 ~ ~ .. II) 1''''''' "'0>1' ~48 "'...- "'662 J ~ '- ..244 248J1 .....f 1058.... ulJ,... 178~ ...co... -...- ... Inte"tate 210 n 9- o ~ '" P- o ~ n 9- o - .. a. o :9- .. ~ :IW .. ~ . .. - . .. .. - .... ~ 100> '1...256 ~~ +-0 ./ ~ ..248 TI" 0.. r--I(l 0)(\, r--1OO> _0>0 'L187 -..0(\1 ...-170 .111. ,("'126 182J' "\ '1 I" 467.... OlOO 1I4.. -lOO -...... ~ Colorado Blvd. ')1f J'llO- <\all'" ... 4~t'1 'LlO _rtlJf'! .....32 .Ill,. ..15 15...1' ') tr 136..... "''''''' 48.. -:;:'" ::;;; 'L18 "'--'_28 J 11,. ..24 38J' "\1t 137..... .....'" 35.. ON '" Santa Oara SI. >- .. ~ GI - .. lJ "(I) 0.... 0 .... <D co_ ...<l'lO 'l...lg4 ",_lO '1...112 coco_ 'L71 ltl co'L18 co to- '1...141 co N 'l..47 <Dill t-Ul- ~4 9 0\..,._ .-554 UlI'lCO -712 --- 4-766 P')Q'i_ ....697 \0004 4-754 I'l- "'-395 ~ -633 .,Ill,. .....65 J1\. ......154 .I~\. ,("'152 J!I....7 J~I.. .......22 J!l,. ......17 .1'- +-558 84...1' "'Itf 64J' "'I t t' 62J1 '\ t f 7...1' "'I t I" 34J Huntin~ton Or. 99-" 895.... N'lCO 1031-0> <DCO", 1092.... 1'10'" 1201- ....-'" 1065.... '\ t I" 3i~"'" t297--+ 240.. CUI '" 109.. ~:::<l' 85.. IO"'CO 7.. - 15.. <DUlUl .. " ........ '" --'" '\ f ;t< c: Ul", -< GI -<\I OJ .. ~ ~ GI - . ~ c: .. '0 JI~ - .. c: .s: ... .... - on 6 n N "CURE U 4 P.M. PEAK HOUR (NON-RACE DAY)--EXISTING CONDITIONS 8AR10N ASCHMAN ASSOCIA ,[So INC. -... . T1\BLE 1 :INl'ERSECl'ION LEVEIrOF-SERVICE DEFINITIONS (1) . . Level of service Interpretation Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. A,B c Light =ngestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-starding lines formed. o E Severe congestion with some long- standing lines on critical approach- es. Blockage of intersection Il'aY occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning move- ments . F Total breakdcMn with stop-ard~o op- eration. NOITS: (1) Source: Hiahwav Caoacitv Manual, 1965. (2) Volurre/Level of Service E Capacity. 15 ... Volurre/capaci ty (2) Ratio 0.00-0.70 0.71-0.BO 0.81-0.90 0.91-1.00 1.01+ """'- . oj > -< c 'i "D .. to oo;$lil; '-122 "'1111\1 +-1241 .I ~ '- .112 208-" "'\ t I' 672.... ....0.'" 71"'" "''''''' 1\1111_ ........ ..:..- - ....- Joi.... ~- "-"" ~ ...... ........ ..........- Interslate 210 0.0 "-386 ~~ +-13 J 4 .363 ..;1'0\("') 1\11\1'" "-110 _(\1_... 59 JL~ ,('131 84-" "'t~ 506.... ..."'4 99. ~~'" III ~ ... '" ... -- '" M.......... '-25 NM.... .-89 oil'. ,,13 8--" "'\1 I' 33-" ......to 5. .;tl/l.-o ... >- .. ~ '" - .. U 0000.. '1....24 f'I"I--:"I'+-127 .ILl.. .20 13-" ...t~ 36.... "'0.0 20.. NO-- n g.. o ~ .. e>- O ~ 193...... 11' 3.... 1"1..... 363.. 11>0 _ "'1\1 ...0 .0_0 ~158 \0.......... "'-506 JL~ .92 44--" "'\ff 128.... /'-"'1\1 44.. ~;ell> - -- n g.. o ~ .. e>- O ~ .. n .. .;tr::~ "-.-38 ;e"'1 -127 )L" .38 '}"'\tt v,/' OOOl/) ",~l/);e'" "''I. ." . .... - to ... . c '" Jl~ Colorado Blvd. Santa aara 51. 0,... \0 CD ,.... "''''0 ~130 - '" "-24 0 4 '1....111 4 _ .01\1- ....1267 "'....4 +-14674"'- +-1520-....'" "'135 JL~ .129 .11'..3 JL'. .37 J!.~ ,('15 42-" "'t,ll 129--" ...11' 43J Huntington Dr. 580.... ~l/)~ 570..... -.0- 602 61 58~ 01\1<# 145"""- '" 111 7..... "It~ 21..... .. 1\I.;t_ .. "" .0'-.0 .. - - "\ I' "'N cai -I") ~ ~ "D C J:. '" ... '" A.M. PEAK HOUR (RACE DAY)-1995 BACKGROUND + APPROVED PROJECTS BARlON ASCHMAN ASSOCIAlES.INC. 400 1\14 ...- "-58 , .1"- .....83' 126-" 7" .0- n N flCURE l.J5 ..... CII > <( c 'i 'l:l '" CD :;It.~ ~ 151 "''''''' +-1162 J~'- .373 260..Jl ... t I' 1061-. ...!_N 162_ "'IIN) -"'- LiiiIIa .. .ioIla M ... oIoIai doIilIt .i..lit .... __ ~ ....... :liIMl .iioa. .- \()_ _ _ M N "''''''' '1....167 Ill"'''' '1....23 '" N '1....130 CD '" 61 ..;ttn_ .....1008 --.... .-942 ..;t..;t,N '-926 r-...,.tn 2 J~'- r249 J~'- rll0 .ILl. C19 JL'- ;:~~ 91..Jl "\ft" 225J "'It I' <JIJ Huntington Dr. 1894-+ "''''''' 1774-+ "''''CD2015-+ "I t I' 2033-+ 119. "';;;;;; 175" ~ ~ 11" CD~", 89-. - '" "'II' NO> NN J.iIolo ~(\J '-.25 a>UlFl") '-47 .ILl. ,r18 23J "'It I' 19B-+ IIlCD'" 41" ~~ >. .. ~ .. - .. l) _0.. '1....6 f'o.(\JIIl~+-39 J 11. .33 5U' "It I' 151--- .....roN 4~-""M '" Interstate 210 ... ...'" ~282 ~~ '-0 .n- .276 n 9- c:a .. 0- o ,p - tt N'" ~'" _Ill "'''' - "'..:.'" '1....169 lOco_ +---138 J ! '- .57 270J .. t I' 1060-+ "'-0 282. "''''0 -N - IIlCDN I'l..t- ~143 J-~ +-793 +... "t93 108-" "'It~ 1725-+ ",Ill'" 169. ",r-:N _I'l_ ~ - '" ~ oi ~ .. ~ ..c - 01'1 n 9- o ~ .. 0- o :!I. .. n co "'CD "'..till ~IBO CD"'''' +-636 J~'- ... - . c .. -'l~ 'l:l C '" P.M. PEAK HOUR (RACE DAY)-1995 BACKGROUND + APPROVED PROJECTS BAfI,10N ASCHMAN ASSOCIAfES. INC. . Colorado Blvd. Sanla Oara 51, ~54; ....741 130J' I' 6 n N flCURE U 6 - .. .. IIIIIIl. ...... .... iIo.oa ~ --- ........ ... . . Interstate 210 ~ c .~ "0 ftj .., ;~~ 'L64 Nr-_ .-783 J~~ ..274 263..1' ~ 1 r 1192.... ...."'0 189"\, IIlN", -r-_ t"' g.. o ~ .. C>- o If: t"' g.. o ~ .. C>- o "S .. n CD 159-" tC 33!~ :::'" ON ~""C\I - (''''m "-198 -....'" '-180 J~I.. ..134 193..1' ~tt 495-+ ...."'.o 125~ ~:~ ... 00 . toN..... '-98 ....UlI ......149 'Jr- ..41 J ~tt /' 4N.;f 1o?":,.r "'~ III "'., ""I> '" - . cOJ ~~ ,.. - ~' .o 11I11I11I "-II -..;tr'l1 +-34 JL~ ..16 16J ~ tf 144-+ 40\0 51.. -....'" ... ~ ......19 ",,,,~.....30 JLI,. ..29 l~g~ ~C 37.. "'N '" Colorado Blvd. Santa Clara 51. NIIl... O....UI 't...140 _4"_ +-850 JLI,...192 68..1' ~ f ~ 1303.... ...co'" 116_ ~~~ ,.,..0 co (J\ ..-:t -0.... "-l~g 0 N ......19 ~~ ......150 NON 56 \O..:t_...... 8 --0'14-953 +-880 ,...._111 3 JJ \. ..237 J L" ..95 J J I,. ..26 J L I,. :=n t6..1' ~ H' 187J ~ t t 89J Huntington Dr. 14 7.... "'.o.... 1321-+ "'-:;; 1358-+ ~ t t 1647--+ 0.. 1Il~~ 164.. ~ _ 16.. ...."'0 77'->, --... -'l' "'''' _N 't...491 .....682 OUl -Pl_ 't...205 '1t 't...32 UI", N +-596 .J, .....780 JLI. ..t28 89..1' ~tr 1052.... "'NO 254.. -",.o I'll .....\0_ ... C < >- '" ~ .. - .. lJ OJ ~ OJ ~ "0 c N OJ ~ L - on 158-' l' <:} n N fiGURE U 7 P.M. PEAK HOUR (NON-RACE DAYl-1995 BACKGROUND+APPROVED PROJECTS 8AR tON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. - .. .... Gi ~ c ~ 't:l ;;; co Interstate 210 n g.. o ~ .. 0- o oJ> .. n g.. o ~ .. 0- o :ll .. ~ SANTA ANITA ~ FASHION PARKS EXPANSION .'l!' @ r<JRTHWEST CORNER @ SDlfTH G) wEST CORIIER .. .. c < 41 41 .. ~ ~ - . C 41 't:l ~~ - Oft C ~ N POSSIBLE PROJECTS LOCATIONS BARTON ASCHMA~ ASSOCIATES. INC. . Coloraclo Blvd. Sanla Clara St. >- .. ~ .. ~ .. lJ Huntington Or. ~ .&: - In .0- n N flCURf U 8 . TNlLE 6 LEVEII"'OP'-SERVICB stlMMl\RY EXI8TIN3 + APPR:lVED + PROBIUIT R PID1ECl'8 Race ray Non-Race ray AM Peak I'M Peak(3) I'M Peak V/C(l) LoS (2) V/C LoS V/C LoS Hunt:in;!torVBaldwin 0.73 C 0.77 C 0.77 C HuntingtorVSanta Clara 0.83 D 0.77 C 0.69 B HuntingtorVSanta Anita 0.86 D 0.89 D 0.83 D Hunt:in;!torVFirst 0.78 C 0.92 E 0.85 0 Hunt:in;!ton;Secord. 0.82 D 0.99 E 0.91 E C::in;!torVGateway 0.72 C 0.86 D 0.78 c ingtorVrifth 0,78 C 0.82 0 0.70 B Hunt:in;!torVI-2l0 EB 0.70 B 0.75 C 0.68 B Hunt:in;!torVI-2l0 WB 0.76 C 0.71 C 0.71 C Santa Anita/santa Clara 0.58 A 0.66 B 0.66 B Santa Clara/Secord. 0.36 A 0.42 A 0.40 A Santa Clara/Fifth 0.35 A 0.45 A 0.44 A Santa Anita/Colorado 0.79 C 0.66 0 0.76 C santa Anita/I-2l0 EB 0.69 B 0.76 C 0.76 C santa Anita/I-2l0 WB 0.58 A 0.53 A 0.52 A NarES: (1) VOltm"e/Capacity (2) Level of Service (3) Results have been adjusted to reflect manual control by Arcadia Police Department . . 32 January, 1989 Provided by City of Arcad ia staff APPROVED PROJECTS (EXISTING/CONTRACTED/UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 1. ARCADIA GATEWAY CENTRE 300 - 450 (excluding 444) East Huntington Drive, Arcadia CIGNA Medical Office: 47,296 square feet- Spec. Office Building: 67,000 square feet (late 1989) AAA Office Building: 23,632 square feet (fall, 1989) Bennigan's Restaurant: 7,357 square feet- Spec. Restaurant: 6,000 square feet (late 1989) Retail Shops: 26,979 square feet- Total Project: 178,264 square feet Developer: Stanley W. Gribble and Associates, Irvine, CA. Estimated project Completion Date: Late 1989 2. ARCADIA REGIONAL BUSINESS CENTER 301 - 321 East Huntington Drive, Arcadia Souplantation Restaurant: 7,800 square feet- Hampton Inn Hotel: 132 rooms (April, 1989) Residence Inn Hotel: 120 rooms (March, 1989) Spec. Office Building: 36,000 square feet (late 1990) Spec. Office Building: 48,000 square feet (late 1991) Total Project: 91,800 square feet (excluding hotels) 252 hotel rooms Developer: Emkay Development company, Inc., Newport Beach, CA. Estimated Project Completion Date: Late 1991 3. ARCADIA LANDMARK DEVELOPMENT 333 East Huntington Drive, Arcadia Of.f ice I 40,000 square feet Retail: 36,000 square feet Restaurant A: 6,000 square feet Restaurant B: 6,000 square feet Total Project: 88,000 square feet Developer: Kam- Sang Company, Inc., Monterey Park, CA. Estimated Project Completion Date: Mid 1990 . . . 4. HOME DEPOT 407 West Huntington Drive, Monrovia Retail: 100,000 square feet Developer: The Home Depot Inc., Fullerton, CA. Estimated Completion Date.: June, 19.99 5. HUNTINGTON PLAZA 222 East Huntington Drive, Monrovia Research & Development/Office: 110,000 square feet Developer: Trammell Crow Company, Pasadena, CA. Estimated Completion Date: February, 1999 6. PHARMACIA 605 East Huntington Drive, Monrovia Research & Development/Office: 140,000 square feet Developer: Boone Fetter and Associates, Santa Fe Springs, CA. Estimated Completion Date: April, ~999 . Completed/Occupied January 1989 January, 1989 POSSIBLE FUTURE PROJECTS WITH PRELIMINARY CONCEPT APPROVAL "Probable" A. SOUTH-WEST CORNER SECOND AVENUE/HUNTINGTON DRIVE 39,860 square feet B. NORTH-WEST CORNER SECOND AVENUE/HUNTINGTON DRIVE 160,152 square feet (3.69 acres) C. Fashion Park Expansion -- See next page SPECULATIVE PROJECTS (NOTEI This list of projects is purely speculative for purposes of this traffic analysis.) MONROVIA a. WORLD VISION 800 block West Huntington Drive, Monrovia (north side of street, formerly Big Yellow House) ? square feet (high rise building - office) b. JUSTICE BROTHERS North-East Corner Fifth Avenue/Huntington Drive, Monrovia ? square feet (office/retail/hotel) c. FORMER ARMSTRONG NURSERY 480 West Huntington Drive, Monrovia ? square feet d. COMMUTER RAIL MONROVIA STATION Myrtle/Duarte area ? square feet e. FORMER AUTO DEALERS Huntington Drive (office/research and development/retail) ARCADIA f. FOULGER FORD (Foulger will be moving to Duarte end of 1989) 55 West Hunt'ington Drive, Arcadia 153,331 square feet (3.52 acres) q. ACAPULCO RESTAURANT SITE (M-1 parcel; for sale; limited parkinq) 220 North First Avenue, Arcadia 11,025 square feet * h. SANTA ANITA FASHION PARK EXPANSION (possible Nordstroms, May Co. ) 400 South Baldwin Avenue, Arcadia 460,000 - bUu,UUO square feet i. LOT - TRIANGULAR PARCEL (former Acapulco parking lot - partially owned by AT and SF Railroad) 219-33 North First Avenue, Arcadia 33,080 square feet j. AIR LOGISTICS (lease expi.res 1989) 324 North Second Avenue, Arcadia 92,780 square feet (2.13 acres) k. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE 701 North Huntington Drive, Arcadia 439,956 square feet (10.1 acres) 1. SANTA ANITA RACE TRACK OFFICE 285 West Huntinqton Drive, Arcadia 65,340 square feet (1.5 acres) It For purposes of this analysis, this project was considered "Probable" instead of "Speculative," at the request of the City of Arcadia January 1989 Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Planning Dept. . MINUTES ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Tuesday. August 13, 1991 The Planning Commission o( the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, August 13. 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall, 240 West Huntington Drive, with Chairman Tom Clark presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett d to excuse Commissioner none dissenting. PLEDGE OF AllEGIANCE ROLL CALL: MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Hed Daggett from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote w.' mmissioner Szany to approve the Minutes of by voice vote with none dissenting. MINUTES MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by July 9, and 23, 1991 as published. The motion pass . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato. title only and waive reading the full none dissenting. onded by Commissioner Szany to read all resolutions by y of the resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with OTHERS ATTENDING: lIer Assistant Planning Oir tor Donna Butler Associate Planner C kran Nicholson Assistant Planner ames Kasama Assistant Plan r William Stokes Secretary Si a Vergel CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CUP 9H07 The southwest corner of Huntington Dr. and 5econdAvenue WlA Alcon, Inc. and Schaefer Brothers Consideration of a conditional use permit to construct two three-story office buildings with modifications. One office building will contain 16,667 sq. ft. and be 10cated 93'-0" from the residential property to the south; the other building will contain 25,000 sq. ft. and be located 50' from the residential properties to the south. . Staff remarked that neither structural plans nor a floor plan have been submitted. In response to a question from the Commission, staff commented that an eating establishment in this location would be permitted only with an approved conditional use permit. The stairs will !:le located near the compact spaces and they will . . . have to comply with the visibility standards. They are proposing a 10' setback off of Huntington Drive. Code does not require any setback. The public hearing was opened. Warren lortie, President of WLA Arcon, Inc., 18652 Florida, Suite 200, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of the CUP and said that his partner Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothers is also in the audience. He said that with the exception of Condition 4, dealing with the driveway ramp location, they are in agreement with all of the conditions in the staff report. They do not have a problem with staffs comments in regard to openings and planters. He said that the parking was designed with the ramp exiting and entering to the alley and remarked that this has been a method of design for traffic control for their projects. Two previous plans, designed for this project, one of which was a restaurant, had the ramp in the same location. They were very surprised when the traffic study came in recommending internalized circulation. He explained that when you internalize circulation, you are requiring additional circulation area to be brought onto the site and are no longer utilizing the alley for its main purpose of allowing access to the site from many locations. When the alley is used, it frees up those areas on the site for immediate access to trash and delivery vehicles. By having a single opening into the site, all of the circulation from the parking lot is being forced into one area and this would create some very difficult maneuvers with the ramp internalized. This would be especially difficult if one came into the first driveway and then had to do a full 1800 turn to come back into the underground parking structure. This would be an almost impossible maneuver and in some cases might create reallraffic conOicts. StafUelt it would be important to encourage people to exit from the underground parking and go immediately onto Huntington Drive. He felt that it would be a lot more logical to exit the traffic onto to the alley and then they would leave onto Second Avenue to make a right turn on Huntington, especially if the traffic wants to go north. In his opinion, if the alley is used, it will be safer than using the easterly driveway on Huntington Drive which is close to the intersection of Huntington and Second. [n regard to comments from the Commission, Mr. Lortie stated that they have 2 extra parking places in the original plan, because after the plans are finalized, it is inevitable that they will lose a couple of parking places due to columns in the parking structure. In order to gain extra planters, a lot of the compact spaces are located in the upper level. After redesigning to come up with an acceptable and internalized ramp, the optional compact spaces were eliminated. The internalized ramp will force the addition of 10 more compact spaces over the original plan. In the lower level parking, the ramp has be to 25' wide and in order to make a 25' ramp, 5' was taken out of all of the adjacent car stalls,'so there is entire row of parking adjacent to the ramp which will become compact, which is not shown on the plan. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. In response to comments from Commissioner Hedlund, staff said that although she has not seen the revised street plan for the street, Second Ave., the left hand turn lane will remain. Staff noted that there probably would be some containerized trees in the upper level of parking, because it would be the easiest way of providing trees. There will not be any landscaping or the lower level parking; this is not required. After this plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency will review the design and the Planning Dept. would again have the opportunity to comment on the final plans. Based upon Mr. Lortie's testimony, staff was concerned with the number of compact parking spaces which seems to be more than originally anticipated. Staff went on to say that usually plans are more finalized but Mr. Lortie wanted to get an idea if the buildings would be approved prior to investing a lot of money in the project. Normally, plans that are submitted at this stage are final plans and then after approval they would just to the Redevelopment Agency for confinnation and design review. Staff was concerned about approving plans without knowing the total Arcadia City Planning Commission 8/13/91 .' Page 2 . . . number of spaces and the percentage of compact spaces. She was concerned that if they were granted a 23% compact space and needed 30% to make the "project work, theCity"might not have the ability to modify it once it is granted. Mike Miller, the Gty Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission can approve the CUP, as submitted, with the condition that the Redevelopment Agency have the authority to require certain items when final plans are submitted. The Commission has the right under the CUP, which is land use, to express concerns and make decisions subject to cet1ain parameters. Per Mr. Lortie's request, Chairman Clark asked if the Commission would like to reopen the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Hedlund, seconded by Commissioner Amato to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Lortie noted that there are lots of planters on the upper level on the preliminary plans, which they would have to reconsider if the compact parking spaces were limited. However, he felt that they could comply with whatever limitation is put on the compact spaces. He remarked that there would have to be enough compact spaces to provide wide ramp upstairs to fit the configuration of the street. There are compact spaces in front of all the tree provide adequate area for the planters. The length of the stalls have been shortened to allow for the concrete containers but they have maintained the width. If they were to try to comply with the compact ordinance then they would have.a problem complying with all of the Iree locations. . In response to questions from staff, Mr. Lortie stated that he thought that there were 51 compact spaces. If acceptable, hesald that they did not intend to exceed 25% compact parking space. MOTION It was moved byCornmissionerHedlund,seconded by Commissioner Szanyto close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Hedlund did not have any objections to the.compact.spaces or the setbacks. He was concerned with the traffic flow problem and referred to a similar office building at the corner of Huntington and First and the traffic problems at that corner created by this building. He said that it is difficult to visualize how one could come out of this property and go east on Huntington Drive. He thought that there might be future traffic problems with people trying to make a left turn on Second from west bound Huntington to go onto the site. Commissioner Szany agreed with Commissioner Hedlund. He thought that the elevations of the building are nice but was concerned about the parking and the ramp off of the alley. He did think that the ramp adjacent to the building would also have some problems. However, it is centrally located and a person would not have to go out of the parking lot to go down the. ramp or to the other parking area. The original design proposed by the applicant requires a person to use the alley for exiting/entering all lots and the underground parking. Although he did not want them to go through the expense of working drawings, he thought that more complete preliminary drawings are necessary. He felt that there should be input from a structural engineer in regard to the location of the columns. He said that the east parking lot should be for employees only and thought that it would be easy to police. He was concerned about the traffic during the racing season. He remarked that this is an important comer and what is built will have a great impact on traffic. Commissioner Amato agreed. , .. Arcadia Gty Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 3 Chainnan Clark stated that it is going to be tight around the comer no matter what is done (ingress and egress from the alley) at Second and Huntington. He agreed with comments made and said that he would like to avoid a situation similar to the one at Huntington and First. . Commissioner Hedlund remarked that it seems that the consensus is that the modifications are acceptable but the COmn\ission shares the concern with traffic flow.. Chairman Clark asked if the ~ommission would like to reopen the public hearing one more lime to allow for more input from Mr. Lortie? MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Amato, seconded by Commissioner Szany to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Mr. Lortie said that he was confused with the Commission's role. He thought that the Commission was concerned more with the design of the project, materials, height setbacks and landscaping coverage. He was discouraged that the Commission needed more detailed drawings and did not want to spend more money on detailed plans only to find out that the CUP is denied. He said that they have a group of medical tenants who are anxious to occupy the building, once it is built, and it they might lose them if the projects drags on. . Mr. Miller said that even though there might be a need for the expenditure of additional funds by Mr. Lortie. it is within the Commission's jurisdiction on a CUP, to consider how the project is going to affect he neighborhood, community, streets including factors that have to deal with whether the adjacent area is adequate for the traffic patterns. Mr. Lortie said that they became aware of the report after their plans were finalized. He remarked that unless they submitted new plans, continuance would be meaningless. He said that their objective was to put the best use on the property. Originally, they had proposed a restaurant which would generate more opportunities for problenlS in and out of the driveways than an office building. So, in their opinion an.office building would not be an intensification or expansion of the. problem. The configuration of the site has been provided by Public Works which dearly indicates that they have had the time to review the project and traffic. Also, a lot of money has been spent on the civil engineer because of the very involved legal description, the reconfiguration of the street itself, for the dedication back and forth between public and private entities, and it was very complicated. In response to comments by Mr. Lortie, staff said thaUt is the responsibility of the Public Works Dept. to review the street plan. Staff said that in 1989, Redevelopment requested Bartman and Aschman (BA) to do a traffic study of this area to determine the maximum development would be on this particular site. Based upon traffic al1alysis study and working they felt that a 40,000 sq. ft. office building or equivalent amount of development would be appropriate for the site. The proposed development is consistent with what BA initially recommended. They felt that this project would generate approximately 87 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hours and 117 during p.rn. They did not have a problem with the traffic generated on the site, although there was some concerns with the movement and with regard to access from the alley, they felt that an alternative proposal might be a little better. Their comment on either project was that "the projects would not create real traffic hazard on the alley", but there are some concerns and precautions that people will have to take'when entering or exiting the alley. BA did notfee1 that the size of this project was an issue. . Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothers, 225 S. Lake, Pasadena, spoke for the project. He said that apparently this parking issue was'raised with Redevelopment over a year ago, but they were never made aware of it and consequently they have been consistent with the original plan, having the access on the alley way which they thought would be the best approach to parking in this particular structure. He remarked that the City's concern is a legitimate concern and they are prepared to deal with it but this project has been delayed for an extended period of time and it has created a problem as far as the interested tenants for the building Arcadia Gty Planning CommiSSion 8/13/91 Page 4 .' . . . . because at some point in time they will make arrangements at other locations. He noted that the nature of the site does not lend itself to a great solution to the problem and asked for guidance to solve the problem. He said that the access problem is a constraint that they have to deal with and asked that the Commission render a decision instead of continuing the hearing. He.said that if the Commission approved this, then they would work with Redevelopment and submit more detailed plans and move forward with the project. Even though there are someproi>lems with access on the alley way, certain factors have been taken into consideration that make access from the alley preferable not. only during the race track traffic but also the island on Huntington which restricts left hand movement into the building. The general uncertainty in what is going to happen with this whole comer was taken into conSideration when designing this project. The northside development at the comer of Huntington and Second will undoubtedly create additional traffic and they felt that their building would have less of an impact if the alley was utilized. Mr. Lortie stated that they do not wish to continue the hearing and would like the Commission to vote on the matter. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Szany felt uncomfortable voting for this project without knowing what the requested modifications would be for the parking. He remarked that this is a very important comer and was very concerned about any development there. He thought that they should obtain general input from.a structural engineer so they know where columns will be located and how many. . Commissioner Amato agreed and stated that he too is concerned about the flow of the traffic. Mr. Miller explained that the Commission does not have to vote on the project if they feel uneasy with what is proposed or need more detailed information. He did not think that the applicant would like a denial and said that the Commission may continue the hearing to a date certain. Commissioner Hedlund felt uncomfortable with the flow of traffic. He thought that the traffic study done in '89 is outdated. He stated that he drives here at all times of the day and the traffic is bad, especially when trying to make left hand turns. Chainnan Clark said that the consensus seems to be that the Commission is concerned about the ramp location, the use of the alley and traffic. He also felt uneasy about voting on the project as submitted. Conversation ensued about what meeting this should be continued to and Mr. Miller remarked that Commissioner Daggett will receive transcript of tonight's meeting and will be able to vote on the project. It was noted that Chairman Clark would not be at the September 10th meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Szany, seconded by Commissioner Amato to continue the public hearing to September 10, 1991. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CommisSioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Clark None CommisSioner Daggett Arcad~ City Planning Commission 8/13/91 Page 5 ~ . . July 9, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR CASE NO.: C.u.P.91-007 FROM: SUMMARY An application was filed by WLA Arcon and Schaefer Brothers, joint venture, to construct two three-story office buildings at the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue. The Planning Department is recommending approval subject to the conditions outlined in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: WLA Arcon and Schaefer Brothers LOCATION: 146-170 East Huntington Drive, the southwest corner of Second Avenue and Huntington Drive REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit to construct two three-story office buildings. One office building will contain 16,667 square feet and be located 93'-0" from the residential property to the south; the other building will contain 25,000 square feet and be located 50' from the residential properties to the south. Section 9263.6.7 requires a conditional use permit for any building exceeding 20,000 square feet which is located within 100'-0" of residentially zoned property. The applicant is also requesting the following modifications: 1) 25.2% (51) of the parking spaces to be compact spaces in lieu of 20% (40) allowed (9269.5.1). 2) Window openings facing the residential property to the south. C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 1 - . .' LOT AREA: 57,451 square feet FRONTAGE: Approximately 420' on Huntington Drive and 75' on Second A venue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING The site is currently-vacant; zoned C~2 D. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING North: Developed with general commercial uses and offices; zoned C-2D Developed with the mixed residential uses; zoned R-3 Developed with the RR overpass and Bonita School; zoned R-3 Developed with mixed commercial uses; zoned C-2 D South: East: West: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial PROPOSAL The site incorporates the vacant parcels on Huntington Drive (146~170 East Huntington Drive) up to and including the landscape island at Second and Huntington Drive. Buildings The applicant is proposing to construct two three-story office buildings. The westerly building (A) contains 16,667 square feet and will be used for medical offices. The easterly building (B) is for general office purposes and will contain 25,000 square feet. (Total building area of 41,667 sq. ft) Building A will be set back approximately 93'-0" from the residential property to the south (including alley). Building B will be set back approximately 50'-0" from the residential properties to the south (including alley). Both buildings will be set back a minimum of 10'-0" from Huntington Drive. The buildings will be approximately 40'-0" in height. This height complies with the zoning C-2 regulations. C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 2 . . . The applicant's design has not been finalized. The plan submitted is a design concept only. Because the subject property is in the Redevelopment Area, final plans will require review by the Redevelopment Agency. Parking and Circulation Based upon code requirements, 200 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 202 parking spaces. There will be 83 surface parking spaces and 119 spaces within the underground garage. They are proposing 51 compact parking spaces (25.2%). Code allows a maximum of 40 compact spaces (20%). Access to the site is from two right-turn in and out driveways on Huntington Drive and four driveways off the alley. The underground parking garage is served from one of the driveways off the alley. The other three driveways serve the on-ground parking lots. In addition to the four driveways onto the alley, there are nine parking spaces which are accessed directly from the alley. The proposed design by the applicant does not provide for any internal circulation (with the exception of the underground parking). In order to drive from one parking lot to another (if parking is unavailable) a person would have to access the parking lots through either the alley or Huntington Drive. Landscaping The applicant indicates that 14,659 sq. ft. of the site will be landscape and hardscape areas. The site does comply with the 5% landscape requirement for the surface parking area. Plans show numerous trees within the parking area. With the exception of the easterly parking area, the surface parking is directly over the underground parking. Special consideration will have to be given to trees planted in this area and the majority, because of the root system, may have to be planted in containers. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION Parking Study In reviewing the plans submitted by the applicant, the Planning Department, Redevelopment Agency and Public Works staff expressed concern regarding the location of the ramp and the driveways along the alley. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., (BA) at the request of the City Redevelopment Agency, reviewed the preliminary design plan submitted by the applicant (see the attached report dated July 16). C.u.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 3 . In regards to site access parking and circulation system, BA noted that two of their concerns are the number of driveways (4) along the alley and the nine parking spaces which access directly to the alley. BA also expressed concern regarding the easterly parking lot since it is "segregated" from the remainder of the site and is a "dead end". BA suggested that this parking area be reserved for employee parking only which would reduce the turnover of parking spaces and the number of vehicles entering and exiting the driveway. BA prepared a concept plan that eliminates two driveways along the alley and the nine alley parking spaces. The plan also relocates the garage ramp adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west orientation. In their report BA notes that 'While the elimination of the nine alley spaces would be desirable, an alternative to the reduction of parking movements in the alley would be to permit these parking spaces but to designate them for employees of the office and medical buildings only." The relocation of the ramp results in an overall parking deficiency of 11 spaces; 191 spaces in lieu of 200 required (5.5% reduction). On July 24, 1991, staff from the Planning Department, Public Works Department and the Redevelopment Agency along with Paul Kitsakos of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. met with the applicants, Warren Lortie and Howard Schaefer to review the parking and circulation plan. . Staff explained their concerns to the applicant regarding the original parking layout, i.e., the on-site circulation, access from the underground parking onto the alley and the four driveways along the alley. The only access to the 119 underground parking spaces is from the alley; there is no alternative. Staff felt that the revised plan suggested by Barton-Aschman provides better on-site circulation and reduces the number of driveways along the alley from four to two. The location of the ramp (south of the building) allows vehicles entering the site from Huntington Drive direct access to the garage driveway (without having to go into the alley) and provides better internal circulation between the parking areas. The design will also reduce traffic on the alley by providing access to the garage ramp from Huntington Drive. Staff did not concur with BA's recommendation to restrict the easterly parking lot. to "employees only", however, the nine parking spaces which are directly served from the alley should be restricted to "employees only". The revised design (submitted by the applicant) reduces the number of compact spaces from 51 (25.2%) to 45 (23.6%). . C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 4 . . . Mr. Lortie's August 5 letter noted they "strongly favor the original plan which oriented the ramp for access to and from the alley." Their "feeling has always been that the alley is an appropriate location for the kinds of traffic and maneuvering typical in entering or exiting the lower level parking ramp. This location would also encourage traffic to access and exit the site by way of the alley, although it will not restrict traffic returning to the site or cross traffic to or from Huntington Drive". Although alleys are designed for access to and from adjacent properties, they should not be used in lieu of through streets. Alleys are not designed or built to the same construction standards or design widths as public streets. As per Mr. Lortie's letter, "this location would also encourage traffic to access and exit the site by way of the alley...... Based upon code definition, an "alley is a public or private way permanently reserved as a secondary means of access to abutting property". If the ramp is relocated to the center of the site, there will be a reduction of 11 parking spaces, resulting in a 5.5% parking deficiency. Based upon a "Parking Generation Report" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), during peak parking rates for medical clinic/office uses, based upon 1000 gross square feet of building area, the average number of cars parked during peak parking hours was 3.1 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, however the parking ranged from 1.5 to 5.1 cars. The City's parking standards require 6 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for medical offices. During peak parking rates for general offices less than 50,000 sq. ft. in area, the average number of parking during peak parking hours was 2.6 per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, with parking ranging from .75 to 4.7 cars per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The City's parking standards require 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for general office space. The Planning Department does not believe that a 5,5% deficiency in parking will create an adverse impact on the parking. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW The subject property is located within the Redevelopment area and subject to Redevelopment Agency Design Review. Final design plans will be submitted to the Redevelopment staff for review by the Redevelopment Agency. ANALYSIS The proposed offices are permitted uses in the C-2 zone. It is staffs opinion that the revised plan submitted by the applicant, which is consistent with the Barton-Aschman suggestion, with the interior ramp should be approved. The revised plan provides for access to the underground parking from C.U.P.91-007 August 13,1991 Page 5 . . . the parking lot and eliminates two driveways off the alley. The revised design also provides for internal on-site circulation. Staff further concurs with BA's recommendation that the nine spaces fronting on the alley be limited to employee parking only. Although the revised plan will result in a loss of 11 spaces (5.5%), based upon the ITE parking analysis and review of parking needs for larger office buildings, staff does not think that a 5.5% reduction in parking is a problem. It is our opinion that the 11 parking space deficiency is a minor trade off for a better parking and circulation design. In regards to the requested modification for 25.2% (51) compact parking spaces in lieu of 20% allowed, the revised plan reduces the number of compact spaces to 45 which is 23.6% (this is less than the original modification request of 25.2%). The second modification request relates to window openings facing residential. Currently the properties to the south are developed with older single-family dwellings. One lot at 143-145 Alta is developed with an eight unit condominium. Building A, the medical office is set back 93' from the residential property and Building ~, the general office is set back 50' from the residential properties to the south. The properties to the south are zoned R-3 and the units have been designed in a north-south direction. The project at 143-145 Alta is designed so that the rear of the buildings face the alley. There are two windows in each building that face north. It is staffs opinion that the visual impact on these properties will be minimal, based upon the typical design of the multiple-family projects in the area. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDA nON The Planning Department recommends approval of C.U.P. 91-007 subject to the following conditions. C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 6 . . . 1. That the conditions as outlined in the attached report from the Department of Public Works shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. That fire safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 3. That water service shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Water Manager. 4. That the design of the project shall comply with the revised plans as submitted by the applicant which shows the relocation of the driveway ramp adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west direction and reduces the number of driveways off of the alley to two. 5. That the applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Redevelopment Agency's report dated June 14. 6. That a modification shall be granted for 45 compact spaces (23.6%) in lieu of 20% allowed by code. 7. That a modification shall be granted to allow the buildings openings (windows) within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. 8. That the nine parking spaces located along the alley on the south side of the general office building shall be designated as "Employee Parking Only". 9. That the two driveways on Huntington Drive shall be posted with "Right Turn Only" signs. 10. That the landscape plan shall provide sufficiently sized containers for trees which are located on the surface of the underground parking area. 11. That the architectural design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. 12. That c.u.P. 91-007 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 13. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of said Permit. C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 7 . . . FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this project, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration and find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the specific findings and conditions of approval set forth in the staff report (or as modified by the Commission) . Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. C.U.P.91-007 August 13, 1991 Page 8 . . { , " "'4 "- (~ ~ .~ City of Rrcadia Memorandum RECEIVED JUN 5 1991 CITY OF ARCADIA W.I,... nlV \. ~ , (u ,~ \.j ,~. , .1\. ~" DATE: ~J~\ \'. \: , TO: ( .yWal8I'Division ( ) Redevelopment , , ) Public Works Dept. ( ) Rre Dept. Planning Dept.: 6\LVA. .4dtess:~W ('~HL~ ~1't\1~llt-.1D iW-# cuP C\\-DDI Project \1~\LDI;\ &t1 MCn\t.AL DfPl'- P,LN'\. .......:::......,CCQ 11_ p~t::e.\~ Df'f1U:. ~UX:\. ( ) Building Division '(' ~ FROM: SUBJECT: J. , I . , , -\ , Please review the attached proposal and comment on the following checked items and any other item(s) which your department may have concemwith, or special knowledge of. by "3\~~ ~'8, \"9 \ . ~:I \ ~ I " I () Dedications () Legal Description () Traffic Circulation () Parkway Width () Street Ughts () Tentative Map Contents () Tentative Parcel Map Contents () Rnal Map Contents () Street trees and plants () Is the subject property served by a sewer line which is tributary to.a deficient City tlUnk sewer line? () FIre Hydrants () Driveway deslgl\ldriveway apron () Encroachment into a special setbad< along () GradinwDrainage Plan () Signs () Irrigation System (( 1/. Occupancy UmIts ..., Water Services () Building Code CornpllanceJDeficlencies ( )/ Are Safety ( -1 Conditions of Approval () 0lI1er ,~ ~ ~'I\ , ./, ~ ~ .' 4,g-<lb ~~,(/67?N ) ( 0 -It?) <.50 ~""'C"uD ) -- :10. "- ~ '. ~ It)~ & (;: g 6'l:I':57/,</6 /"VAT6le ~~C6':5 'TCJ ~ ~f~LJ~ c? DeP$a-~~J ~ R/11:U&5 ;By AWZ:< (e) A/E/1/$EVICC:S 72J ~ 1J.ff~az;J iSY/fI1J)e.. ~ at:lI~a;.Fel?~ 6){~.56', (3) ~A.l6- M"A~t:./,(/G ~,,(/ .w.:y~~ O,&" gMP NAY RG"MArif /,U RAc:Z" .w/~ooGN7' /~ A/C .l'ML.1- ' '\:: ,t),c me ~ ~ ..su.5T~ ~A/&=- :Sn?a::/u,eC /~ C.c.?~ ~N /~' TZJ Th'e' ,I'(#I~A./e, 077,L,.,:W66, By: 71Ie' Pf#!,t!:kL/A/P' /yd~T ~ ~Ofn:z:;oil.Z).et/~?~&:Y/-i:lr/S t!1 F/~ ~~C7'7C/U ?~ AP;D. ..<./072';'.,' .G)(/~r /'7:#~ ~ ~p/z::t=:V 72? ~Y4;(4Y~~" t5J~ L,5./k!~. ~ _7.c.'E' ~p'.8',.u;e.{~ m~G AP,P..b~j{-kF~11/ ?~72:C7?.oJ . TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: July I, 1991 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CUP 91-007 - SOUTHWEST CORNER HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND SECONO AVENUE, MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING . In response to your memorandum, the items which this department has concern or special knowledge of are listed below: 1. The existing parkway widths are nine (9') feet on Huntington Drive decreasing in width to five and one-half (5.5') feet and continuing around to Second Avenue to the alley. 2. A site-specific traffic impact study has been commissioned by the City of Arcadia. The Department of Public works reserves the option to modify these conditions of approval pending the recommendations of the traffic impact study. 3. The subject property Is served by a sewer line that has the capacity to transport sewage flows generated in accordance with land use reflected in the City's current general plan to CSD's system. 4. The majority of the storm water will be pumped to the street. A small portion shown on the plan gravity drains to the alley. This department has reviewed the subject CUP and recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Submit grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer on City prov i ded drawi ngsheets subject to the approval of the Di rector of Public Works. Provide calculations for both the gravity drainage system and the pump drainage system. Computations should show hydrology, hydraulics, elevations, and all the details requested on the City's "Pump Drainage" sheet. NOTE: Show all existing and proposed parkway trees, pull boxes, meters, hydrants, power poles, street lights, driveways, sidewalks and handicap ramps on grading/drainage plan. 2. Existing parkway trees in good condition west of the center driveway shall remain and sidewalk will be constructed around them to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 3. No trees will be planted nor will any structures be erected within ten (10') feet of the water and sewer line easement located on the vacated right~of-way of Second Avenue. Only groundcover landscaping and paved parking is permitted over the existing underg~ound utilities. 4. Close existing driveways not to be used and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk to match existing. . . Memo To Planning - CUP 91-007 July I, 1991 Page 2 5. Construct seven (7') foot P.C.C. sidewalk on Huntington Drive from the westerly property line to the center driveway and then continue with a five (5') foot P.C.C sidewalk easterly to Second Avenue and around to the alley, as per Arcadia City Standard 5-17. 6. A two foot (2') encroachment into the public right-of-way will be permitted on Huntington Dri ve for 1 and scapi ng purposes, however, the necessary encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to the work. 7. Dedicate seven foot (7') easement adjacent to Second Avenue for sidewalk purposes. 8. Construct P. C. C. driveway ramps per Arcadia City Stand,ard Drawing No. S-10. . 9. Remove and replace deficient or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and/or pavement to satisfaction of the City Engineer. Contact Publ ic Works Department for exact locations of removal and replacement. 10. Obtain approval from the Department of Public Works prior to removal of the portion of the existing gutter. 11. Construct P. C. C. commercial driveway aprons according to the Arcadia Standard Drawing No.. S-I1. No driveway shall be constructed closer than three (3) feet from any curb return, fire hydrant, ornamental 1 ight standard, telephone or electrical pole, meter box or underground vault or manhole. NOTE: No portions of existing gutter and A.C. pavement shall be removed unless prior approval is obtained from Director of Public Works. It. Gravity drainage outlets, and commercial driveway aprons shall be constructed to conform to Arcadia City Standard Drawing No. S-II. 13. The owner shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City of Arcadia prior to start of any off-site improvement work and shall post appropriate security subject to approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. 14. Submit street improvement and striping plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer on city provided drawing sheets subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. The striping plan shall indicate all necessary signs and pavement markings. 15. Construction access to the project site shall be from Huntington Drive or Second Avenue. No construction equipment will be permitted access to the alley. . . Memo To Planning - CUP 91-007 June 27, 1991 Page 3 16. Removal or excavation of any portion of the alley surface is prohibited. The developer shall posta $10,000 bond for repair or replacement of improvements within the alley right-of-way which are damaged as a result of project work. 17. The developer shall slurry seal the alley surface from First Avenue to Second Avenue upon completion of the project and prior to final acceptance. 18. The developer shall pay the pro rata share in the amount of $18,000.00 for future maintenance and overlay of the alley between First Avenue and Second Avenue. 19. Dedicate portions of Huntington Drive for street and highway purposes as approved by the Departments of Public Works and Economic Development. 20. Arrange for underground utility service and dedicate easements to utility companies. 21. Obtain all necessary permits to perform offsite improvement work. Developer shall be responsible for all inspection charges in connection with offsite improvements. . 22. Public Works Inspector shall be contacted at (818) 574-5400, extension 289, at least 24 hours prior to construction of offsite improvements. All Public Works improvements shall be completed to the sat i sfact ion of Director of Public Works prior to final acceptance by Building and Safety Department and prior to occupancy. 23. All survey monuments, centerline ties and survey reference points shall be protected in place or re-established where disturbed. This work will be the respons i bfl i ty of the permittee and shall be at the permi ttee' s expense. The above items are to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Director of Publ ic Works in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Arcadia Municipal Code. . ,. . irector.Qf Public Works JRL:RSG:mlo cc: Rudy Franta, Chief Building Official Pete Kinnahan, Assistant City Manager/Economic Development . rrJemO'ianJum Date _____-!.Y1l.E!_.?.L-.!2_91 11): PLANNING DEPT. FROM: FIRE DEPT. SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON DR. AND SECOND AVE. PROJECT Be10.w are Fire Department's requirements for this project: Both buildings shall be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13. This includes the underground parking area. Standpipe connections are required on each floor and in the parking area. Location of the standpipes to be approved by the Fire Dept. A water flow and tamper alarm are required to monitor the sprinkler system. A .local alarm within the building(s) will notify the occupants in the event of a fire. The existing fire hydrant in Cozad Park shall be relocated to the northeast corner of the property. Fire and Water to approve the location. . Access to the alley shall be maintained at all times for emergency vehicle access. A "Knox Box" shall be installed on the front of each building to allow immediate access for the Fire Dept. If you. have any questions. contact Captain Brown at 574-5104. . memotanJum DATE: 6/14/91 FROM: Silva Vergel, Planning Department Dale R. connors~~onomic Development Department TO: SUBJECT: Comments on WLA Arcon/Schaefer Brothers Plans (CUP) Economic Development has reviewed the plans for the proposed project to be located at the Southwest Corner of Second and Huntington and has the following comments: 1. This project is proposed for development as part of a development agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and WLA Arcon/Schaefer Brothers (A/SB). . 2. Traffic circulation (both inside and surrounding the project) as well as trip generation are currently being reviewed by Barton Aschman Associates (BAA). Since BAA has already reviewed this plan in draft previously, Agency staff does not anticipate any major revisions as a result of this review. Main areas of study by Barton Aschman include: a. The effectiveness and safety of the revised Second and Huntington corner configuration considering the development constraints inherent in the site. b. The location and configuration of the ingress/egress ramp for the parking deck and for surface parking off the alley. 3. This project will be subject to Agency Design Review at the time of DDA consideration. Current design concerns to be addressed in the Design Review include: a. Ventilation Pylons - The four pylons indicated on the plans will have to be incorporated into the design in such a way as to minimize their visual impact. A/SB advises us that they plan that the two located on Huntington Drive will be encased in sign enclosures. Those along the alley should be screened by landscaping or built as part of the trash enclosures. Exposed metal structures will not be allowed. . . . . June 14, 1991 Silva, Planning Department Page 2 DRC:dc silval. 9lm b. Parking Deck Support Columns - In subsequent plan submittals, the Applicant should include locations and dimensions of the parking deck support columns. The parking layout and space count may be affected by the column configuration. c. Gross building square footage cannot be verified without floor plans for each of the three stories proposed for each building. This could impact the parking figures shown on the plans. d. Colors and Materials - As part of the Design Review, Applicant shall provide color and materials palette for the proposed project. The current elevations do not include this required information. e. Due to public interest and concern about traffic congestion and recycling, Planning may wish to require a small bicycle parking area and expanded trash enclosures. This may affect .landscaping and parking ratios. f. Compact spaces exceed 20%; a modification will be needed. g. stop signs should be places at the top and bottom of the parking ramp. . fr \U It &0 50 0 H ICI ~ICI ..J III !'i'" " $, J OO~lI\ 0 '" tJ !!l~ ~ <' \l1 ~ O&O~5l J ~ ,) (/4/) '-rll'. ('/44) (/47/ " ". &0 50 50 I) 'J III ::t \U ~ . III 4 USE AND ZONING ~ (/4'4) ~ o '" q) II> ... I . c.u:p ,'-C07 Gcale: 1" -100' -- . Huntington Drive ~ Ii (--"j o '. '.' Huntington Drtve ! ~. .. c~ ~ ..",' -'..' . ~ ~ > .. 11 j GARAGE PLAN PROJECT DATA: PAo.ECf: -~...... ..,~ --, Zl_ r;.. ~'-...L. ""',...., .7,CGl ...,. ..- f>SEk ~~.,.." 'JU.~~___) ............., ~~.-.........., ,...~ 1~ ~-ft.= :~ I > .. " 6 J _lIE........ ~=I~:=* ~ -.....-i".- PAAKIIOI'Rl>'fIlB> ::.~~ ~ 1:'=i':~.:::~)'."1 ,-w. . ~~~.-.rz;-~ PAAKNJ SIZES: --- .~~:;:~~:;:::::: .~."""",,,..~,.jIr.- ~'''1T"I'.~'..ut'.......... ."...t!'.,..'>IJ.."""'.... ~, .......' "'.'......... tWt> =~r:'~=~'" .... sm: PlAN [}[1 Iii! I, III f II 1 . ~ . ''I> ,:J !t'''''''.l "'....,.r~ SITE SECTION -'I ( '\ , l i d L_____-!~&Alo~=__-~---~'!J---'"""'"-=.:-~~~-=--:..-:=.-.=..---l It _ ..-.-.... _lhl- ...J AlLEY ELEVATION II.u ~ lis I ilf if ~~1"-" ,.t'J. . '. --~- :\'~ .~- " r . 4 - .. . '. Jr.' -. . .. . ,~/. '. '" ~ . . -, - . -t -" \ '\ f' _: .._ - , '=.:. ~- - . .=~~ ,_.f~ k ' r_........ __~.... \ If. t--__________ -t:---- ".;.;...-..;..-_- -- -~-- -________1 , . HUNTINGTON DRIVE ELEVATION . II 2 . . . . D3 Barton.Aschman Associates, Inc. 75 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91109-1090 USA Phone: (818) 449-3917 Telex: 675336 Fax: (818) 440-8940 July 16, 1991 Mr. Dale R. Conners Economic Development Associate Arcadia Redevelopment Agency City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia. California 91007 RE: ARCAD1A PROFESSlONAL OFFICES HUNT/NGTON DRlVE . REV1EW AND OP1NlON OF PREL1M1NARY DESIGN PLAN-JUNE 3, 1991 WLAJARCON ARCH1TECT/CONTRACTOR, INC. Dear Mr. Conners: Barton-Aschman has prepared comments relative to the trip generating characteristics of the aforementioned project and has reviewed the preliminary design plan with respect to site access parking and circulation. The project is to consist of two office buildings in a C-2 zoning category consisting of: (1) professional offices of 25.000 square feet; and (2) medical offices of 16,667 square feet. The project is to be served by 202 parking spaces (required parking is only 200 spaces) with 83 surface parking spaces and 119 underground parking spaces. As proposed. the site would be accessed at two right-turn in/out driveways on Huntington Drive and four driveways on the'alley along the south boundary of the site. One of the driveways would serve the underground parking while the other three would serve separate at-grade surface lots. Project Trip Generation The Comprehensive Traffic Analysis for the Central Redevelopment Project Area (Barton- Aschman Associates. Inc., August 1989) recommended that no more than approximately 40,000 square feet of office space (or an equivalent amount of development, in terms of evening peak hour trip generation. be permitted on the southwest comer of the Huntington Drive/Second Avenue intersection. Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report Trip (6) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. . Mr. Dale R. Conners July 16, 1991 Page 2 Generation, Fourth Edition, 1987 (to remain consistent with our past studies). The trip generation characteristics of a 40,000 square feel office development are compared to those for the proposed project. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY(I) Sil:e AM Peak Hour" ^ , ft:A Peak Hour . ,:,7.' .". Enter Exit, . Total',,, : Enter,t" ..Exlf. Total <-.. u' . . ~, "" 80 10' 9!)' '15 ~~~~:" . ~ -1S:c~~~.. 90 53 8 61 10 .52 62 15 11 26 15 40 55 68 19 87 25'" 92 "117 -12 +9 -3 +10 +17 +27 'Scenario Land Use Recommended Development Office 40,000 sf'" Proposad Project Office 25,000 sf Medical Office 16.667 sf posed Project Total Difference Between Recommended Development and Proposed Project As shown in Table 1, the recommended project will generate approximately 90 vehicle trips during both peak hours. In comparison, the proposed project will generate approximately 87 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 117 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Thus during the AM peak hour, the proposed project will generate about three less vehicles than the development. Given the trip characteristics of medical offices, the entering directional movement will contribute 12 less vehicles but the exiting movements will contribute an additional 9 vehicles. During the PM peak both entering and exiting movements will increasej 10 vehicles in the entering direction and 27 in the exiting direction. While entering movements during the PM peak hour are considered the non-peak direction, the exiting movements represent the peak direction; in this case the additional 27 vehicle trips represent a 30 percent increase. (I) Utilizing formulas contained in Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, 1987. (l) As recommended in Comprehensive Traffic Analysis for the Central Redevelopment Project Area (Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc., August 1989). . \LElTER.S'07OI9I.L! . . . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inew Mr. Dale R. Conners July 16, 1991 Page 3 However, 27 additional vehicles spread over an hour time period is less than one additional vehicle per minute. Therefore, it can be stated that the proposed project will not significantly alter levels of service or volume-to-capacity relationships on the street system. It is, therefore, concluded that the proposed project generally conforms to the parameters established in the 1989 comprehensive traffic study. Huntington Drive/Second Avenue Intersection Design We have reviewed the right-turn lane configuration proposed for eastbound Huntington Drive to southbound Second A venue traffic and find no Objection to its design, This feathered lane will permit right-turning vehicles to safely diverge from the through traffic stream and allow approximately four to five vehicles to stack while waiting to turn. SITE ACCESS PARKING AND CIRCULATION SYSTEM The suggested modifications we presented in the October 1990 letter and plan have not been incorporated into this preliminary design plan. Of concern is the reduction of driveways along the alley and the elimination of the nine parking spaces with access directly to the alley. We have taken another look at the preliminary design plan and have prepared a concept plan that eliminates two driveways along the alley along with the nine alley parking spaces. While the elimination of the nine alley spaces would be desirable. an alternative to the reduction of parking movements in the alley would be to permit these parking spaces but to designate them for employees of the office and medical buildings only, This plan also relocates the garage .ramp and places it adjacent to the south side of the medical office building in an east-west orientation. This orientation allows vehicles entering the site from Huntington Avenue to directly access the garage driveway. With these modifications, the number of surface parking spaces is slightly reduced from 83 spaces to 72 spaces (see enclosed plan for details), We have not attempted to illustrate the effects of this revised plan relative to the parking spaces in the garage. It appears that the impacts to the number of parking spaces with our revisions \l..m'EU'4'Qnl.LI . . Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Mr. Dale R. Conners July 16, 1991 Page 4 are relatively minor. However, if the resultant number of parking spaces does not meet City requirements, we suggest that either the standard be walved if the total number of parking spaces are within a few spaces of the requirements or slightly scale down the size of the project. We also would have liked to redesigned the eastern surface lot to make it an integral part of the surface lots to the west of the office building since it is segregated from the remainder of the site and it "dead ends." However, this is not possible without relocating the professional office building to the eastern edge of the site. Instead we suggest that this area be reserved for employee parking only. This will significantly reduce the turnover of parking spaces and reduce the number of vehicles entering and exiting the driveway to this parking lot. Given that the driveway is only one car length from Second Avenue, the reduction in vehicle trips will enhance traffic safety, although, it would be better if the driveway was shifted to the west. Please contact either Pat or myself, if you wish to discuss any issues or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. --gtf'~?r~~~ Paul Spero Kitsakos tIf.;:z Principal Associate PSK:tls . \UTrER.S'D'1OI9I,l.l --- . . . WUiIRcon AA:l-I!lt<:T/c::o.J~ ~ L\_' C;>..~\-ICCRlQ ~Z<IQ) I-S--~( Ausun 5. 1991 Pete K.innahan City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Or Arcadia. CA 91006-0060 Re: Huntinston @ Second Redevelopment Conditional Use Permit Application Submittal of Alternative Plan Dear Pete: Pursuant to our discussions last week. this is to transmit herewith an alternate schematic plan for the sarase and street levels of the noted project which shows a revised ramp location to allow an "internalized" circulation between parkins levels. You should be aware that we strongly favor the orlsinal plan which oriented the ramp for access to and from the alley. Our feelins has always been that the alley Is all. appropriate location for the kinds of traffic and mancuverins typical In enterins or elt1ting the lower level parkhlS ramp, This location would also encour8.se traffic to access and exit the site by way of the alley, althoush It will not restrict traCfie returnIng to the site Or cross Iratric to or from Huntington Drive, We feel the decision to "Internalize" the ramp is subjective and request that the Plannins Commis- sion make a determination only after considerins the advlDtages and dlsadvantaSe8 of both ramp locations. . Although. the alley location Is our preference. we have agreed to accept the alterna- tive plBII subject to the reduction of the total parking requirement. AssUlllption Is made that the reduction in requirement will conform with the reduction in stalls caused by the ramp relocation and that the buildin8 arcas as shown will be allowable ulld.cr the approval. This apecial consideration would includ.e In IdjustlllCIU to the compact .paces as reqllired to aceomodate the plall. The developer may also agree to accept the plait without the mitigation of parking, however, it is ulldetSlood that a reductioll or buildin8 area necessitated by the plan chanse w uld require an adjustmcnt in the purehase price or value of thc property. Very ~,. . arrea H. Lortie President WHL/vmt cc: Howard Schaefer WLAAfCOI\ IIlQ. 18652 FIcridaSt. Sli1ta200. Huntll\lltan e.:t\CAIl2848(7'l4)848-1282 "Aic(7141843ollUI8 we. 94110571 -- . . . File No. CUP 91-007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACf NEGA 11VE DE.o.ARA TION. CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA A. Description of project: Proposal to construct two three story office huildin2s containing a total area of 41,667 sq. ft. with window openings within lOa' of adiacent residential property B. Location of project: Southwest corner of Huntington Dr. and Second Ave. C Name of applicant or sponsor: wLA Arcon, Inc ./Schaefer Brothers Joint Venture D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. E. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects: C:L>oI!!l ....opnY'~ Date: June 15, 1991 Signature Date Posted: Assistant Planning Director Title File No. CUP 91-007 . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent WLA.Arcon, lnc./Schaefer Brothers Joint Venture 2. Address and Phone 'NUmber of Proponent 18652 Florida St., #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 848-7262 B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) !!!! ,"'IDE .!!2. !!!! ~ ... 1. Eanh. 11I111 tll.. prDpQllat ril.ult In:. / h. SWlIUn1;l41 nl.s~et.lon l.n the / .-w:tt of ...tOI:' otnel:Vl.. &val1ebl.. .. llnlU;ble ..rtil ecmlll~lon. O~ 1" for pllbHc ".tel' au.ppU.." cI\.&1I9"". lnq1lQl091l: .~tlNct\U'..1 / / .. EllPO'ou. of paopla or pnaperty b. Dtaruptlo"', llUplacll_ntl, o;oa- to ....t.r n.tated ha_rd.' .ad\ liS PllctlOJl or overeovlld"q of the IOU? tlolMSl.nq'l c. (hall'" In topotjluphy or qroOUllS / .. PlantLife. lun tho pr:opoul ",--ule t,.: l\lrrAC"lt l'eUllf f.atu....? . a. Chaa;lI in tho div.nitr II! apeel... .. 'l'lla CIIt,rucuOll. eoVlllnn; O~ ./ (It' tlWlllMr of an)' speel.. of p1ur.u / :lIo,HHt"ll'tlcn ot ...y lm1.r:j_ 9_10lj1C: (LDcllZilln9 tfte., '.h~. 'fC'''', .c:ro~. or pt'\y.'''''' f..tu.re.~ Ilicrof1cn:i& and &CJlaUll plants) 1 e. MY Ulcrg,o.. 1n "1nl1 0:1' ..etor b. Reduction of the nUllll:len of e"y / Irollon ot 101111. DttJlor on 01" oU L Wliqce-. rar. ot end.enQ'Dr~ Iplic.101 th.-lito" of pla!lu? - f. Ch~~.. III ol.!t.UCln. d~ltioll /' c. Int.t'04uctJ.on. of n_ epeei.. of I 01" orallan whlcll ""1' lllOdify thl pl.n~ LIl~ ....r... Dr r..ult in. c:hAnna1.0r. rl""tOrlltl"~. barrler to the nonoel repl.nh1'meru: of o:d..etinq _pee!...? 'iI. t_kfOIUI"D of ~Ur 01" proplrty to WlldL1fe. WUl thl ptopOlDl tllult !JDo10Cf1C huan!s IIllen .. antltiJUIlU, ,/ .. hlid.Udoll. IlIlllu1J.i'l.., 'lround tOUIlA-, ..., or I.lllllhzhnardJ,' .. Clu:l\ge 1ll tn. divllI'lity of .P<t'Ci... .. ~. Ilflll tltl:t propoDal r..\llt lnl ot ntllll!Mln' of &rlY ep"e101 of .~1I ll\ltlltanUal aU' cat..d~ or ./ (bin., land att1aah 111.clG41n\l nptU... / .. fub ,""t Df\elU1ab.. belltll1c: IJtgMUU, "Iurtontlon .ot ~l..nt lit <Ii_Heyl 7 inaocta or Ilicl'Ofeun.t:l? - b. TII. ete'Uon of objoctLonAblo b. It:e4GeUotl of the I'l~r. of eny / odorl?' un1ql1e. -rare or endanqared lJPIIc:1u of olll1llI411? .. Alteration of nu: lIlQv.......n.t. / / _hltllr~ or tCIIPo-q.t..rll. or ony c. Intr<;>dul;tion of' now OPOI;I.\.o-ll of chu,9'o 1n ol.llUto, e1tl\l1f 10CA11!f oanLa:a..a 1A~o .In .,.... OJ;' ....1,11t 1n or toqlotlall~1 . bArrhr to tM i1dgration' or _ 1III!lt; Of anLMJ.,1 - ,. ~. lUll ths pr'ClPOI81 rasult. in, / d. llots..loraU_otl 'to uau.n9 V11dure L .. Chengol in o;:un:onto Of the o;:o,u'sa hattit.t? af o.lh:o"tlOI\ or "'.1;~t IDCIvellldlU in / ltG.b.....ton7 - .. Nol... WUI the propo..l. Aalllt i,n. b. Cl\anq.. I.n &bsatption rattle. / ~ hlcua:... In _law" l\O.1.ae. La.,.a? 4rdna!lG p.utems. or tJlll rato _If ~ 7' ""OWlt "r 'Ilrfaca "..tar runoff? 7 1:1. ~ at poople t;o .eve_" no1.. 1eva~' .. "lterAtion, tl) the alouno or n(lllll of t'1QQdvoteul .. ~~~c:n:~l~~t :;l~~:ltoPO"l ~- .. Chatl'lG in the _l)t1ftt 01: .uduI / ..etol' 1n any v.uor body:' ,. Land UIe', VioL1 tM proposd raault In / ' a\l1lat.allt.ial altaradon Of tha e. l)uchllr'9. 1nt.o .Uth=- ..at:en. ot pnAe.t or pwA04 1.&A4 \IS. of an u.., 1ft &flY aUol'ation of a\l.l"'fACo ..atar qudlly. UIll:!ud.ll\q hut. Ilot 114J.te4 t.O / .. Nst\1tal a..au.rceo. Ifill the 51Capoa&l t_peratllre. d.1.aaolv.4 0ll)'90tl or reslnt .In. tllrllid.1ty7 Inue..a 11l the tlte of lUe of f/ .. ... .. Alteration of tho dJ,nct1on or jt oat.utA1 ruourcp' reto Of now of Qroun4 "et;en? 1:1. SIlbtlt:.anUat 4apletlon of any g. Olllll\le in tho qu.entity of \lrO\lQt! ~c1e natural ..POlU:cao' . ..atore. aithN thtoll9h dJ.rect 444l.Uona or ..J.thlfr_atl. or tbrough lntarCl.ptiol1 of ~ Aquifer br o;Qt;a or: "O;:.'IIatlOlla? -1- . . . . 10. 111"1; DI ~'i:.<lt. I)I)IIJI t:>1I pr<>;lQII.,l :;.n"l>t.,.;, Cl rll,t or "" ~)Oplo.:l1(ln or tll'll rOC!hu.CI tor !l"'::"~nul .:l'llb:ltllnees lInlllucb'hh but !'let ll~tod 1:0. cU. I'",at:l.;l'''''::. "hll:!i,c,\h or radluion) .1..1>. ,J.- ..v.:r.t -:I' -In ;\",<:~Jlll::.t or "'Ir'::;/t .~nJ~uo"1I1 ~l. ~ ;:;;. :i7:n,1;J~;t~~;~~~:el:;I\:~~;~ r (IN:llO(,, to.\!"' 3' ~h" 1'l~'1l'I popu1a- ".c. " 2fllt... '1. .. ... --=-:-S . :,''',nJ .... ~-f 'r..~('" ."t 'e~ I' ~...) ~ ',,' >t,. .. ~..t ,W.o L~n...! r- "lI.:lIII',2' ~ ,. ~~n~;;'?_'~:"~,~;~~'i,:~Il!~.. dill .lo. ~". .fl' l:;l/l <I~ '\J~"._,,,tl.l.l ".1Jl~ .1"1\ ""01: ~. C:f.:..::l "'. -, ' _.,'.ilf'l '~ll.~:aL,,-, 1..: ~ - t~r'.. .....TilJ.n'1~ .:. ....10>1.1'.:.41.1 ~r.;.>4qt ;l;>tfl OKlll.tl'r:1 U":II;.>I;rDrwcl.:m IIynCJ:::l:1 IL Alt.Hot.1<lnll t'l> I'CctlClnt pntot'tUI ot drl;",,11l~1nn or r,,'W'l~nt of poopl!! anMdr 100\1,.'/ ll. .\ltnrOl.t~o", t:o ....:.tod,"'cf\(!, :-.,...1 cz- ..H 1;f.,!~ict l<. t. :nt:r<l\,I<1 In L,;-JI,!fic hil~Ar-d. to t'Ll'J.a: vt\luc:~". tlloCVch.llt.ll <;It p.:ldl!lItr.!.lUlnl ~~~~ l;n;:~~;~~ ~po~~ 1;.. t~:.~~p~,,~ "'/ltld tQr n"",ct ..ltan<1 qcvet;\l!lWftill .1U"Vl.(l'li:l t" .111)' o! t.t;.. t~l1cwJ.tl'iI OU'<llll .t.I'Jrotrrot<'KItl0:11 b. Pol1Q;1; pr-oUte~S~? 1:. $c:lu>>h? d. i"lIrl<&t c.t OLI'lc.t n:lc:to4ucnol !.~l.atiO"1 R. IW..tM.e"rtIlCO ot public t.ol11- ttea, inclll.JJ.nlJ, roadt? t. O~"t 90yernlllltntdl .lU....ic:<tIl~ r.l ,J:' ...%U~ ',-"" -, :1:'" " L.ac... ~w <e. ^o.du:til3. Wlll ~nCl! PHlP'Q!la1 ru~IL i!i! !ol.\'tIlF. .:!!!. in tn' ob.ttu~Hol'J of ""Y llclJnil: ...tau. or vLev or;tOn LC tlhl pubU.c::. oc: ...111 the PtOSlQaol l'lI.ult in. tnO V cnlltion of ;Ul Ilg,tlllltl<:.,Uy C!tcMtvlJ lSltllZ cpon to plltltie- vJ.~1 U. I''''crd.lltion. ;,'lll tho propOlllll r"lult. in tin llllPfl<:t upon tho quaUey Cr / 'iURntlty- of .nIUtUl~ rOCntoeLon,a! opponlOlltt.l...l ". ~:::;~;::~~~l~~O~O:ttcr~~:~ L~; ... Il1qll-lfi"""t u'cnet>10111::0l1 or / hUtodcill du. .tn:cturo. ob~"erL or b"U41t\\I~ n. !l1l!1l1ototY PlndUlI:l1 <:It !ll'ITIUlcollnc." olI. llo;C!' 'tn~ pro]'tct l1,we tIlo potCl:pthl to <Ut'1ude thCl: ql:.11tty .:If tll.: ::llvlrolllDltnt. ~::t~~t~!}~r i ~:~:;:ei~:. !\~~t"' ci 1:1\ or wadl.HO popll.lD.Ucn Ul drop. lX!lcrw lIol!'-~t:01tntm.J 101"";11. thr(!'Qt,C':'1 t'C!' oli..ro1no"D II pl'lot 01' ,'n1=1 ..~lty. ntd:len ell" nUl":bOl' or rllll.tdet thO (.n1J~ or .. r,tt(! or <lnd.lnlietoU PUllt ~;I' anilll41 or IIILulli.nat.e I~nllnl:. IIxa'mpl.", of t,h<l I:'.;sjor poric.u of Calltomu, hJ."~"ry L grprollia~ry7 b, 1:1oo11 tho p.roject 11.1,'0 the fIOLII1.ti..l to IIclllove lilho,rt..tenr., to tho ,1u..dv<lnu~e o! lo11!l-t!t1'tll1l.llvi.nma:ontd qodll:r '" llhol't.torlll l:!p.tct (Ill the IUlVlt1111lllC1nt i. 01'10 ...hich.o<=e-uTl in G tohdv<ltly \:Ide{, dllfu\.u.l".. ll1l:dOd of t.\t>Iil ...I\ltt:.. 10n~-t"rnI1l:1p.nCtll wlU endure "'QU into ",- ". tllt.ur...1 c. DQ.Ir'. t.he pn,Ject "..v.. Imp..Ct.ll ...hlch'"ro indlvidu.1l1l' UmJ.:.el1. bll.t erUlllulauvoly eolldlillrablll1 tA projeet. ....y illlP4Ct on 1:WO 01' ""'"' llIeplltot. nn1oure". wh..r. the llllp,u:t ern .,acl1 / nrAOurco. i. rul..tlvoaJy .....11. ~ut'''h..r.. tIle eUecr: of tlIe toUl Ip-f tJI'OfO ~..c:t. 011 the envlnmJlll11lt is n,.nlfle.1l\t./ -/ d. Do'" th1ll p,.Oj<u:t have envt<<Jr\llll!l\tlll o!!oc:t.1I whic:h "'.ill c:a"..... Gtm.t4ntial o.dV1lt1l'" .ttecu on h~n t.Qinq~, .ith.~ dtrecdy or Indlr<:ctl'tl C. DISCUS$lo:J OJ' &NVIIlONMENTAl. E'J;..WATI0l1 r.. Ol:.TtrouIlA'I'Ic:l . ~~ bllo .,.leeo.ll by the %.oad A\jll1lcyl tIn,tJ'l,,~i.a ot thla Irllt;.l:ll O\'Il1W1Hont ~ ~lnd th.. \,\,opollCld t>I:01ect COULD ~IDT b..1t>! ~ .lqtllti<<nt - ",f,f..c; On the .nvimn=rlt., And", l-lE.Ql\'I't\'f: DecUAATIO".1 ...il1 be ..rop..:r'l;d. 0' :tn4 tn4t all.ho\lgh t~., p""per..,,' p:roJoet,collld havtl.. s.lwni!l.C:ilnt. (lHec:t 011 till: Ilnv~l"OnlMl:nt. tl1ete \1.1..11 nat bet lit f11..nttte=t .f~.l!t in tM.. cu. bt:caUatt tho llIi.tlq:.1UOft _asur..:s ll"lll!ribod ..n .n' .,ttfleltod .ha.t haw b.." 4cMad to the PI:'O)~t:, A ,m:ttA1"J:VB. ~CUlRloTIClN lilLL DE PIU:P.uu:D. tI t tlnd the i>t'oP:Osed P.rOJac-t. ,..J;,'f h.-va fl. S19nJ.t1C::\Dt ..Hoc:t ern tho "iwi:ollMnt. and :III UNVlROHHlUf'I'A1. IHPAC'i' U:POR'l' l' roqllit'ed. -2- . . . 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST FORM C.U.P.91-007 Noise - will the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? The site is currently vacant. There will be short term increased noise levels as a result of construction on the site. Construction hours are limited from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. There will increased long-term noise levels resulting from traffic to and from the site. Office uses usually generate traffic during the day-time and early evening hours, which should have limited impact on the adjoining properties. Based upon normal office activities this should not create a significant impact on adjoining properties. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 13a. 13f. Because the site is currently vacant, any development on the site will result in increased light levels. The Code does have specific standards which address the issue of light on adjacent residential properties. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? The proposed project will increase traffic on both the street and the alley to the south. However based upon a traffic study conducted by Barton-Aschman Associates the proposed project will not significantly alter levels of service or volume-to-capacity relationships on the street system. The project generally conforms to the parameters established in the 1989 comprehensive traffic study prepared for this area. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? There is the potential of increased traffic hazards on the site as a result of any development of this property. The applicant is working with the City to mitigate potential problems. The right turn lane for eastbound traffic on Huntington [)rive has been feathered to permit right-turning vehicles to safely diverge from the through traffic stream and allow approximately four to five vehicles to stack while waiting to turn. In addition, limiting the number of driveways onto the alley will decrease potential conflicts in the alley. . C D. FILE NO. Ct;/'/-? fP--C:07 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMA nON FORM A. Applicant's Name: Address: W.L.A. Arcon, Inc./Schaefer Brothers 18652 Florida st. *200, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 B. Property Address (Location): Southwest corner of Huntington at Second Ave. General Plan Designation: Zone Classification: C-2 General Commercial General Commercial E. Proposed Use (State exactly what use is intended for the property, I.e., type, activities, employment): . F. Two (2) three story office buildings over one level underground parking structure. 41,667 sq. feet office and 200 parking stalls. Square Footage of Site: 57,000 sq. feet G Square Footage of Existing Buildings: H. o 1. 2. To Remain: To Be Removed: o Square Footage of New Buildings: 16,667 Medical 25,000 sq. feet General 1. Square Footage of Buildings to be Used for: . 1. 2. 3. Commercial Activities: Industrial Activities: Residential Activities: All (41.667 sq. feet) N/A N/A Number of Units: N/A Environmental Information Form -1 - - . . J. Describe the following: 1. The environmental setting of the project site as it exists. Vacant. recentlv razed and consolidated for redevelopment. Site is level and at street arade. Portion of Second Ave. traffic island will QA incoroorated into site. 2. The proposed alterations to the project site. r,r~rlinQ Tn ::.11nw ;n~T~11;::at:inn of .:In l1nnPTqr()nnn p~rkinq ~t'rllr.hlrp Revised street frontage at eastern boundries reflects incorporation of the traffic island. . 3. The use and development of the surrounding properties. Site fronts on Huntington and Second Ave. with a service allev along the entire Southern edge. Existing single story .commercial building is in use on the only abutting property to the west. Environmental Information Form -2- ~ _. M. Date: . " K Check the appropriate answers to the following questions: Yes No 1. Will the proposed project result in a substantial alteration of ground contours and/or alteration of exiting drainage pattern? J9L 2. Will the proposed project result in a change In groundwater quality and/or quantity? xx 3. Will the proposed project result in an increase In noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, fumes, odor or solid waste? xx 4. Will the proposed project result in the use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? xx 5. Will the proposed project result in a substantial increase in demand for municipal services and/or energy consumption? J9L Explain in detail any "YES" answers to the above questions on additional sheets. Provide any additional information which would elaborate on the potential environmental consequences resultant from the proposed project. Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Jkb Signature ~of Applicant Environmental Information Form -3- @ __ c-'\ "~~ ~ e e ., , ~"""-.J """1lZ\X-SPlo'< ~ 44"" ...Nor ....1- <'''b) ~ < 7 > -S.L.. < .4) Ie> <4 > <'I> H......,. '... <:; . co.... D ......., ""'" a. 'Y' ~ :2':2 eJt>O <>A=iCE' -. , I ~ r ~ I 14. .' I ., ~ ''', "'-7 <lR'lCE \._- --4-.-1lIot fCtI\M,.. . ~ c; i ..A.. L L e:. y e. J1J co C. C. v-- l './ t ~~A ~0lAL. · p.. rl;fUlIW;' PHvIf> f'I.AN . I 8f~1 ......... ~ ~ '9rf'E:. "f"l.AN ~ . . , e. ----- , I I I III ( II J U~I~-JIQ c1~-, ~: ~ I i lLlLL_ ~- 4 c. l . --.. ~f'- ~~ LevEL ~LA"'" l r--- , I