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