HomeMy WebLinkAbout1776
e
RESOLUTION NO. 1776
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
RESIDENTIAL-MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. RM 07-01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07-05
(69775), AND OAK. TREE PERMIT NO. TR 08-04 FOR THE
SUBDMSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A:N APPROXI-
MATELY 83-ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND
NORTH AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD.
,
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2007, a Residential-Mountainous
Development Permit application was filed by Studio ~ Inc. on behalf of
Nevis Homes, for approval of two, new, single~farnily residences,
e
Development Services Department Case No. RM 07-01, in conjunction with
the related subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05
(69775) and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04 for an
approximately 83-acre property generally located north of the terminus of
Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road;;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
("CEQA"), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City pf Arcadia prepared
an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the
approval of Residential-Mountainous Development Permit Application No.
.
RM 07-01, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775), and
e
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04 would result in a significant
adverse effect on the environment with the incorpo(ation of mitigation
,
i
measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Dec1aratiT has been prepared
and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and
I
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
I
Commission on August 12, 2008, at which time all interested persons were
I
I
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
I
I
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
e
I
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development
I
,
Services Department in the attached report is true and cdrrect.
,
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of such Residential-Mountainous Development
Permit will not result in any of the following:
a. Excessive or unnecessary sc~ng of the ,natural terrain and
landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or
b. Unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crestline; or
c. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or
d. Adversely affect existing development or retard future
. development in this zone; or
-2-
1776
.
I
e. Be inconsistent with the provisions of Division 0 of Part 5 of
I
Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code.
2. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact
on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and that
based upon the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed
project, if implemented in accordance with the attached Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will have any potential for an
adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends.
.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby approves and
adopts that certain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
prepared for Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775)
Residential-Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01,
and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04.
SECTION 4. That for the fo~egoing reasons this Commission
approves Residential-Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01,
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-05 (69775), and Oak Tree Permit No. TR
08-04, for the subdivision and development of an approximately 83-acre site
generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and
. northwest of Canyon Road, subject to the following conditions:
-3-
1776
e
,
I
1. The applicant shall sign the attached Mitiga~on Monitoring and
I
Reporting Program (MMRP), thereby agreeing to pay ~e City monitoring
I
fees and implement the mitigation measures at a tninikum in the design,
I
I
construction, and maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall
"
effectively be conditions of approval.
2. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the
City for utility or roadway maintenance activities.
3. The truck haul route for graded earth material shall be as follows:
South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue,
e
south to the 210 freeway, east to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway,
and east to Puente Hills Landfill.
4. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading
activities, the applicant shall hand-deliver written notification to all property
owners residing along the haul route between the point of activity and the
210 freeway, detailing the proposed. construction staging plan, haul route
and schedule, and other pertinent grading and construction information.
5. All City requirements regarding building s~ety, fire prevention,
detection, suppression, emergency access, landscaping, water supply and
water facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and NPDES
e measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of tbe Building Official,
-4-
1776
e
I
I
Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Public Works Services Director and
Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to
be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan
checkreview and approval.
6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers,
employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or ~ul any approval or
condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or
e
land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of
approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which
action is brought within the time period provi~ed for ill Government Code
Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action,
or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City
. .
shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the
right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its
officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
e
-5-
1776
.
7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of
approval for RM 07-01, TPM 07-05 (69775) and TR 08~04 shall be grounds
,
I
for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals.
I
8. Approval ofRM 07-01, TPM 07-05 (69775)iand TR 08-04 shall
I
.
not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and
I
I
filed the Acceptance Form available from the De~elopment Services
, I
,
,
Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of
I
approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final
I
inspection and issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy f9rthe,residences.
I
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to ~e adoption of this
I
Resolution. I
I
Passed, approved and adopted this 26th day of Aligust, 2008.
LcJ~
Chairman, Planning Commission
tary, Planning Commission
.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~0.~
Steplien P. Deitsch, City Attorney
-6-
1776
e
e
e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
,
CITY OF ARCADIA
)
) SS:
)
I, JAMES M. KASAMA, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
,
,
,
Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. :1776 was passed and
I
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Chairperson
I
and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said PI~nning Commission held
. I
on the 26th day of August, 2008 and that said Resollon was adopted by the
following vote, to wit
AYES:
,
I
I
I
Commissioners Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES:
None
ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian and Baerg
o the Planning Commission
e
I
I
Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ing Program
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775)
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04
This Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for Application Nos. TPM 07-05, RM 07-01,
and TR 08-04, has been prepared pursuant to the Callfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
- Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title
14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. A master
copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the Planning Services office and shall be available for
viewing upon request.
The proposed project involves the subdivision of an 83.15-acre undeveloped property in the
foothills of Arcadia into three (3) parcels. Two (2) of the newly created lots are to be developed
with new single-family dwellings while the third lot is to remain undev~loped open space. Three
(3) applications are necessary for consideration of the proposed project:
. Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775);
. Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application NO.1 RM 07-01; and
. Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04.
e
This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on
the following pages that correspond to th,e final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
project. The matrix lists each mitigation measure by environmental topic and indicates the
frequency of monitoring and the responsible monitoring entity. Mrtigation measures may be
shown in submittals. and may be checked only once, or they may require monitoring periodically
during and/or after construction and grading. Once a mitigation measure is complete, the
responsible monitoring entity shall date and Initial the corresponding cell and comment on the
effectiveness of the mitigation measure. Wherever the term "project applicant" is used in the
MMRP, it shall be deemed to include each and all successors in interest of the project applicant.
Failure to implement any of the mitigation measures may result in cqrrective action by the City.
Penalties may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) A written notification and request
for compliance, (2) Withholding of permits, (3) Administrative fines, '(4) A stop-work order, (5)
Forfeiture ofsecurity bonds or other guarantees, and (6) Revocation of permits or entitlements.
I HEREBY AGREE TO PAY THE CITY MONITORING FEES AND IMPLEMENT THESE
MITIGATION MEASURES, AT A MINIMUM, IN THE DESIGN,. CONSTRUCTION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT.
APPLICANT
DATE
PROPERTY OWNER
DATE
e
e
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775)
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. R-M 07-01
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04
Mitigation Measure
1m act - Aesthetics & BioI ical Resources
1.1 Prior to the issuance of a g~ading
permit and throughout grading and
construction, the project applicant
shall comply with the recommended
tree protection measures identified
in the certified arborist report dated
November 15, 2007 {see attached).
1.2
The project applicant shall plant
indigenous low growing plant cover
and acorns obtained from nearby
Oak trees into the slope. The
acorns shall be planted 5-8 to a hole
in widely spaced holes (at least 25'
apart). A certified arborist shall
supervise the planting and submit a
report to the City following its
completion.
1.3
The project applicant shall agree to
a General Plan amendment to
change the land use designation of
parcel 3 from Single-Family
Residential to Public Facilities and
Grounds.
1.4
The project applicant shall agree to
the creation of an Open Space
zoning designation and the rezoning
of parcel 3 from Residential
Mountainous to Open Space.
1.5
The project applicant shall
irrevocably deposit with the City the
nonrefundable sum of $200,000 for
purposes of paying, in whole or in
part, the cost of maintaining parcel 3
in perpetuity.
Mitigation
Monitoring
Timln
Duration of
construction
and grading
Following
completion of
grading and
construction
activity and
prior to
issuance of a
certificate of
occupancy
Prior to
recordation of
parcel map
Prior to
recordation of
parcel map
Prior to
recordation of
parcel map
Responsible
Monitoring
Enti
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
SerVices
Planning
Services
Planning
Services
Planning
Services
Mitigation
Measure
Com lete?
Effectiveness
JJflPact - Air Quality
".1 The project contractor shall water the
grading site at least twice a day
(morning and afternoon, or as
deemed necessary) using reclaimed
water or chemical soil binder, where
feasible,
2.2 The project contractor shall wash off
trucks leaving the site and cover dirt
in trucks during on-road hauling.
2.3 During grading operations, the
project contractor shall spread soil
binders on the construction site.
unpaved roads, and parking areas at
least every 4 hours and at the end of
the workday.
2.4 The project contractor shall apply
chemical stabilizers according to
manufacturer's specifications to all
previously graded construction areas
which remain inactive for 96 hours or
more.
2.5 The project contractor shall re-
establish ground cover within the
construction site through seeding
and watering on portions of the site
that will not be disturbed for a period
of two months or more.
2.6 The project contractor shall sweep
streets to prevent silt and other
debris from being carried over to
adjacent public thoroughfares.
2.7 Traffic speeds on all unpaved road
surfaces shall not exceed 15 miles
per hour.
.
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
grading
operations
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration. of
construction
and grading
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Buildihg
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
2.8 The project contractor shall suspend
grading operations during first and
second stage smog alerts.
2.9 The project contractor shall suspend
grading operations, apply soil
binders, and water the grading site
when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
2.10The project contractor shall keep
construction equipment engines
tuned to ensure that the air quality
Impacts generated by construction
activities are minimized.
1m Bct- Geolo & Soils
3.1 The project applicant shall follow all
recommendations listed in Chapter
6 of the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation dated September 20,
2007 (see attached).
act - Noise & Trans ortationfTraffic
4.1 Grading and construction activities
shall be limited to the following hours:
7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on Saturdays. Construction and
grading activities shall be prohibited
on Sundays and federal holidays.
4.2 The project contractor shall ensure
full compliance with the construction
staging plan for rough grading,
including the placement of waste
containment and stockpile areas and
the proposed truck haul route.
4.3 Hauling of graded earth material shall
only occur between the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays to avoid
school and rush hour traffic.
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Buliding
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
.
.
4.4 Grading activities shall not last more
than 6 months and shall occur
between April and October to avoid
the rainy season.
Duration of
grading
Planning and
Building
Services
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
August 12, 2008
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775),
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM
07-01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04
SUMMARY
This staff report addresses a proposal to subdivide an 83.15-acre undeveloped
property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and
northwest of Canyon Road into three parcels. Parcels 1 and 2 (totaling 2.82
acres in area) would be developed with new single-family residences, while
parcel 3 (the remaining 80.33 acres) would remain undeveloped. Three
applications are necessary for consideration of the proposed project:
. Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) is required for
the subdivision of the property into three separate lots;
. Residential Mountainous Development Permit App. No. RM 07-01 is
required for the grading of parcels 1 and 2 in preparation for the two
proposed ~ingle-family residences; and
. Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04 is required for the removal of
or encroachment upon 12 on-site Oak trees.
Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, staff conducted an Initial
Study and determined that implementation of the proposed project would not
have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation
measures. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The
Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed
project, subject to the conditions listed in this report.
TPM 07-05 (69775), Rry1 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12,2008
Page 1
. GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
location:
Requests:
.
Site Area:
Frontages:
Nevis Homes
An 83.15-acre undeveloped property generally located north of
the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of
Canyon Road extending east to the boundary of Wilderness
Park. The area proposed for development is a 2.82-acre area
on the west side of Canyon Road betWeen 2109 and 2127
Canyon Road.
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) -
To approve the subdivision of the property into three separate
lots of 2 acres, 0.82 acres, and 80.33 acres in area
Residential Mountainous Developmenti Permit Application
No. RM 07-01 - To permit the grading of two lots in preparation
for the construction of two new single-family dwellings, each
having nearly 5,300 square feet of floor area
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08.0()4 - To approve the
removal of or encroachment upon 12 on-sit~ Oak trees
The total size of the property is 83.15 acres; the area proposed
for development is 2.82 acres in area.
Approximately 678.81 feet along Canyon Road
Existing land Use:
The subject site is currently a vacant, undisturbed
hil,lside/mountainous area containing native vegetation and
wildlife. Santa Anita Canyon Road runs diagonally through the
property from the southwest to the northeast.
Zoning:
R-M, Residential Mountainous Single-Family Zohe
,
General Plan Designation:
Single-Family Residential (0-4 dwelling units per acre)
Surrounding land Uses & Zoning:
North: Angeles National Forest - Und~veloped hillside and
mountainous terrain consisting of relatively
undisturbed native vegetation and wildlife
.
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
I August 12, 2008
Page 2
I
.
I
South: Existing hillside low-density single-family residential
neighborhoods within the City of Arcadia
East: Arcadia Wilderness Park and ~xisting hillside low-
density single-family residential neighborhoods within
the City of Arcadia
West: Undeveloped hillside and mouhtainous terrain and
existing low-density single-family residential
neighborhoods within the City of ~ierra Madre
BACKGROUND
.
The subject property is currently an undisturbed mountainous/hillside area
containing native vegetation and wildlife. In Septemberj1977, the Planning
Commission recommended a zone change of the sl:lbject property and
surrounding area from R-1 & D 10,000, Second One-FamilY Zone. to R-M & D,
Residential Mountainous Single-Family Zone (Resolution No. 1009). The zone
change was subsequently approved by the City Council ~nder Ordinance No.
1614. In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to ~ubdivide the subject
property into 11 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP100-01 and Tentative
Tract Map No. TIM 51941) but withdrew the applications pefore they could be
heard by the Planning Commission. In 2003, Nevis Homes submitted a revised
proposal to subdivide the property into 7 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No.
SP 03-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TIM 51941). The Planning Commission
recommended denial of the proposal <;tue to significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts associated with the project (Resolution No. 1717). The
City Council subsequently denied the applications (Resolution No. 6466).
DISCUSSION
The applicant, Nevis Homes, is proposing to subdivide a relatively undisturbed,
approximately 83-acre property in the northerly foothills of the City into three lots
of varying sizes. The intent of the subdivision is to develop parcels 1 and 2 with
two new single-family residences containing a combined floor area of
approximately 10,546 square feet, and to preserve parcel 3 - the vast majority of
the site - as permanent open space. Because the subject property is zoned R-
M, Residential Mountainous, a special development permit is required for the
grading work that will be implemented on parcels 1 and 2. Additionally,
development of the properties will require the removal of or encroachment upon
12 on-site Oak trees. The following is a discussion of each of the entitlements
that must be secured in order to proceed with the project.
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07..()5 (69775),
.
According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9117.1, a Tentative Parcel Map
shall be processed for all proposed divisions of land. resulting in four or fewer
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12,2008
Page 3
(
.
I
parcels. Implementation of the subject Tentative Parcel M~P will result in three
parcels. Parcels 1 and 2, the area proposed for development, will contain 2
acres and 0.82 acres, respectively. The two lots will be situated on the west side
of Canyon Road, between two existing single-family residences at 2109 and
2127 Canyon Road. Parcel 3, which contains approximately 80.33 acres in area,
would remain undeveloped. The General Plan land use designation for the
project site is Single-Family Residential (0 to 4 dwelling units per acre), and the
zoning is R-M, Residential Mountainous, which requires a minimum lot size of
15,000 square feet (0.34 acres). Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision Code, and Zoning Code.
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01
Evaluation Criteria
According to the Municipal Code, no person shall grade, excavate or fill in the R-
M zone without a development permit from the Planning Commission if such
grading, excavation or filling is in excess of 15 cubic meters. Below is a
description of how a development permit application should be evaluated per
AMC Section 9250.5.9:
.
A. The following criteria shall be considered in assessing the application for a
development permit: .
1. Extent of grading required for the reasonable us~ of the property.
2. Visual impact of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the proposed project to adjoining properties and/or
structures.
4. Adequacy of proposed landscaped areas, drainage facilities, erosion
control devices and other protective devices.
5. Adequacy of fire equipment access.
6. Extent of preservation of existing ridge and crestlines.
7. Extent of attempt to have roads follow existing contours.
8. Developability of sites.
B. An application shall be denied if, in the judgment of the City, based upon
the purpose of this Division, the proposed wori< or design of the lots and
streets in.the development would:
.
1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and
landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or
2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crestline; or
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12, 2008
Page 4
--
e
3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or
4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future
development in this zone; or
5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of this Division.
C. In granting a development pennit, the City may impose conditions which
may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to public or private
property or to prevent the operation from being cor;lducted in a manner
likely to create a nuisance. No person shall viola~e any conditions so
imposed in said penn it by the City of Arcadia. Such conditions may
include but not be limited to any of the aforementioned requirements of
this Division. The City Engineer or a designated alternate may issue a
pennit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent
danger to public or private property.
Analysis
e
The proposed project involves 5,000 cubic yards of cut and ,40 cubic yards of fill.
The portion of the site where the grading will occur is a 2.82-acre area on the
west side of Canyon Road containing steep north- and northeasterly-facing uphill
slopes. In accordance with the Municipal Code, all cut and fill slopes will not
exceed 2:1. Additionally, the grading plan includes concrete swales, catch
basins, planter and retaining walls, and drain inlets to minimize erosion and
runoff (see attachment). Engineering Services has reviewed the proposed
grading plan and found it to be acceptable.
An estimated 108 truck trips will be necessary to haul the graded earth material
to the Puente Hills Landfill. The proposed truck route is south on Canyon Road
to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to thel210 freeway, east to
the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to thetlandfill. Engineering
Services has reviewed the proposed truck route and has: detennined that the
selected route is the best option. A neighborhood notification program will be
required prior to the commencement of grading activities (see conditions of
approval). The applicant estimates that grading activities will last approximately
one year; however, staff recommends that the Commission limit grading activities
to no more than 6 months (April through October) to minimize the impact on
nearby property owners and to avoid the rainy season.
e
Once grading is complete, construction will begin on two single-family residences
that will be situated near the foot of the hill and accessed off of Canyon Road.
No new roads are proposed and the homes will be built below the ridge line to
preserve existing views of the hillside. Each house will; be two stories and
contain 3 bedrooms and 3 baths, roughly 4,500 square feet of livable space, a
two-car garage, a flat paved area for guest parking, and large outdoor terraces
on both the first and second floors. The residences will comply with all applicable
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12,2008
Page 5
.
I
,
I
zoning regulations with the exception of the side yard setback requirement. The
following modifications are being requested:
. For parcel 1, a first story side yard setback of 31'-0" in lieu of the minimum
45'-6" required, and a second story side yard setback of 16'-0" in lieu of
the minimum 91'-0" required
. For parcel 2, a first story side yard setback of 16'-0" ih lieu of the minimum
22'-5" required, and a second story side yard setback of 31'-0" in lieu of
the minimum 44'-9" required
.
Given the development constraints of the hillside and the fact that the proposed
lots are significantly wider than the average R-M-zoned lot, staff finds that the
modification requests are warranted. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of
the Highland Homeowners Association has reviewed and approved the
conceptual design of the proposed project. The ARB did not have any special
conditions regarding the design or grading of the site, except that parcel 3 should
somehow be preserved as permanent open space. I
Staff concurs with the ARB and believes it is important to e~sure that parcel 3 be
designated as permanent open space to deter any :future development.
Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval reql1iring a General Plan
Amendment to change parcel 3's land use designation to "Public Facilities and
Grounds" and a Zone Change to designate parcel 3 as Open Space. (This will
first require a Text Amendment to establish an Open SpaCf;t zoning designation.)
The applicant must also agree to grant any necessary easer;nents on the property
for utility and road maintenance purposes. Furthermore, unless the City is willing
to cover the cost of maintaining the property - approximate,y $6,000 per year for
weed abatement, brush clearance, etc. - the applicant must establish a funding
source, either through an assessment tax on the surrounding property owners, or
through an endowment. The Finance Department has conservatively estimated
that such an endowment would need to be at least $200,000. As it is still early in
the process, staff is recommending a broadly worded condition of approval
requiring the establishment of a funding source that is acceptable to all involved
parties.
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04
.
The project site contains numerous Oak trees and other plant species that are
native to South em Califomia. Pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, the
applicant retained the services of a certified arborist to inspect the site and
prepare a report for submission to the City (see attachment). The arborist limited
his inspection to the approximately 3-acre portion of the site that will be
developed and determined that 12 Oak trees and 1 Sycamore tree will be
affected by the proposed project. The largest of the Oak trees, which has two
massive trunks measuring 3'-9" and 2'-9" in diameter, will 'b'e encroached upon
but preserved. The remaining 11 trees will either be removed or encroached
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12.2008
Page 6
e
upon, depending on several construction factors. According to the arborist, at
least 9 of the 11 trees Will probably be lost due to the significant grading work
that is required. Although Oak trees are present in the remaining 80 acres of the
site (parcel 3), those trees were not examined in the arborist's report as they will
not be affected by the current proposal.
Staff believes removal of or encroachment upon 12 Oak trees is not an
unreasonable request given the scope of the project. However, in accordance
with the arborist's evaluation, the largest of the Oak trees must be preserved and
the graded slope should be planted with native plant material and acoms
obtained from nearby Oak trees. The Oak Tree Removal/Encroachment request
has been reviewed and approved by the Highlands ARB.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
e
Pursuant to the proviSions of the Califomia Environmenta,l Quality Act, the
Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed
project (see attachment). Said study found that implementation of the proposed
project would result in substantial or potentially substantial adverse effects to the
envirOnment. Removal of the site's indigenous plant life, for example, could"have
a significant impact on the biological resources and aesthetics of the project site.
Additionally, since the proposed project requires significant grading of the site,
there will likely be substantial short-term impacts to the surrounding community in
terms of air quality, geology and soils, noise, and traffic. Staff believes, however,
that these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
implementation of mitigation measures, and has therefore prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration. The proposed mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to, the fOllowing:
. Designating parcel 3 as permanent open space to ,preserve the natural
landscape and deter future development:
. Planting acoms and native plants throughout the site to reestablish the
natural plant community and stabilize the hillside;
· limiting grading/construction hours and days to mitigate noise and traffic
impacts; and
· Limiting truck speeds, suspending construction and grading activities
during smog alerts and high wind conditions, regularly sweeping affected
streets, and watering the grading site to minimize air pollution.
A detailed description of the project's environmental impacts and the proposed
mitigation measures can be found in the attached Initial Study and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
.
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12, 2008
Page 7
.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
The proposed project is required to comply with all Code requirements and
policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall,
City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Public Works Services
Director, and any service districts and utility providers, and are to be determined
by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends aooroval of Tentative
Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775), Residential Mountainous
Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01, and Oak Tree Permit Application
No. TR 08-04, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall sign the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), thereby agreeing to pay the City monitoring fees and implement
the mitigation measures in the design, construction, and maintenance of
the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of
approval.
.
2. The applicant shall grant any necessary easements for utilities or roadway
maintenance activities.
I
3. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall hand-deliver written notification to all property owners along
the haul route and to all property owners otherwise affected by the
proposed project, detailing the proposed construction staging plan, haul
route and schedule, and other pertinent grading and construction
information.
4. All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection,
suppression, emergency access, landscaping, water supply and water
facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and NPDES
measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Public Works Ser:vices Director and
Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to
be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for
plan check review and approval.
.
5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers,
employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or
condition of approval of the City of Arcadia conceming this project and/or
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12, 2008
Page 8
.
.
.
I
land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition 0
approval of the City Council, Planning Commission; or City Staff, whicl
action is brought within the time period proliid,ed for in Government Codl
Section 66499.37 or other provision of taw applicaple to this project 0
decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
or proceeding conceming the project and/or land use decision and the Ci~
shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves thE
right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, itl
officers, employees, and agents in the defense ofthe:rnatter.
I
6. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval fo
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04 shall be grounds fo
immediate suspension and/or revocation of any apprdvals.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Aooroval
Denial
1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain an<
landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; I
2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crestline;
3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; I
,
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-0'
t
.. August 12, 2001
I Page!
I
,
.
4. Adversely affect existing development or retard future development in the
R-M zone; or
5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of the R-M zone. i
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the August 12, 2008 public hearing,
please contact Assistant Planner, Steven Lee at (626) 574-5444 or via email at
sleetID.ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
C2--
Jim,Kasama
Community Development Administrator
.
Attachments: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Initial Study
Aerial photographs and vicinity maps
Photographs of site and surroundings
Highlands ARB findings
Arborist's report
Plans: Tentative Parcel Map, grading and d~ainage plans,
preliminary construction staging plan, and architectural plans
.
I
TPM 07-05 (69775), RM 07-01, and TR 08-04
August 12,2008
Page 10
~o~
.~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 0.7-0.5 (69775)
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 0.7-0.1
Oak Tree Permit Application No. T~ 0.8-0.4
,
i
This Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for Application Nos. TPM 07-05, RM 07-01,
and TR 08-04, has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA
- Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CECA Guidelihes (Cal. Code Regs., Title
14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CECA Guidelines. A master
copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the Planning Services office ,and shall be available for
viewing upon request.
The proposed project involves the subdivision of an 83.15-acre undeveloped property in the
foothills of Arcadia into three (3) parcels. Two (2) of the newly created lots are to be developed
with new single-family dwellings while the third lot is to remain undeveloped open space, Three
(3) applications are necessary for consideration of the proposed project:
.
. Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775):
. Residential Mountainous Development Permit ApplicatiCln No. RM 07-01; and
. Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04.
This MMRP Includes mitigation measu~ in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on
the following pages that correspond to the final Mitigated Negative ; DeclaratJon (MND) for the
project. The matrix lists each mltigatJon measure by environmental topic and indicates the
frequency of monitoring and the responsible monitoring entJty. MitigatJon measures may be
shown In submittals and may be checked only once, or they may require monitoring periodically
during and/or after construction and grading. Once a mitigation measure is complete, the
responsible monitoring entity shall date and initial the corresponding cell and comment on the
effectiveness of the mitigation measure.
Failure to implement any of the mitigation measures may result in corrective action by the City.
Penalties may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) A written notification and request
for compliance, (2) Withholding of permits, (3) Administrative fines" (4) A stop-work order, (5)
Forfeiture of security bonds or other guarantees, and (6) Revocation of permits or entitlements.
I HEREBY AGREE TO PAY THE CITY MONITORING FEES AND IMPLEMENT THESE
MITIGATION MEASURES, AT A MINIMUM, IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT. .
APPLICANT
DATE
.
PROPERTY OWNER
DATE
.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775)
Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. R-M 07-01
Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04
Mitigation Responsible ; Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring , Measure Effectiveness
Timing Entity I Complete?
/moact - Aesthetics & Bi%oical Resources I
I
I
1.1 Prior to the issuance of a grading I
permit and throughout grading and
construction, the project applicant Duration of Planning and I
shall comply with the recommended construction Building I
tree protection measures identified and grading Services ,
in the certified arborist report dated I
November 15, 2007 (see attached). I
I
;
1.2 The project applicant shall plant Following I
indigenous low growing plant cover completion of I
and acoms obtained from nearby grading and I
Oak trees into the slope. The construction Planning and I
acoms shall be planted 5-8 to a hole activity and Building
in widely spaced holes (at least 25' prior to Services
apart). A certified arborist shall issuance of a ,
supervise the planting and submit a certificate of ,
report to the City following its occupancy
completion. I
p The project applicant shall agree to
a General Plan amendment to Prior to
change the land use designation of recordation of Planning
parcel 3 from Single-Family parcel map Services
Residential to Public Facilities and
Grounds.
"
1.4 The project applicant shall agree to
the creation of an Open Space Prioi'to Planning
zoning designation and the rezoning recordation of Services
of parcel 3 from Residential parcel map
Mountainous to Open Space.
1.5 A revenue source shall be
established and agreed to by all Prior to Planning
involved parties to fund the recordation of Services
- maintenance of parcel 3 in parcel map
perpetuity.
The project contractor shall water the
grading site at least twice a day
(moming and aftemoon, or as
deemed necessary) using reclaimed
water or chemical soil binder, where
feasible.
2.2 The project contractor shall wash off
trucks leaving the site and cover dirt
in trucks during on-road hauling.
2.3 During grading operations, the
project contractor shall spread soil
binders on the construction site,
unpaved roads, and parking areas at
least every 4 hours and at the end of
the workday.
2.4 The project contractor shall apply
chemical stabilizers according to
manufacturer's specifications to all
previously graded construction areas
which remain inactive for 96 hours or
more.
2.5 The project contractor shall re-
establish ground cover within the
construction site through seeding
and watering on portions of the site
that will not be disturbed for a period
of two months or more.
2.6 The project contractor shall sweep
streets to prevent silt and other
debris from being carried over to
adjacent publiC thoroughfares.
2.7 Traffic speeds on all unpaved road
surfaces shall not exceed 15 miles
per hour.
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
grading
operations
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Planning and '
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
2.8 The project contractor shall suspend
grading operations during first and
second stage smog alerts.
2.9 The project contractor shall suspend
grading operations, apply soil
binders, and water the grading site
when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
2.10The project contractor shall keep
construction equipment engines
tuned to ensure that the air quality
impacts generated by constrUction
activities are minimized.
1m act - Geolo & Soils
3.1 The project applicant shall follow all
recommendations listed in Chapter
6 of the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation dated September 20,
2007 (see attached).
act - Noise & Trans ortationlTraffic
4.1 Grading and construction activities
shall be limited to the following hours:
7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on Saturdays. Construction and
grading activities shall be prohibited
on Sundays and federal holidays.
4.2 The project contractor shall ensure
full compliance with the construction
staging plan for rough grading,
including the placement of waste
containment and stockpile areas and
the proposed truck haul route.
4.3 Hauling of graded earth material shall
only occur be.tween the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays to avoid
school and rush hour traffic.
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Duration of
construction
and grading
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
Planning and
Building
Services
e
e
4.4 Grading activities shall not last more
than 6 months and shall occur
between April and October to avoid
the rainy season.
Duration of
grading
Planning and
Building
Services
e
RECOMN.ffiNDEDTREEPROTECTIONMEA~S
Mellllures to Induee better tree health prior to construction:
Pruning: See ~low.
Watering: Deep water once a month only if needed.
Aeration: Not recommended.
Fertilizing: Not recommended.
Microorglillisms and Diycorrbizae: No additiol1Srecommended at this time.
Pests and diselllles: Symptoms of abov~ grpund rot, fungus, or insect infestation were not
. observed or were so minor llll not to warrant llcggressive treatment at this time.
e
Root proteetion zone measures before and during construction:
The root protection zone extends from the trunk to the furthest points under the
overhanging folillcge. CoUectivelythis area at the edge .ofthe follage is called the drip
line. Most oflhe roots in this protection zone are located in the up~er 12-24" ofsoi!,
although some,go much deeper. Both,thin feeder roots and major structural roots must be
protected fortl1etree to remain healthy. Because the oaks are very sensitive to any
disturbance lIIid the chance to inflict ~or damage to the trees to be saved is great, a lot
of care must be taken to protect the trees that will be saved. Before construction the
arborist, architect and soils engineer should discuss how beslcto protect the trees, .and
whether placement of the retaining waUs needs any adjustment. Before,actual grading the
contractor, architect and arboristshould discuss the tree protection measures so that
everyoJ;le isclellt on the protection requirements. The following are minimum protection
measures necessary during construction: .
· Instlill min. 4' high chain Jinkfence around the affec~ed trees' root
protection zone, outside of the tree's dripline (it may not be possible to
protect the full root protection zone for some of the ~maller trees, due to
proximity of construction).
. Do not attach anything to the trunk or dispose of anything within the drip
line.
. Keep the trees in good health by occasional deep watering and preventing
the soil from drying out.
. Do not store any materials in the root protection zone.
· Minimize root damage. Avoid cutting major:roots (overT'). Use hand
tools for cutting. Do not qut major roots. within 10' .of the trunk: roots
there are relatively inactive, and cutting them too close may cause decay
reaching into the trunk. Cut major roots >3" dia. only under dire.ction oCa
certified.arborist. Wherecutting'is unavoidable cut at right angles ata
branching lateral root.
. Do not change the grade within the drip line.
. Do not use heavy equipment, which compacts the soil, within the drip line. .
· Do not raise soil level around trunks above the basal flare (bl!Se of trunk
flaring outto fonn root system).
· During construction have a certified arborist on call fa field review all
cases of root pruning of over 50% ofa tree's root'area, over 30% of'a
e
10
.
tree's'major roots over 3" 1n diameter, or cutting roots close to the trunk
(within 10').
. Retaining W~ design or location may have to be modified slightly to
prevent substantial root damage and to.allow for sOlIte'drainage water flow
through.
. Any landscaping on the newly shaved slope mU!lt rC:spect the trees' needs.
Sprinklers should not wet trunks. Landscape Will have a hard time .getting
established in bedrock after removal of topsoil as recommended by the
soils report.
. Any unusual site clindition potentially affecting the trees should be
immediately brought to the attention of the arborist.
Branch pruning before or dnring construction. I
. Prune only in accordance with indllstrystandards(I~A or ANSI 133.1)
and only under direct supervision of a certified arborist
. Remove dead, diseased, damaged \Vood and'structural defects only. Make
cuts perpendicular to the branch, eitlier ata side' branch mihilllaJly 1/3 the
diameter of the branch, or at the trunk. For cuts at trunk, stay just outside
the branch bark collar, ana prevent tearing ofbllik. .
.
Recommended tree protection clause in construction contract:
Since the trees to be,saved lite easilyendatlgered by construction, the following clause
should be incorporated in the construction contract:"The existing big oak tree oak is the
focal point of ihe development and its preservation in a healthy state is crticial. The
contractor shall take the utmost care in preventing any harm of anY,kind to the tree, and
instruct allliis/her on site workers and subcontractors'to do the same. Therefore.nothing
snaIl be attached to the tree, in any way; it shall not be cutor damaged by nailing, hitting,
cutting or pruning, above groilnd or below. Trenching.fQr footings mustbe sharp <md
neat. Cutting of roots should be prevented, but where abs.olutely n~essary, all roots
encoUntered there must be cut cleanly, with a clean sharp handsaw. No storage of
materials shall take place under the tree. No grading of any kind shall take place within
the drip line area. No soil compacting heavy equipment shall be used under the tree. No
worker sh.all walk or drive equipment on soil to remain uncoven:d under the tree; it'
frequent walking becomes necessary on any such areas, plywood sheets must be spread
on the walkway. A min 5' high fence must surround each drip line. No ch.emicals,
cement, concrete, paints,. sOlvents, or anything else except for oleml'water. shall be poured
on or disposed of on tl;1e.soil anywhere on the grounds; and no harmful chemicals shall be
dispersed.in' the air. If contractor or his/her subsinflictsllbstantial and evident damage to
or c:;ause death of the tree, directly or indirectly, or by not taking and enforcing any or all
of the measures above, during the full length of the consu:uction penoel, then the
contractor shall pay the owner full value for damages caused, as determined by project
arborist, or in accordance with the following value schedule: $lO,OQO for the substantial
loss of or great damage to a,major lilllb over 8", up to $100,000 forithe,death or complete
destruction of a tree, Damages to the smaller trees will be vlllued at:oJ;le fifth of the
amoWlts for the big tree."
.
II
Nevis Construct/on
EGL Project No.: 07.177-ll02EG
Page 5 of 11
September 20, 2007
.
5,2 Seismic Induced Hazards
Based on OUf review of the "Seismic Hazard Zones, Mt Wilson Quadrangles" by C;3lifomla
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, It Is concluded that the site is
locate!! In the mapped potential Earthquake-Induced landslide arl1a. However, based on our
slope stability analysis, the slopes should have a factor of safety pf greater than 1.5 and 1.1
against static and seismic instabilities, respectively.
5.3 Excavatablllty
Based on our subsurface Investigation, excavation of the subsurface materials should be able
,
to be accomplished with conventional earthwork equipment Howev,er, due to the hard bedrock
the proposed excavation may become difficult.
5.4 SUrficial Soli Removal and Recompactlon I
I
Based on our Investigation, It Is concluded that the existing surficial solis are loose and may not
be suitable for the slab support and will reqUire remedial grading as disCUSSl'!d herein.
.
5.5 Groundwater
Perched water was encountered durif!g our subsurface investigation in T-2 at a. depth of 17
feel Groundwater Is not expected to be a significant constraint during the construction.
However, groundWater rnay be a significant constraint If grading is :completed during the rainy
season when perched water Is more likely to occur and should be considered during the dryer
and wetter periods of the season during construction. Subdrelhs should be placed around the
basement foundation.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the subsurface conditions exposed during field hivestlg~tlon and laboratory testing
program, it is recomrnended that the following recommendations be incorporeted in the design
and construction phases of the project.
6.1 Grading
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to Initiating grading operations, any existing vegetation, trash, debris, over-slzed materials
(greater than 6 Inches), and other deleterious materials within cOnstruction areas should be
removed from the site.
.
11819 Goldring Road.,Unlt A, Arcadia, CA 91008; Phona: 62li'28a:.3588; FBlC 62li'26a:.3599
NevlsConslrucUon
EGl Project No.: 07-177.o02EG
Page6of11
,september 20, 2007
e
i
6.1,2 Surflcial 5011 Removals I
It is' anticipated that almost all of the existing low density, near surface soils will be removed
. I
within the bl!i1ding Eireas ex~pt for sQme portions along the front ?f the propOsed residences.
To provide uniform support for the proposed residential development, .allthe footing should be
founded on the competent bedrock. For the footings along the front wall, It Is recommended
that footing should be deepened and founded on the competent bedrock. Within the slab and
driveway .areas, the existing soil shouid be removed and recompacted 1 foot below the
proposed grade or to the competenthatiJral material whichever Is deeper.
6.1.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms
Solis exposed within areas approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of 6
Inches, conditioned to near optimum moIsture content, then compacted in-place to minimum
project standards.
e
6.1.4 Structural Backfill
The onslte soils may be used as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and
debris. Solis Imported from off-site sources should be non-expansive and should be approved
by the soil engineer prior to transporting to the site. Fills.should be placed in relatively thin lifts,
brought to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to obtain at least 90 percent
relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM D-1557-04.
6.1.5 Wall Backfill
The backfill of the proposed retalning wailS and any other structures should be compacted. All
soil backfill should be compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the
ASTM D-1557.o4. No flooding andlor jetting is allowed for the onsile solis. Observation and
testing of all compac~on shOuld be performed under the direction .of the project geotechnical
engineer.
6,1;6 TestlnO.and Reoortlno
Fill solis should be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the necessary moisture and
compaction is achieved. The results of observation and testing services should be presented In
the compaction report after the completion of the rough grading of th!,\site.
e
11819 Goldring Road. UnltA. Arcadia, CA91008; Phone: 626-263-3588: Fax: 626-263-3599
Nevis Construction
EGL Project No.: 07-177-002EG
Page 7 of 11
September 20, 2007
e
e
6.2 Shallow Foundation Design
6.2.1 Bearino Velue I
An allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may b~ used for design of shallow
continuous footings 12 Inches wide, and shallow pad footings at least 24 square inch. All
footings should be at least 18 inches below the lowest adJac~t grade and founded on
competent bedrock. This value may be Increased by 200 pounds per square foot for each
i
additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 3500 poundS per square foot. This
1
value may be Increased by one-third. when considering shortduratio~ seISmic or wind !oads.
6.2.2 Foundatlon.Setback . I
Residential foundations should be setback from the adjacent as~endlng slopes per current
building code HI2 but no more than 15fe!lt (H = height of the asc~ndlng slope) and adjacent
. I
descending slopes per current building code H/3 (H= total height- of the descend{ng slope) or
5,0 feet minimum. I
It is recommended that a minimum horizontal distance of five feat be malnialned between the
face of the slope to all retainIng wall footings. No passive pressure Is allowed for the portion of
the footings that maintain less than 5 horlz~lIltal feat be!Weenthe face of the slopes and the
,
edge of the footings.
6.2.3SetUement
Settlement of the footings placed as recommended and subject to no more than .allowable
loads Is not expected to exceed 3/4 inch. Differential. settlement between adjacent columns is
not anticipated 10 exceed 1/4 inch.
.
6.2.4 Lateral Pressure
,
The acliveearth pressure to be utilized for cantilever retaining wall designs may be computed
as an equivalent fluid pressure having a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pel) whim tHe
slope Of the retained soil behind the wallis level. Where the slope of the. back retained sallis
2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 (pcf) may be used and where the slope of back retained
5011 Is 1.5:1, an equivalent fluid pressure .0.1 55 (pcf)may be used; Walls that are restrained
against lateral movement OJ' rotation at the top may be designed for'the at"rest equivalent fluid
pressure, An at-rest fluid weighting of 65 pounds per cubic foot maybe used for free-cfrainlng,
level retained salls. Where the slope of the back re.tainedsoil Is 2:1, an equivalent fluid
11819 Goldring Road, UnIIA. Arcadia, CA 91006: Phone: 626-26W588; Fax: 62&.263-3599
Nevis Construction
EGL Project No.: 07-177-li02EG
Page8of11
September to, 2001
e
pressure of 75 (pet) may be used and 85 (pet) can be used W"h~re the back retained soil is
I
1.5:1. Any surcharge loads from the adjacent structures should be Included in the retaining wall
,
design. The above values'assume free:<lralnlng conditions.
e
I
Passiile earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf, with a
maximum earth pressure of 3000 pst. An allowable coefficient qf friction between soil and
concrete of 0.4 may be used with the dead load forces. When com~ining passive pressure and
frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one third (1/3).
\
I
6.3 Foundation Construction I
It Is anticipated that the entire structure will be underlain by onslte :solls of very low expansion
potential. The following presented our recommendations for the fou~dation construction.
I
I
All footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 181nchesl below the lowest adjacent
ground surface, All continuous footings should have at least one Nd, 4 reinforcing bar placed at
I
the top and one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the bottom of the fqotings. A grade beam of at
least 12 inches square, reinforced as recommended above for footings, .should be utilized
across the garage entrance. The base of the reinforced beam shoJld be at the same elevation
as the bottom of the adjoining footfngs. !
I
6.4 Concrete Slabs. . I
Concrete slabs should be.a minimum of 4 Inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-
. . ,
10/10 welded wire mesh or its equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure
I
proper positioning .durlng placement of concrete. The garage slab ;should be constructed per
structural plans. A positive separation should be maintained with ,expansive joint material to
permit relative movement. Concrete slabs in moisture sensitive arEll!s should be underlain with
a vapor barrler'consists of a minimum of six-mil polyethylene memb~ne ~th all laps sealed. A
I
minimum of one inch of sand should be placed over the membrane to aid in uniform curing of
concrere. . I.
I
\
6.5 RetalnlngWall I
Wall should be provided will) subdrains to reduce the potential fo~ the buildup of hydrostatic
pressure. Backdrains could consist of free drainage materials (SE <if 30 or greater) or GalTran
Class 2 permeable materials Immediately behind the wall and exler/ding to within 18 inches of
I
e
,
\
\
11819 G6lil~ng Road. VoltA, Arcadia, CA 91006; Phone: 626-263-3588; Fax: 628-2,63-3599
Nevis Construction
EGL Project No.: 07"lT1'-o02EG
Paga9ofl1
Sepiamber 20, 2007
.
the ground surface. A perforated pipe could be Installed at the I base. of the backdraln and
,
sloped to discharge to a suitable colJection faclllty or through' weep holes. Alternatively,
commercially available drainage fabric could be used. The fab~c manufacturer's
recommendations should be folloWed In the installation of the dralnJge fabric backdrain.
,
I
I
6.6 Overexcavatlon
Cut pads should be observed by the project geotechnIcal consulta~t to detennlne the need for
overexcavatlon.and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to :reduce water Infiltration Into
I
highly frectured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansion
characteristics offoundation materials.
7.0 S!:ISlVIIC DESIGN
.
Thefellowlng 1997 UBC (Chapter 16A) seismic related values'may be used:
I
Seismic Zone 4 I
Seismic Zone Factor (Z) 0.4 I
I
I
I
I
!
Soil Profile Type - Table 16-J
SEilsmlc Coefflclerit Ca (16-Q)
Cv (16-R)
Sc
O.40Na
0.56Nv
Near Source Factor Na (16-S) 1.3
Nv (16"T) 1.6
B ,
Raymond Fault (<2.0 Kilometers)
I
I
Uniform Building Code design Is Intended to accommodate horizon~1 accelerations up to 0.4g
for S.elsmic Zone 4. The proposed structures should be designed to accommOdate this
. . ,
aCceleration, ,at a minimum. HoWever, the Project Structural Engin~er .should be aware oflhe
Information provided above to determine If C!ny additional sjructural sirengtheriing Is warranted.
Seismic Source Type (16-U)
Causative Fault (Distance)
.
8.0 CORROSION POTENTIAL
I
I
Chemical laboratory tests were conducted on the eXisting onsile nearsUiface materials
sampled during EGL's field Investigation to aid in evaluation of soli i:orroslon potential and the
I
attack on concrete by sulfate solis. The testing results are presented, In the Appendix B,
I
11819 Goldrlng Road. UnIt A, Arcadia, CA 91006; Phone: 626.2il3-'3588: Fax: 628-263-'3599
,
,
File' ., TPM 07-05, RM 07-01, & TR 08-04
e
(I
,
CITY OF ARCADIA:
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
Dave/opment Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive - Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I
1. ProjElctTltle: I
,
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775)1 Residential Mountainous
Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No.
TR 08-04 I
I
I
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Name: steven Lee, .Assistant Planner
Phone: (626) 574-5444/ Fax - (626) 447-9173
Email: slee@ci.arcadia.ca.us
e 4. Project Location:
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) 'proposes to subdivide an
approximately 83-acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue,
and north and northwest of Canyon Road in the northerly foothiils of the City of Arcadia,
adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, in Los Angeles CounfY.
The Residential Mountainous Development Permit (Application No. RM 07-01) is
required for the grading of an approximately three (3) acre al':ea at the southerly portion
of the above-described property that fronts the westerly side of Canyon Road between
2109 and 2127 Canyon Road.
5. Project ~ponsor's Name and Address:
Nevis Homes
650 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
6. General Plan Designation:
SFR-4 - Single-Family Residential, up to 4 dwelling units per ecre: Provides for low-
density single-family detached residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by
large lot single-family homes on lots between 10,000 and 22,000 square feet in size.
Appropriate uses include single-family residences on a single lot, the keeping of large
animals, and individual private recreational facilities.
e 7. Zoning Classification:
R-M - Residential Mountainous Single-Family Zone
CECA Env. Checklist (Form" J") Part 1
-1-
6/06
.
.
.
I
I
File Nos. TPM 07.Q5, RM 07.Q1, & TR 08-04
8. Description of Project: !
(Describe the whole action Involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support. or off-site features necessary for its implementatiol). Attach additional sheet(s) If
necessary. )
The propased project invalves the subdivisian af an 83. 15-acre undevelaped property in the
foathills af Arcadia Into. three (3) parcels. Two. (2) af the newly created lats wauld be
develaped with new single-family dwellings while the third lat would remaIn undeveloped.
Three (3) appllcatlans are necessary for conslderatian af the propased project:
. Tentative Parcel Map Application No.. TPM 07-05 (69n5) Is' required to.
subdivide the property Into three (3) lats. Parcel 1 wauld be approximately two.
(2) acres In area and Parcel 2 wauld be approximately 0.82 acres in area. The
remaining parcel, Parcel 3, wauld be approximately 80.33 acres In area and has
nat been designated far any develapment or Improvement at this time.
. Residential Mauntalnaus Develapment Permit Application No.. RM 07-01 Is
required far the. grading af Parcels 1 & 2. Parcel 1 is propased to. be improved
with a two. (2) stary, 5,490 square"faat residence ana 2,940.5 square-foat pad,
while Parcel 2 is propased to. be develaped with a two. (2) stary, 5,110 square-
foat residence an a 2,991.5 square-foat pad. The grading to. accommadate the
proposed develapments would Invalve approximately 5,000 cubic-yards af cut
and 40 cubic-yards af fill.
. Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 0~04 is necessary because the proposed
grading and construction would require the remaval, af ar encroachment upan
twelve (12) existing Oak trees depending on several constructian factors.
The applicant has estimated that construction af the abave mentianed project wauld result
In 108 truck trips. The propased truck route ;s sauth an Canyan Raa.d to. Elkins Avenue,
west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 Freeway, east ta.the 605 Freeway, sauth to
the 60 Freeway, and east to the Puente Hills Landfill.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the praject's surroundings.)
Narth: Angeles NatIonal Forest - Undevelaped hillside and mauntainaus terrain
canslsting of relatively undisturbed native vegetatian and wildlife
Sauth: Existing hillside law-density single-family residential neighbarhaads within the City
of Arcadia .
East: Arcedia Wilderness Park and existing hillside low-density single-family residential
neighbarhaods within the City af Arcadia
West: Undeveloped hillside and mauntainaus terrain and ~xisting law-density single-
family residential neighbarhoods in the City of Sierra Madre
10. Other public agencies whose approval Is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or particlpallon agreement)
Nane
CEOA Env. Checklist (Form' J') Part 1
-2-
6/06
.
.
.
I
File Nos. TPM 07-05, RM 07-01, & TR 08.04
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affectlld by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potllntially Significant Impacf as indicatlld by thll ChllCklist on thll
following paglls.
[ I Aesthetics
[ ] Biological Resources
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
[ I Minerai Resources
[ ] Public Services
[ I Utilities I Service Systems
[ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Cultural Resources [ I Geology I Soils
[ I Hydrology I Water Quality i [J Land Use I Planning
[ ] Noise I [ I Population I Housing
[ ] Recreation [ I Transportation I Traffic
[ I Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initialllvaluation:
[] I find that thll proposlld projllct COULD NOT havll a I significant llffllCt on thll
environmllnt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bll prllparlld.
,
[X] I find that although thll proposlld project could havll a significant llffllct on thll
environmllnt, thllre will not bll a significant llffllct in this caSll bllcaUSll rllvisions in the
projllct havll betm madll by or agreed to by thll project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prllpared.
[] I find that thll proposlld projllct MAY havll a significant llffllct on thll environmllnt, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I
[ ]
,
I find that thll proposed projllCt MAY have a "potllntially significant" or "potllntially
significant unlllss mitigatlld" impact on thll llnvironment, but at least one llffllCt 1) has
belln adequately analYZlld in an earlier document pursuant to applicablll Illgal
standards, and 2) has bllen addrllsslld by mitigation measurllS based on thll earlillr
analysis as described on attached shllets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
rllquired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to beaddrllSSlld.
[ ]
I find that although the proposlld projllct could havll a significant effllct on thll
llnvironment, because all potllntially significant llffects (a) have been analyzed
adequatllly in an earlillr EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicablll
standards, and (b) have been avoidlld or mitigatlld pursuant to that llarlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposlld upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
~~
Signature
Date
7/'2.//0"&
.
steven Lee. Assistant Planner
Printed Name & Title
For: Jim Kasama
Community D,evalopment Administrator
CECA Env. Checklist (Fonn " J") Part 1
-3-
6106
.
.
.
I
File Nos. TPM 07-05, RM 07-01, & TR 08-04
I
I
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation Is required for all answers except "No Impacf' answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites In the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impacf' aoswer' is adequately supported If the referenced information sources show that the
Impact simply does not apply to projects like the one Involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impacf' answer should be explained where It Is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, Including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, Indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
Impacts.
3) Once the iead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must iodlcate whether the impact is potentially significant. less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there Is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation InCOrPorated" applies where the
Incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impacf' to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must desCl'\b~ the mi~gatlon measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII. "Earlier Analyses," may be,cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tI~lng, Ilrogram EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the follol'(lng:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are 'Less than Signiflcent with MItigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate Into the checklist referenees to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A sourCe list should be attached" and other sources used or
Individuals contacted should be cited In the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format Is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should Identify:
a) the signlflcance criteria or threshold, If any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, If any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
CEOA Env. Checklist (Form. J") Parl1
-4-
6/06
.
.
.
Issues:
l'le Nos.: TPM 07-05. RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
I
I Less Than
i Slgnlflcant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Slgnlflcant No
Impact Inc6rpomtion Impact Impact
I
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
[X)
[ I
[ I
[ ]
Although the proposed project would alter a portion of the project site from an undisturbed hillside
to a low-density sIngle-family residential development, the vast majority of the site (over 80 acres)
would remain In its naturel, undeveloped state. Furthermore, the proposed residences would be
built below the rldgellne of the h/11 to preserve the view of the hillside and rldgeline from the
surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed residences have.been reviewed and epproved
by the Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board, which found the project's
conceptual design to be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding properties (Source Nos. 12
& 14).
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees. rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? [ I ] [X) [] [ I
The portion of Canyon Road which is affected by this project is not 'within e scenic highway area.
As previously stated, the proposed homes would be located below the rldgeline so as not to alter
the view of the hillside from the surrounding properties. There are no rock outcroppings or historic
buildings on the site. However, due to the steepness of the slope arid the significant grading work
that Is required, up to twelve (12) mature Coast Uve Oak trees and one (1) California Sycamore
would be removed or encroached upon. The applicant has agreed io mitigation measures for the
lost trees, Including the planting of acorns throughout the site. One particularly large and visible
Oak tree would be preserved (Source Nos. 9 & 12).
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of. the site and its surroundings? [ I [ ] [X) [ ]
While a portIon of the site would be altered In appearance, implementation of the project would not
substantiany degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The proposed low-
density, slngle-famlly residences are consistent with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the
vast mf!jority of the site would remain undeveloped.
d) Create a new source, of substantial light or glare. which would
adversely affect day or nighttime vlaws in the area? [ ] [ ] [X) [ I
The Introduction of light and glare associated with the proposed two (2) new residences would
create a new source of light and glare in the area, but given the proximity of the site to other
existing residences, the new lighting would not be out-of-charecter for the area end would not
adversely affect day or nighttime views (Source No. 12).
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agriCUltural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Callfomla Dept. ~f Conservation as an optional
model to use In assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency. to non-
agricultural use? [ ] [ I [I [X)
The project site has not been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of
statewide Importance (Source Nos. 1, 2 &3).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form" J") Part 2
- 5-
6/06
.
.
.
,1Ie,Nos.:-TPM 07-05, RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
Issues:
I Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant MItigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williemson Act contract
(Source Nos. 1,2 & 3).
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result In conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [ I [ ] [] [X]
There is no farmland within or in the vicinity of the project site (Source Nos. 1,2 & 3).
,
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the slgniflcance criteria established, by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: '
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? [ i] [ I [] [X]
The proposed project would be in compliance with the,City's adoptep General Plan and therefore
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan
developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCA'QMD) (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? [ I [X] [ ] [ ]
The project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles
and Orange Coupties as well as portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality
measurements in tha SCAB region consistently exceed both State and Fedarel air quality
standards. Because the project is in compliance with the land use dansityallowed in the City's
General Plan, any long-term air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the project
would be less than significant. In the short term, air pollutants usually not present In the
immediate area would be emitted by construction equipment and dust/particulate matter would be
generated during the grading and site preparation. Therefore, standard mitigation measures for
site preparation, such as watering the grading site and street sweeping, would be Implemented
during the construction phase. With these measures in place, any air quality impacts resulting
from the projact would be less than significant (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 12).
I
cJ Result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region Is nonattainment
under an eppllcable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (Including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precllrsOrs)? [ ] [X] [] [J
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) Is a nonattainment area for Ozone (031, Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.~, Respirable Particulate Matter (PM1oJ, and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is a
maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NOv. Any pollutants produced by the proposed project
would be a miniscule portion of the total air pollutant emissions across the basin. Nevertheless,
standard mitigation measures would be enforced during construction and site preparation to
minimize the project's air quality impacts. If these measures .are properly Implemented, the
proposed project would not result In a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant (Source No. 12).
CEOA Env. Checklist (Form..I") Perl 2
-6-
6/06
I
hie Nos.: TPM 07.05. RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
I
e
Issues:
Less Than
I Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact
No
Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentratlona? [ I [XI [I [I
The neerest sensitive receptor to the project site is Highlend Oeks Elementary School, which is
located at 10 Vil11inia Road, approximately one (1) mile away from the project site. Despite the
substantial distance between the project site and school, the proposed project would affect
Highland Oaks School during the construction and site preparetion 'phase because the proposed
truck route passes the westem edge of the school on Santa Anlte Avenue. In order to minimize
the Impact of the trucks' pollutants to a less than significant level, $fandard mitigation measures
such as the cleaning and maintenance of trucks anrj the suspension of work during smog alerts
would be Implemented (Source Nos. 1.2& 12).
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? [ ] [ ] [] [XI
The proposed residential use would not generate objectionable odors. The fumes emitted from
the construct/on equipment would not affect a substantial number of people (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
e
a} Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status speCies in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Ash and Wildlife
Service? [ ] [] [XI []
Although the project site "S located In an area which could potentIally contain plant and animal
species that ere considered endangered, rare or threatened by State and Federal government
agencies, biological field surveys conducted In Spring 2000 In the project area determined that no
such plant or animal species were present at the site proposed for development. Addltional/y,
over 80 acres of undisturbed hillside would be preserved as part of this proposel (Source No. 12).
b) Have a subsll!lntlal adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitiVe natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? [ i ] [XI [] [ ]
There are no riparian habitats withIn the project area. The only p~tentially sensitive habitat that
would be affected by the construct/on is a grouping of Coast Live Oaks at the upper portion of the
gredlng area. This grouping of Oaks could be defined as Southem Coast Live Oak Woodland due
to the trees' canopy structure. Depending on construction factorS, It may be possible to save
some or all of these Oak trees. If the trees must be removed, mitigation measures such as the
planting of replacement trees and acorns throughout the site would be required. By far the largest
tree In the project area, a 74" trunk diameter Coast Live Oak, would be preserved. Finally, over
80 acres of the project site (Parcel No.3) would remain undeveloped under the current proposal.
In order to preserve this natural community and prevent any future development, the City would
require a Generel Plan amendment and zone change of Parcel No. 3 from Residential
Mountainous to Open Space and the establishment ota funding, mechanism to maintain the
properly In perpetuity (Source Nos. 9, 10, 11 & 12).
.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form' J") Part 2
-7-
6/06
.
.
.
I
I "Ie Nos.: TPM 07'()5, RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
I
I
Issues:
Less Than
Slgnlflcant
Potentially With Less Than
Slgnlflcant Mitigation Slgnlflcant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh. vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
[ I
[ I
[X]
[ I
,
There are no wetlands at or near the project site (Source Nos. " 2 ~. 12).
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [ , I [ ] [X] []
,
There are no native residents within the project area. Wildlife movement confdoTS may be present
in the project area, but not in the 3-acre erea to be developed. "TI!erefore, the proposed project
will not Interfere with any native resident or wildlife movement confdors (Source No. 12).
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
[X]
[I
[ I
[ ]
Acoording to the CiIy's adopted Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance,: removal of or encroachment
upon any Oak tree meeting cerlain trunk diameter requirements requIres City approval and an
assessment from a Certified Arborist. Additionally, the removal of any Oak, Sycamore,
Uquidambar, Magnolia, or Pine tree is subject to approval by the Highland Homeowners'
Association's Architecturel Review Board. Under the current proposEl', up to 12 Oak trees and one
Sycamore tree may need to be removed and/or encroached upon. A Certified Arborist has
reviewed the proposal and deemed the removals and encroachments to be necessary.
Additionally, the proposal has been conditionally approved by the Highland Homeowners'
Associafion's Architecturel Review Board. With the incorporation of mitigation meesures,
including preseNing 80 acres of the site as permanent open space and planting acorns and
replacement trees throughout the site, the project's impect on the site's protected trees would be
lass than significant (Source Nos. 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17).
f) Conflict with the prOVisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [ I I [ I [] [X]
The project site is not within the boundaries or vICinity of an adopted or proposed local, ~Ional,
or state habitat consarvation plan (Source Nos. 1. 2 & 12).
V. CUL1'URAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in li 15064.5? [ I [ I [I [X]
While there are a number of historic resources within the City of Arcadia and the San Gabriel
Valleyerea, there are no such resources within the project area (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
b) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to li 15064.5? [ I [ I [I [X]
,
There are no known archaeological resources at the project. site. Should any potential
archaeological resources be detected during the clearing/grading phase of the project, all ground
disturbance activities shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist shall be called in to
examine the rasources (Source Nos. 1,2, 11 & 14).
CEOA Env. Checklist (Form" J") Part 2
-8-
6/06
e
e
e
"Ie Nos.: TPM 07-05. RM 07-01 &TR 08-04
Less Than
Slgnfflcant
Potentielly Wlth Less Than
Slgnlftcant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact InCO>jlOlBtion Impact Impact
I
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological :
resource or site or unique geologic feature? [ : I [ J [I [)(]
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project erea.
Should any such resources or features be detected during the clearing/grading phase of the
project, all ground disturbance activities shall be suspended and qualified axparls shall be called
In to examine the resources or features (Source Nos. 1,2 & 14).
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
offormal cemeteries? [ J [ ] [J [)(]
Human remains, either formally or informally buried, are not known; to be present on or near the
project site (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 14).
VI. GEOLOGY AI\lD SOilS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, lnaluding the risk of loss, injury or death Involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake faul~ as delineated on
the most recant Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by iIle State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [ II [ I [I [)(]
The most recant Alquist-Priolo Earthqake Fault Zoning Map issued, for the area (19n) does not
identify any earthquake faults within the project area. Additionally" field and laboratory research
conducted by the applicant's geotechnical engineer confirmed that t/lere are no active faults within
the boundary of the project site. The closest active fault zone Is thf!Slerra Madre-5an Femando
Fault Zone. which is located 0.2 miles from the project area. othf!r significant activa faults are
within 26 miles, the closest of which are the ClamshelJ-Sawpit Fault and the Raymond Fault.
Although the projact area would experienca strong seismic ground shaking dua to the proximity of
the previously mentioned faults, there is no risk of ground rupture within the boundaries of the
projact site (Source Nos. 7, 11. and 12).
Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
[)(]
[ ,J
[ J
[ J
Any development on the project site would unavoidably be expos,ed to significant seismically-
induced ground shaking. The project site is within 0.2 miles of the active Sierra Madre-San
Femando fault zone and other significant active fault zones are within 26 mi/as. Tha Sierra
Madre-San Femando fault zone is considered to have the most significant seismic effect on the
project site and would be the primary factor in the grading design and construction design of the
project. In addition. many other faults and fault zones. Including ti)e Mojave section of the San
Andreas fault zone are capable of generating earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking that
would affect any development in the project area. Implementation of the project would
unavoidably expose peopla and structures to significant adverse seismically-induced ground
shaking effects that could result in loss, injury, or death. However, as tha proposed structures
would be designed to accommodate minimum horizontal accalerations pursuant to the Uniform
Building Code, the adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking would be less than
significant (Source 12).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form' J') Part 2
-9-
6/06
.
.
.
i1,18 Nos.: TPM 07.Q5. RM 07.Ql & TR 06-04
I Less Than
Significant
Po!el)tially Wllh Less Than
Significant MItigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
iii) Selsmic-related.ground failure, including liquefaction? [ I [ I [] [Xl
The project would not be exposed to significant adverse ground failure or liquefaction because the
site is underlain with solid quartz diorite bedrock material and there Is no ground water.
Additionally, according to the MI. Wilson Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones map released on
March 25, 1999, the project is not located in an area where: there have been historical
occUlTencas of liquefaction, or where there is a potential for permanent ground displacements
(Source Nos. 11 and 12).
Iv) Landslides [ ] [ ] [Xl [ ]
There are no existing naturelly-occurring landslides present on the project site, which is. underlain
by solid quartz diorite bedrock and covered for the most part with a thin mantle of residual soils or
slopewash. The project is within a region of ste.ep, unstable slopes where landslides have
historically occurred or where local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurfaca water
conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. However, the grading plan
for the project would raduce the steepness of the slope and includes site preparation measures
that would minimize the risk of/andslides (Source Nos. 11 and 12).
b) Resultln substantial soli erosion or the loss of topsoil? [ ] [ ] [Xl [I
Although topsoil would be removed during the grading phase of f/le projact, the dreinage and
landscaping for the project would reduce any soil erosion to a less ithan significant level (Source
No. 12).
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soli that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result. of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [ ] [Xl [] [ ]
The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. Any strata, soil, or
slope instability resulting from the project would be mitigated to a less than significant degree
through the mitigation measures recommended by the applicant's g,eotechnical engineer (Source
Nos. 11 and 12).
d) Be located on expansive soli. as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? [ II [ ] [] [Xl
I
The proposed project is not located on expansive soli and would not result In any substantial risks
to life or properly (Source No. 12). . I
e) Have solis incapable of adequately suPportin9 the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
[ ]
[Xl
[ I
[ ]
The project would connect to the existing public sewage system. Therefore. no septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems would be necassary (Source No.4).
CEOA Env. Checklist (Form' J') Part 2
-10-
6/06
e
e
e
Issues:
'Ie Nos.: TPM 07-05, RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
: Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Slgnlflcant MItigation Slgnlflcant No
ImPact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
I
i
[I]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
[ I
[X]
[ ]
,
ACCOrding to the applicant, the proposed project would not use pr dispose of any potentialiy
hazardous materials, such as toxic or flammable substances or explosives (Source No.4).
I
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions InvoMng the release of hazardous materials Into
the environment? [ ] [ I [] [X]
The proposed project would not release any hazardous materials Into the environment (Source
No.4).
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials. substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [ I
The proposed project would not emit any hazardous emissions
hazardous materials, substances, or waste (Source No.4).
[ ]
[X]
[ I
and does not involve any
d) Be located on a site which Is included on a list 01 hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would It create a signifiCant
hazard to the public or the environment? [ I [ ] [] [X]
The proposed project area is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Govemment
Code section 65962.5 and therefore would not result In a significant hazard to the public or the
environment (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 4).
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a publIc
airport or public use airport, would the project resull'ln a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed project Is not located within an airport land use plam The closest aIrport is the EI
Monte Airport, situated approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site In the City of EI Monte.
Since there are no public airports within two miles of the subject site, the projact would not result
In a safety hazard for paopla residing In the area (Source Nos. 1,2& 11). .
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a known private aifStrip (Source Nos. 1, 2
&1~. .
g) Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Although the proposed project is localed In a high fire h8Zard zone, implementation of the project
would not Interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposal
would comply with all Fire Department requirements (Source Nos. 1,,2, 12 & 18).
CEOA Env. Check/1st (Form "J") Part 2
-11 -
6/06
.
11e Nos.: TPM 07-05. RM 07-01 & TR 08.Q4
Less Than
Slgniflcant
Potentielly With Less Than
Slgniflcant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury I
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands I
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are ,
intermixed with wildlands? [ , ] [ ) [)(] [ ]
The project site Is located In an area that has bean designated as Very High Fire Hazard Zone 1
due to its steep slopes, native vegetation, and proximity to the Urban-Wildlife Interface. The
devalopment of residential projects within Fire Zone 1 must be In strict compliance with all
applicable code end ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and
fire hydrents. The prop08ed project would be camed out In compliance with these regulations.
Therefore, any risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from wildland fires would be less than
significant (Source N08. 1,2,12 & 18).
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
.
a) During project construction, will It create or contribute runoff
water thatwould violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? [ I [ I [)(] [ )
Construction of the prop08ed project would not create runoff water in violation of any waterquallty
standards or waste discharge requirements. Any potential Impacts would be less than significant
through the' implementation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) pursuant to
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (Source No.6).
I
b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute I
runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the !
CIty's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? [ , ) [ ] [)(] [ )
The greding work associated with the prop08ed project would not significantly alter drainage
patterns on the site. The roughly.3-acre area to be developed currently dreins onto Canyon Road
and then Into the City's stormwater drainage system. Additionally, since the project Is a single-
family hillside residential development of more than one acre, a Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) must be prepared and Implemented to ensure that the newly created
runoff water does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
(Source Nos. 6 & 18). !
c) Provide substantial additional sou.rces of polluted runoff from I
delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials I
are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, I
waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or
delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? [ I [ I [)(] []
The completed project would not Include any delivery areas, loading docks, or other areas where
hazardous materials, waste, or equipment would be stored or handled. Vehicles would be stored
in the driveways or garages of the proposed residences and would,not create additional sources
of polluted runoff. During tha grading and construction phase of the project, construction vahiclas
would be parked on flat surfaces away from the pUblic right-of-way and waste containment and
stockpile areas would be covered with plastic Sheeting to reduce polluted runoff to a less than
significant leval (Source Nos. 4, 6, 8 & 19).
.
CECA Env. Checklist (Fo"" "J") Part 2
-12-
6/06
.
Issues:
'~eNos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
I Less Than
I Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Slgnlflcarit Mitigation Significant No
Imliact Incorporation Impact Impact
d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of
receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit
are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and
sportftshlng; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater.
estuarine, wetland. marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water
contact or non-contact recreation; municipal and domestic
supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
The project proposflS storm drains, catch basins and V-gutters, on manufactured slopes in
accordancfl with City and Los Angfl/fls County Flood Control District standards. Implflmflntation
of thfl proposfld dralnagfl plan would control runoff watflr so that it would not flxcflfld thfl capacity
offlxlsting or plannfld stormwatflr dralnagfl systflms. No othflr benflficial USflS as listfld abovfl
would bfl affflctfld by thfl proposfld projflct (Sourcfl Nos. 4 & 6). I
.
e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to
the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? [ , ] [ ] [] [X]
Implflmflntatlon of thfl proposfld projf1ct would not result In thfl dischargfl of stormwatflr to caUSfl
significant harm' to thfl biological intflgrity of waterways or watflr bOdif1S, including municipal and
domflstic wfltflr supplifls, watflr contact, or non-contact. recreations and groundwatflr rechargfl
(Sourcfl No. 12). I
f} Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge I
requirements? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the violation ofRflglonal Water Quality
Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements through compliance with standard
water quality practices established by NPDES (Source No. 12).
g) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? [ I ] [ ] [X] []
The proposed project Involves the creation of impervious surfaces for driveways and residential
structures that could Interfere with groundwater recharge on the 2.82-acre development portion of
the project area. However, given the fact that over 80 acres of the site would be preserved in its
natural state, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfure substantially with ground water recharge restiltlng In a net deficit in aquifer volume or
lowering of the groundwater table level in the local area. Additionally, the project would not
adversely affect the production rate of any existing wells In the area and would not create a drop
In well water production rates to a level which WOuld not support existing or planned land uses
(Source Nos. 1, 2 & 5).
.
h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, Including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, In a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? [ ] [ ] [X] []
The project proposes grading that would alter drainage patterns on the 2.82-acre development
portion of the project area. However, any Increase in erosion or silt~tlon on- and off-site resulting
from the grading work would be less than significant The project would not alter the course of a
stream or river (Source Nos. 5, 6 & 12).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form 0 JO) Part 2
-13-
6/06
.
I
,lie Nos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
r Less Then
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Iml1"ct Incorporation Impact Impact
i) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off-site? [ ] [ ] [X] []
As previously stated, the'slte may experience a short-term increase In erosion on- and off-site due
to the required grading for the project; however, any increase would be less than significant In
the long term, the use of retaining walls, concrete swales, and slope stabilization practices could
actually reduca erosion at tha project site (Source Nos. 5, 6, & 12).
j) Substantially aiter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site? [ , ] [ ] [X] []
The project would alter existing dralnflge patterns on a portion of the site and may Increase the
rate and/or amount of surfuce runoff. However, the Inclusion of storm drains, catch basins, V-
gutters, etc. would ensure that any increase in runoff would be less: than significant (Source Nos.
1,2,5&6).
.
k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing .or planned storm water drainage
systems? [ ) [ ] [X] []
The project proposes storm drains, catch basins and V-gutters on manufactured slopes per City
and Los Angeles County Flood Control District standards. Implementation of the proposed
drainage plan would control runoff water so that it would not exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems (Source Nos. 4 & 6).
I) Slgnlflcantiy alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater
runoff in a manner that results In environmental harm?
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
The grading work associated with the proposed project would not significantly alter drainage
patterns of the site. The roughly 3-acre area to be developed currentiy drains onto Canyon Road
and then Into the City's storm water drainage system. Additionally, the proposed development
would Incorporate the minimum project requirements of the Public Works Department (Source
Nos. 6 & 18).
rn) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ,j [ ] [X] []
The proposed project would be required to implemflnt a Standard: Urban Stormweter Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Implemantatlon of this plan would reduce potential impacts to water quality standards to a less
than significant level (Source Nos. 5 & 6).
n) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard del.ineatlon map? [ ), [ ] [] [X]
The project does not propose to locate housing within a 10o-year'ffoOdplaln as mapped on the
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or other ffood hazard delineation map .(Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5
& 6).
.
0) Place within a 10o-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The project site Is not located within a 10o-year ffoOdplain. The proposed project would not place
structures in such a way that would Impede or redirect f/oodffows (S(,urce Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5'& 6).
I
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form" J') Part 2
-14-
6/06
.
.
.
Issues:
,
: 'Ie Nos.: TPM 07..05. RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
,
I Less Then
: Significant
Potentielly With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imqact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
,
p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury
or death Involving flooding, Including flooding as a rf1Sult of
the failure of a levee or dam?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
The project site is not located within the Inundation area of any levees or dams Source Nos. 1 &
4).
q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow? [ ] [ ] [X] []
Due to the long distances between the proposed project site and tha Pacific Ocean or any sizable
lakes, there will be no seiche or tsunami impacts. Any increase In mudnow resulting from the
project will be less than significant as If1SS than 3 acres of the project site will be affected by
grading work. Additionally, retaining walls, concrete swales, and slope stabilization practfces will
minimize erosion/siltation at the project site (Source Nos. 5, 6 & 12).
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? [ ] [ ] [) [X]
The project site is located toward the extreme northern edge of the City of Arcadia and the
proposed two (2) new single-family resldflnces would be situatad betw.een existing single-family
rasidences off of an existing road (Canyon Road). Additionally, f"()ughly 80 acres of tha project
site would be lelt in its natqral, undisturbed condition. Therefore, the proposed project would not
physically divide an established community (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 5).
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with Jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The project site's General Plan Land Use Classification is Single-Family Residential (SFR-4). The
project slte's Zoning Classification Is Residential Mountainous Single-Family Zone (R-M). The
design of the proposed two (2) single-family residences would comply with all applicable zoning
standards with the exception of the minimum setback from the side property lines. The df1Signs of
the proposed two (2) single-family residences have been conceptually approved by the
Architectural Review Board of tha Highlands Homeowners' Associatfon, which has architectural
design review authority over the subject property (Source Nos. 1, 3 & 15). .
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The project site Is not within the boundaries or vicinity of an adopted or proposed habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (Source Nos. 1, 2. & 12).
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known minerai resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [] [ ] [] [X]
The project site is not located in or near an area known to contain minerai resources. Therefore,
Implementation of tha proposed project would not result in the lOss of availability of a known
mineral resource (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
CEQA Env. .Checkllst (Form oJ") Part 2
-15-
6/06
.
.
.
Issues:
,i'Ye Nos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07-01 & TR 08-04
Less Than
I Slgnlficant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant MlUgation Significant No
ImPact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally.'important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The project area doas not contain locally Important mineral resources and has not been identified
as a minerai resource site in the Arcedla General Plan (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
exCf1SS of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [ ] [X] . [] [ ]
The proposed project would produce short-term ,constru(;tfon-related noise which could potentially
exceed the City of Arcedia General Plan Noise and Land Use, Compatibility Guidelines for
residential zones. The noise would result from the grading work necessary to create the pads and
manufactured slopes for the two (2) single-family residences, from the construction-related traffic
driving to-and-from the site, from the truck trips necessary to export the graded earth material
from the site; and from the actual construction of the two (2) proposed residences. There are no
long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project. The construction-related noisa
impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant lavel by regulating construction hours and
days (Source Nos. 1,2,3 & 12).
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of eXCf1Ssive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Although adjacent residents may be exposed to groundbome vibraJion end groundboume noise
during the grading and construction phase of the project, these impacts are not expected to be
excessive or louder than expected from typical grading and construci!lon activities (Source Nos. 1,
2 & 12).
c) A substantial pemnanent Increase In ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
The short-term construction-related noise associated with the project would be a substentlal
increase from the existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; howevar, such noise levels
would not be permanent. In the long term, implementation of the prqposed project would result in
e marginal increase in residential and traffic noise on Canyon Road (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
d) A substantial temporary or periodic Incraase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? [ ] [X] [] [ ]
The project would create substential short-term (temporary) increases in ambient noise levels
during the time necessary to complete the grading and constructiofl of/he two (2) single-family
residences. These effects would be mitigated by enforcing limits on construction hours and days
(Source Nos. 1,2,3 & 12). I
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, or within two miles
ofa public airport or public use airport (Source Nos. 1,2& 11).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form oJO) Part 2
-16 -
6/06
.
e
.
Issues:
( ,-1e Nos.: TPM 07.:05, RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
I Less Than
I Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Slgnliicant MlUgation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels? [ '] [ ] [] [X]
The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not be subject to excf1Ssive
noise levels from airstrip operations (Source Nos. 1,2 & 11).
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, enher
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and I
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
[ '] [ ] [X) [ ]
road or other Infrastructure)?
The addition of two (2) new single-family residences at the designated portion of Canyon Road
would not exceed the density of the existing single-family residential developments adjacent to
and In the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, as over 80 acres' of the project area would be
designated as permanent open space through a zone change arid General Plan amendment,
implementation of the proposed project would deter any future deVelopment In the project area
(Source Nos. 1, 2 & 3). :
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
No existing housing would be removed as part of the proposed project (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4).
,
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
Because no existing housing would be removed as part of the proposal, the project doas not have
the potential to displace any individuals (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4).
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result In substantial adverse physical Impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental Impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Although the project site Is located in an area of very high fire hazard, the two proposed
residencf1S would be required to comply with the Fire Department's construction standards for the
high fire zone and would not substantially Increase the demand for fire services (Source Nos. 1, 2,
12 & 18).
Police protection? [, ) [ ] [X] []
The project represents an incremental increase in the number of dwelling units and population that
wpuld require police services. Existing police services will be a/;l/e'toadequataly serve the two (2)
proposed residences (Source Nos. 1,2, & 12).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Fonn . JO) Pari 2
-17-
6/06
,
I ',Ie Nos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07.01 & TR 08-04
.
Issues:
Less Then
, Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
Schools? [ i I
i
The project represents a marginal increase in the population that would not adversely affect the
local school district (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 12). I
[I]
[ ]
[X]
[ I
Other public facilities? [ ] [ ] [X] []
The proposed project represents an incremental increase in poptJlatlon such that other publiC
services provided by the City of Arcadia and other entities would not be significantly affected
(Source Nos. 1,2& 12).
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
.
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [ ] [ ] [X] []
The proposed two (2) new single-family residences would incremantally increase the use of
axisting neighborhood and regional parks. The payment of park and recreation impact fees would
help prevent the physical deterioration of thfl City's parks and recreational facilities (Source Nos.
1,2&3).
b) Does the project Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the enVironment? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
No recreational facilities would be built as part of the proposal. The two (2) new single-family
residences would not require the construction or substantial expansion of recreational facilities.
Existing recreational facilities In the City are adequate to serve the two additional residences
(Source Nos. 1 & 2).
XV.TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC. Would the project:
.
a) Cause an Increase In traffic which Is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [ I [X] [] []
The proposed project would generate both short-term, construction-related treffic and long-term
resident, guest, and services traffic impacts. Short-term traffic would result from vehicle trips
associated with site grading and construction. !tis estimated that thl! grading for the project would
require 108 truck trips to transport the graded earth material to the Puente Hills Landfifl. Truck
traffic would bf1gin etthe project site, continue south on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, continue
west to Santa Anita A venue, and travel south to the 210 fi'eeway. ""'e truck traffic impacts would
be mitigated to a less than significant level by limiting the hours and days during which haUling
could occur. Traffic associated with construction, as well as the tong-term treffic Impacts, are
anticipated to be less than significant (Source Nos. 12 & 19).
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form. J") Part 2
-18 -
6/06
le Nos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07..01& TR 08-04
.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: ImPact Incorporation Impact Impact
,
I
b) Exceed, either Individually or cumulatively, a leVel of service ,
standard established by the county congestion management I
agency for designated roads or highways? [ ] [X] [] []
,
In the short term, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on the
affected streets and highways; however. implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that
these traffic Impacts are less than significant. Long-term residential and services traffic to and
from the two (2) new residences would represent a marginal increase In the area's traffic.
Therefore, the proposed project would not individually or cumulatll{ely exceed a level-of-servlce
standard established by the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, and Ca/trans (Source Nos. 12
& 19).
.
c) Result In a change In air traffic patterns, including either an
Increase In traffic levels or a change In location that results In ,
,
substantial safety risks? [ , ]
The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns (Source No.4).
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The project scope Is fairly limited and does not'include new streets, ,roads, or Intersections. The
driveways for the two (2) new residenCf1S would comply with the City's vehicular visibility
standards for driveways. Staff does not anticipata any Increased hazards due to the project's
design features or uses (Source Nos. 3 & B). I
I
I
e) Result in Inadequate emergency access? [I ] [] [X] [ ]
The schedule for the export truck trips and the construction staging plan would ensure that
adequate emergency access is available at all times during the construction and greding phase.
The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access for the two (2) new residences
as both.dwellings would front Canyon Road (Source No. 19). '
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
f) Result In Inadequate parking capacity? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
The schedule for the export truck trips and the construction staging plan would ensure that
adequate parking is available at all times during grading and construction. In the long term, the
proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. The two proposed residences
will both have a two-car garage and a flat driveway arae large enough to accommOdata two
additional v~hicles (Source Nos. 8 and 19). : .
,
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting I
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ I ] [ ] [] [X]
The project does not conflict with adopted pollcif1S supporl;ng alternatiVe methOds of
transportation. The proposed residences would be located within an existing single-family
residential neighborhoOd (Source Nos. 1,2,3 & 5).
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? [ ] [ ] [] [X]
The two (2) new residences would be served by the existing sewer line in Canyon Road. The
project is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements (Source No. 1B).
CEQA Env, Checklist (Form. J") Part 2
-19-
6/06
.
.
.
Issues:
["ie Nos.: TPM 07..05. RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
i Less Than
I Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant MitlgaUon Significant No
Impact Incorporation Impact Impact
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [ ) [ ) [] [X]
The project would generate a minimal increase in demand for wastewater treatment services.
The wastewater flows generated by two (2) new residences would not triggar the need for new or
expanded water or wastewater treatmentfacilities (Source No. 18).
c) Require or result In the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects? [ i ) [ ] [] [X]
Thfl SUbjflct site currently drains onto Canyon Road and then into the City's storm drain system.
Construction of two (2) new homes would not require the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities. The only "expansion. of existing facilities would ,be the laterals to the existing
sewerlineln Canyon Road (Source No. 18).
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? In making this
determination. the City shall consider whether the project is
subject to the water supply assessment requirements of i
Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the I
requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). [I ] [ ]
Current water resources are sufficient to serve the proposed twO (2) new units.
expanded entitlements are required (Source No, 18).
[] [X]
No new or
e) Result in a detemnination by the wastewater treatment
provider which servf1S or may serve the project that It has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In
addition to the providers existing commitments? [ ] [ ) [] [X]
The wastewater flows generated by two (2) new units would not trigger the need for new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities (Source Nos. 1 & 2).
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [ ] [ ] [) [X]
During the grading phase of the project. graded earth material will be transported to the Puente
Hills Landfill, which has an adequate capacity to accommOdate the graded material. In the long
term, the amount of waste generated by two additional dwelling units would not adversely affect
landfill capacity, especially with the implementation of standard Solid waste disposal prectlces
(Source Nos. 1, < .12 & 19).
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? [: ]
The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal" state,
regarding solid waste treatment and disposal (Source Nos. 1, 2 & 12).
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
and local regu,latfons
CEQA Env. Checklist (Fonn "J.) Part 2
-20 -
6106
.
.
.
Issues:
',e Nos.: TPM 07..05, RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
Less Than
Significant
Potei1tially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Slgnlflcant No
ImPact Incorporation Impact Impact
I
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ,quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or
rf1Strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate Important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
[']
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
Although the proposed project would require the removal or encroabhment upon eleven (12) Oak
trefls and one (1) Sycamore trefl, implemflntation of the project would not result In a substantial
loss of habitat. Over 80 acres of the project site would be preserved In its natural state, and the
City would require that this area be permanently designated as 'open space to ensure that no
future development will occur within the project area. There is no evidence that implementation of
the project would eliminate a plant or animal community or cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels. Furthermore, field surveys have, verified that the project area
does not contain any rare or endangered plant or animal speclf1S. D,ue to the lack of prehistoric or
historic resources at or near the project site, such resources would riot be adversely affected by
thepro~~ .
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short4erm
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
t']
[ ]
[ ]
[X]
The proposed project doas not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Many of the environmental impacts associated
with the project would be short-term construction-related impacts that would have marginal long-
term environmental consequences. For example, most of the Impacts to air quality would occur
during the grading phase of the project due to the truck trips required to haul the graded earth
material to a landfill. In the long term, however, the two new residences would have little to no
Impact on the region's air resources. As previously noted, Implementation of mitigation measures
would ensure that any environmental Impacts would be less thansighificant.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable.
means that the incremental effects of a project are significant
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
, ,
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
[ ]
As Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of only two (2) new
dwelling units, staff does not believe that the project's environmental impacts would be
cumulatively considerable. The vast majority of the project area would be set aside as permanent
opan space; therefore, the long-term environmental impacts of the project would be less than
considerable even when viewed in connection with the effects 'of past, present, and future
projects. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning COde.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form .J.) Parl2
-21 -
6/06
.
.
.
, 'Ie Nos.: TPM07-05, RM 07..01 & TR 08-04
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Iml!"ct Incorporation Impact Impact
,
d) Does the pro]ect have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or Indirectly? [ I ]
I
Implementation of the proposed project would directly affect human beings in the form of noise, air
quality, aesthetic, and traffic impacts. However, implementation df mitigation measures during
grading and construction would ensure that these impacts are reduced to a less than significant
level. The long-term affect of two additional residences would not be substantial. The project's
impacts on water quality, geology and soils, and plant and animal resources could affect human
beings indlrectfy, although such impacts' would also be less than significant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
[ ]
[X]
[ ]
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form. J") Part 2
-22-
6/06
. City of Arcadia
Environmental Checklist Form !
Information Sources for Evaluation of Potential Impacts
1. City of Arcadia General Plan I
,
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadi~ General Plan
i
3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code I
4. Environmental Information Form for Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM
07-05 (69775) and R-M Permit Application No. R-M 07-01 filed October 1, 2007
I
5. Tentative Parcel Map 69775 dated September 10, 2007 I
I
,
6. Grading and Drainage Plan I Demolition & Erosion Contri:;ll Plan for Tentative
Parcel Map 69775 dated September 5, 2007 I
7. "Report of Geotechnical Engineering and GeologicallnvJstigation for Proposed
Two Single-Family Residential Development at PM 69775, Canyon Road,
Arcadia, California" prepared by Environmental Geotechnical Laboratory, Inc.
(Project No. 07-177-Q02EG) dated September 20,2007 :
. 8. Conceptual Architectural Plans with submittal date of Se~tember 28, 2007
9. "Report on Existing Trees" by Pieter Severynen dated November 15, 2007
10. City of Arcadia Oak Tree Preservation regulations (Ord. No. 1962 adopted
January 21, 1992 and amended by Ord. No. 2207 adopted on July 5, 2005
11. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA." 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California
Seismic Hazards Zone Map - Mt. Wilson Quadrangle - Preliminary Map -
Released: March 25,1999
12. Final Environmental Impact Report - Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative
Tract Map No. 51941 (SCH# 2001051034) dated ~ovember 1,2004
13. Technical Appendix for the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Highland Oaks
Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 (SCH #20030298) dated
August4,2004
14. Photographs of development site taken on November 7,2007
15. Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB)
conditional approval of the designs of the proposed two (2) new, single-family
residences - ARB file no. 2007-026 - date of ARB action: June 2, 2007
. 16. Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB)
.
.
.
17.
18.
19.
I
I
conditional approval of the tree removals discussed in item no. 9 - email from
Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman sent on January 25, 2008
City Council Resolution No. 5289 for the Highland Homeowners' Association
Responses to requests for comments:
. Police Dept. - No recommendations
. Public Works - Below SUSMP threshold. Project must implement Minimum
Project Requirements
. Water Division - see memorandum dated November 1, 2007 (no
extraordinary requirements)
I
. Building Services - All work to be in compliance with the 2007 California
Building Code and the Construction Requirements for Fire Zone NO.1
. Public Works - No special requirements for sewer connections
Fire Dept. - see Project Requirements dated 11/13/07
Engineering Services - See memorandum dated Nbvember 21,2007 for
standard conditions of approval '
Preliminary Construction Staging Plan for Rough Grading for Parcel Map No.
69775, dated March 6, 2008
.
.
.
.
N
W-<rE
S
.'
- I .
.
.
f"
Vie i r;;'+y Mar--
,PM 07.05 (6'171€)
P. M 01- 0 (
~
-
Subject f'rof'erty
R-~
.'
A-I
~ . ,
. .
R-\
e-'
'10
ft'l.. . .
. .
, . .
.
. .
.
ft., i' .. .
A~
.tD': :?'tD'
. . . .
f '. ..' ....
. . .
. Rob. 1M)
. .
:!'. "
: . ".' .: .
. . .
.' .
....
~I~
P
A-'
f~~'''''__I''''OO4.
~
e I
I
III
.. 2
..
.
i
.
.
Locafion Map .
iPM 01-05 ((//775) ~/~..'i?
RM 07-01
'"
l.O ~~ Proposed
--. ~
2 I'Iew Joh.
.
u ~,
1.1.1 ~
tJ)
;, Ol:!
9'
, / -........'"
/ 'tSAlG ---
.... ~gl
l 40
"
1~t1.JU.l!r
. .
11 'l'I
u" am 'UN
... ~ ~ -.'"
.
!
~ ~r ~
-, .
- .~ 3
..
. ~. ,~
. " " .
:j .. "
I . ,;
. sa . .1
a 4S
.. . ,
" " 51
~
I. i
3 os
..
.
..
..
. .~
. ..
'0 ~ .
t. 0 .~ 0
2 i.-' ~. ; I> '~
a: " ,.
J~~ ~ , so " ~ ~. fI)
. ~
. z
'" ~~
,..,- 'U) ~ 1
, :!" "-.... .. -I 11 "
3. D I ;. ~e;~ S . .
1.\:~~ <. ~ - 1--
141"''' I __... ~_;..:'" r..o_
" ELKINS
.
Photographs of Subject Property
e
-,
,"
If
. . '".
~ . ~ I. '~r .
. :;,"
~
~
.1
,~
"o,l._
.'",- '., ),"". .
'-'. :....>-t.-~
,
...--
, I!"
.....,~-'- .
,~
\
---
---------
.
Looking north on Canyon Road (subject property to the north
[behind homes] and west)
.
.".
}
,~ ..J
-
r. "1
,
-.-:.)
, "
',,,,;,
~-~ -- -- -. . .
Looking south on Canyon Road (subject property to the west)
e
-.'~~ -.. ........ . ':, . . .. <
f.c...._ '" ~~ '.)4 " 'f...t :t~,::.fd:,,_ .....,..1.'.,. 11' , ......
l ~,".';"Yi!';:,~.' ,.,., r ~> "". ""'" ,;1~~"'J3'!"..:",'".. ..'.
, ,.;"'~' " ", ',i":" , '...~... ~,;_. :,. ,-{:~ ~i~~':';:::J. - ~~'~' " ~ ","'
,.....{., ~..:.? -:. - .~ . .~(> '< ,::1); ':::..<;/-.,l. d....; ~
..""' '. _~~ ~,',. ~j.' s.:-:...'t ,'lo; i' -'J "j-::1 '~.. ,. '\ ~-: -,' .,... 4'M. ';;'1: '_::<., ,'.r.._
.. "-,,,.<<,", '''<''lj: .,.,,: . t... .>I'!J' .. .~. .'
~ ~.. ,'.'. .....~ -.<1.' . .f-' "";',,-~ . ... '~I.';' :;' ~.~ /.~~~....._ .'O-...,:.;-2..X7"\'.....,.. ,.", .'.'~ -'_
'''',.'- "''''}" !.~~:/," 'i" ~ ,...-" - "t-- -'. ~';. '" ,. ,
! 'r';: _.'~'.'~"':;- ~ ":':' rfti - ... f. ~._.... .~ ,...,. .-~,:.,....J;:...-
t . .,... h . -" ,< . ~... " - :-~. .
:~:~r ~;, c"...."\>;(;I ....""; ',;.' '~'" (<" "';'"..'"
j ,...." . ":. 't':!l .., ~ ." 4 _ J:'4 >
. .~'~"" .,. I" '.' , . ,,;, ..' i,,');;....l
~"~ of', -,.,..,,".; f 0"' f' "',' ~ "'.' ..}.. q ;, . ",'t"
I!' ~' . .,~. ". , :'><;.. '<
~~ ' "'1~~ &'t'f".o,)'~"{(T~ '0" .~.:;~t>;b I' - ~~"..;'....
,. ,:?~o Q"Y't';p'"-, ~ ~J' \' h 1~~'",' "'!,L,('!S>
<:J'-it"oo~'.. .-~_::,...",._~~:.~.,,~~. , ~..... l'I" 4 :~'::;~;. .'..
~."t ' ~,;..Io.~ ,~, ~""." ,VI _';I .-4,~~ ~l /.":v,>:-':?'-
I \~~l" ~~ : ~~~;:.~:;. i'J'-;'" ':J(" ., ' a f' ;',
.~ tr; ~ , ~,~'~ '.'{I~'
,',; "'l1;.~I-'''''''' ~ .7 ~ ~~."",.' . ~
'>~.",,"' . ."'..., .. 'L\
.,; ''''',''''' .,.. -",,: .' . , " ""~,,, .~~~^" :c;,'
, " '1" . t ~.' .. ...- 'r ~.",,:'li
~'~'l~}t.":{!fi"i,{.."" '~'-,' ~":" ~~ ~~;-;,\,,~
:, ~~~;.~c;.""'~:'.c"tX~ ~ ,...\,t:'.:'~.'t":":"_n'f ~'~ .
," . ",. ~,.." ,.,., >\.-,.. ' '~;', ' .
J rt ..,o,,,,,.i;f,,r?.."*l, ",... -1 ' Uf'~ -. ~ -:t' 'q-;' ~
6 ':l co' -~.-rr.> - ~~.; ,.,; ~~. '....., r ,.~~,':" ~. ~'$'t:f',-,
...~r ..-;, .-.at~~7' '. "'~-,s; .f. ' --.-
.. ~:';1(' a'. '... 'o.k;.-'.[ ~~;.---., ~"'J ., _...~ ~
'I-&i: ~., ~ o'li' ,.r;~t.\" .t.' Jr ..' ..."
'\;.... . '~ . ~._J.: ~~ v,'
. . '.':"-1Wt~,.;t
''''',
.
..)-,'
,'" ?_.;"
.... .,~"-.,
. .';o,.'~' ~. '.(
,.
->~
..,~""'~~.~ ' ',- .J
Subject property - existing native vegetatjon
e
."
~ '
"
0,
'';:A
, :......(~
'~~'l ...~d
~ '<:..:
," " ,; 4
E. " '~.,' ~:;:
-";'~ -.~,}:n-~r--"
, . ~ "---/,!}.s ~,":i
""~- -~1'
..'.... :"~' , ,
_',".:..Ji~.:',~ ~.
- '..t;.;.Jt. . ."::.,.
. . u:;I~"" -
'~'l1~'
.-;: - iI '"'> J'
. ' ~, :t'- ~iJ.tl_~". 'fM""~
, .'l .,;It..- .>~jS ,:";1:a;
"(~~" ' f ~ .. :~~
'f4h.' 'f ,.,.. '.
,
,rei
,If",;
l --I
:'I1l{~i?"
.~ :'f"~
~J
> . ~~. ,> - --~,..:::::.:::..-
.' - ...- -----
. ..----- -------
,,,..,,~:-~-~ -----
- .-- ~.:.=-- --- ---- .---
..:."~"."'....
. ,~-
- +-'
.
.-.....'----
---'
Subject property
.
I - ~-
I '"
'--cdi '
e
.
>'
>,
--."-....
~-
....--..;::::.;.;:-
~-~::.
"l", ,
~----- ---'~': -" ~.-,"~ "-
Subject property
Large oak tree to be preserved
.
.",:::; ,;. i:} ': ~;'~:' [(:rC::t:~ '2:;~ 1'~1
.\,.....,~l'..vt ~J" ~ .." \ '>'~ '"..:j:t""".:l (
~' ,.~~r.,~.\t :.: .J\'l~ '\~' ;.~ . .J\\:}c."U;""'; ,
'"1l?5;",;.":J,(,. ""Jll/ '";~'i; ;'..;..~'. ~., (J.-..l.,~~.~t~~ "
~ ,'" , 0.>1. ~iI' "\ ..._ rr.l ~.u .
a .:> t. ""l" ~ ..: St" ~ ~I(""""fil I ""\' ,.>..";-'-f "-""...\ 0
~,~>-' ..... Il'\i:,~t' d_,1" '\. ," "tllJ,~ ~. r:,' r-~~
11"" ~u r~ "~Ji' j" "J. ,.l>.l,t ,~ '~;';j ~." }~' i" I -~6 :-T"
~~"\K~'C:;'.~i-'",,'JO;~;..,"",-~-, t'1';:,,;'lJ' t,-,. ';. ~"~r~~._ ~
~ 'u..~(1t' 'C:J;": ,.n.i' \ f. "' '.., I ,'4-, ~"_\'
~;:- -F... '. ir ('\ 1,1",:, . _"'-"). ":n'" 7l-. ~"-.J ~.
. i, " ...~ i,lr <"l.l" ij. ." ~ > ;.,; 'r. ... ~~ I
',1"" ';""', ;> J.).. ," -"{ l f '" "1',, ....\}1;'.;.," \.'...J. . l) ~" \j ..,
('. ,0 <,c ''0' ~''t'l .1.~ ~ ~ . .~ ,~
'" ~_,__, ~ . ~ ( r . 1: Y '( 'XI , c r 1- .. >:l' .'),:0
, --) -'-" r ~. 0.... ,1 ,'," ',~ '-
} LC' :I'" : I"" .....\ ..... ~ '-.~-...-, """ ' ,0 I) ~_ 'J"
-' . !...~... "', . " ,(r ....'.) ...- ,~:% ~ 6
"_.<l't'.,.:,,,' ':J ~ ~,':>'v.(. .. ,', '> " i~.
.., _ _ 0 ~ ,)",,0 .'~ J~~,.. tr ~".
~ ~;: , '~:.: -"6 - - 0 I
~:~~~. > ~~c" {'I ';, :-Il, ,<' ',<::: -~ ,-~,J . '-' 'o'IJ,.' ',0 ..:r" '. {r~ / ,..." ......-\ ~~,-; .,.l" ') ':" ~ q.~
v--"" ~~~ -. ,'j ~ Jj' :.~ ~.... ";"~
",...."t..:.r:? ";, '" ~r-:p ,'v~o' 't "'_"~~
l ~ , ~ ,,~, ,:!; ".-
'r- . - -~I',e ':". 0 b - o:".\~ ,.,
~,' ~"?,.. '~~~~ _.7 .!~ I!.:.,J '--_;./ \."1;- r~-
~': - ----.~~ -; ~:) " '
..~"
-, ........~l>_
.'
,
.J~
..~'
:- . '},Q (~
.""a-~; j~'t: t~~;.
.....'":.~~...... ..'- ~ ;.;,
_",,:.:;r-'-
-',
',.
~,."
~-f. :.
~..
~--
~
(e
~
.
"l . ~ ;.- ( -.-
.:~~
".
'--
..." -.~.
- -------.:::.
--
Across the street from parcels 1 and 2
.
'''~~''~~~I~.~ .
,.......~. . ~ 0 l.f....'i,) '" . 1.-
.{Y, n~.L~ /)" , ,'/}.l -, ,~I
'$ ~:/ l' ';'.0'\'.:1;;
r'!:~ , \ ',.';..1. /\,::'
(?=:.... '", .;; \
~ I,')
, e I"" j
~ ; l,~
',"
;,
I ~ :~f
.'
((>
!,
\
" .'. .. \~ ~' t
\1. "<".' ~1'
, , .f') .....<<, '. '.
j I' """""'~ '"'0'''
'. o' ,.~\. \,~' v ~ \r
'}'. ',. .'" ' I,
\-' . c. .r. .,,,3;P ;." .,
~~t '~..c J,\ ' " '
(i,"
.'
"
') I
. . *~~'1 "Jt.
t.:-.:, \'."\
!I,.'~' d
I: "4
I~ '-l ..., ,
Il.r
"",~,-",~,
{.~ ;~. ',....,: ,;,>'
"'0l~:) .,.
-'l> 0- ~ -.
"
!;.\
j"Q
,"
"
.. ~..~~;
" O'O~
~ I'
, ",,'" J
~~~~f:'." ~
...CJ ~ ..-, -_ ..
~;"u ~J:':'.J",
l;.', :f,.. ~t~~O. -~.~~,~~. ~.~ ,~
'ft. ~"'Tt"A;j"; .... .,:, l
';:' !v' \: ~, . ~. ,Af',' 1,
,,"',-. .~ :",.. ". ,_.-.;.~
," :,~,,'/,'(~~ij;,~Z,;/: ":.iI.-" Ii'
; . -t.', .' .~~, '1 't:~ ~
..~ 'f (( ..8. "
- ,~ {: 1''' '( .
..
, j
"I
I. , ~ .....' It
..,). . '>... '7'
. , '" :-. ,"""'1
'.~lo;.... ,'. "
. l. ~ 'I'i. . ~- .,..jJ' . ~ s
-" 'I ", 5. "
......i .....~~....,.,
\~":ll/;;.::.. ':~i'~io5"..,
L ~ ~7'_ .1l
~ ..;" ,j ,," 1-.,....;:p
,_, ,~~,> .'_~ _' ,-n-
o I_~'rff-.(' -,' .~'
..,./.....,
''>J..<
;,
. ~
~
f;.~
L~: ~~
'.
",
"'.c 0 ~
~-
->b."~ .... ~"
. -;"''^-~-'\.
--:V. . ~ -t ., "\.
'.......~,. '...
'} . " /" .;~ ~o ';
. ..:..~.~~ '1.~
. ~-:,'.. ,.~__ ~.h'.._
c__~<' .."~.." d'
n. ....-. -..' __.'
-_, __ "k_
':)\
'j
......~
'.
t
I'
'.
....... i..
_. -4~";~..;--'..-...
"'" . . ."....
1'~
,'""
.:::-'\;. "
.1".
~ ...I
r.-
.
Across the street from parcels 1 and 2
.'\-~~
. '~~'1
.ftr~'
~.
, " \'
......,~ "" J
Z". ;... ...' ~
:::;, :~\i' 1." .
\ . '1' -...<, ."
'. .~
',. ~... .:.
.--\"r ' ~....~,; '.':'~-i"'~"" .\.::'~' .~1~:' :;.t """o"~r:~j;
'.' _ ~ .~y , :.;\'\ 'y;,:: J.'Z~-' , J",...:'" .td;Y;;r '"".) <~.:, - '<f '< ~','.';J
,.', '~ b !'Jt.*." ",.:" . . '. ,,~-.-:'li\~;;;'~"'} ..~ J';' -".g:.'" ,":'l'...". J
..' ......' A":" -"",,'!4,.... .'" 0 " .,; ,; " , ,,' - ~ ",'ft' ,,',
~, " ~::..'<1"., '. '~' "AS . " (J' ~.- ~" ',r,
~'~ 'J' ~ ';i(,~-"$" ..f.- - ,~-::;",:,,): ,', ',:' ,,/3>\,"
'",. '!.....~ /'" ....' \. ..,/,,;, ;'.-:,'..i~l~~P"~;'.'" ,., ''':.J_~'''''--,:'''T~:'''C>
c') '.<' P,.'o" 'r' \~~.'" r r(' M'( ?"". ,,,,"'
.' J ,:-:~.~t ' '." ,'~"'~ j: ~-i'~:,d fl'" "~'.:':~I;.-
'~t~J~... :':..'- 1"~..:" ~L ._~~. ",," ~- i. , ,'. ' c
... :5M I ..".t;...., '_ ...,' t~,<r" -'I -- :<.....~~.:::.=." :~;>->.c~J >:~~
.. o:!i'f;';&w :,0 '''' ",0 e" 0 ,'''' "<' / ,."",,y'1",
.'fI"....:;~"~ . ,;..,.:,('.". ':~',",..i"<.~'" ,.' if .~,~X:'ft' l~frI' ,
:o>'{. ~(]",.,"", :tn.);.... jot:: ~~..K .- "#q.J:. p ," v)..'1;.g;.~ .t}.' :}. . .' , - '". _~~t'^i 'ft. \
. iD:;~~j~ "'''''~;;;'''. :> ~ . ,.v'''-B;t~'.':''' ~:. ':.' "'1
, ~.:(o''':~' '::f. .~." ~'t" ,'1i,., ,.,;.,..1. ~,"..I~ I tl:"'''''::: :~:
, . "'I'-'~~'", ,_ ,-~~;;';~',,< 'v' ' f......."'..~ ,~< ..."~.'<T.':'\,(
~,.' ~. ,'C" ~..'.' . ~ . '.
. __ . ~~~;~o: ;, .,,,."'"
., " . ?~i.tj~'><"'~" ....-4:'..tf ,"'1
V.' ~ <".' <.... ~~ . .
lew of subject prop-arty" f' ::.:.~;: ,>~t:::,;i;:~~
,om upper C - _.!"o... ." 1.A::.... ,-'
anyon Road ' .L. ~ .......-
" '\.,
~'\.
.,~
"
"
',"-.
\., '\
,~
.
.'
J,
,
"
.
.
.
Highlands Homeowners Association me.
ArChitectural Review and
Area Planning Committee
File # R007-oc6
Property'Adc1ress (/AC/U/f ?A-#O cion t3J..dt:.i:. ell: (",4qYfi;V /(.Ot1rb
PropertyOwner A/&v//J HOmES - C/J~/T,4L i..t..C
Submission Date ~ /17/ () ?
The .ARCHl"l'ECTtJREVIEW AND AREA pLANNING COMMITTEE of the HIGflLANDS'. .:.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., acting in accordance with criY of ARCADIA Ordinance
#1479,bavemetat e/ool3~tJ(//C"r e,;rIVYCN Rdnf) on S/SJ/6'7
and do hereby "t't'l' "'... ~nc1itiOnallY appro~ ~._'C. 'I'!C the !"9r1dng
c1rawiDgs and specifications id . cd by the above ute i1umber and dateiit A'~,.'2.,w~b '/'"{ d 7
. This COMMITl'EE bases its decisions on the material submitted' by the applicant. whose
re;poDSibility it is to provide lICCIJIate material in all respects. Any material changes made
subsequeat to this COMMl.ll~ 's appItIVlI1 must be submitt.ed for additioual approval.
In case of disapproval. t'etaiIed findi"88 for the c:oMMlTI'EE's action 8re $".1.ed
Condition's tbrapProval, ifany: ~ ,lhrACIIED &~-l>.~/IV/jJN#'S d AcrUH
O~ ~t1lVblnlt Ah4, A-,:J~D_JI',.;rr.. t:.,./'}/A7
COMMl'I'TEE members present: COMMITTEE APPROVAL:
1!~1"'J.1 L.. /3 j'L'J::.e ~ (C H/J'/Je,IY/",.J )
;""uJ:. r/hn~ '
PI/II.... II' .) - C.CiVS,"'" f- "'0
.
.
.
.
FILE NO: '
DATE SUBMITIED:
2007..026
1.17..07
AR(';HU'ECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ,
JlOARD (CO~E) FINDINGS AND ACTION
, .
A. PROJE!;J' ADDRES~: 2100 Block Canvon RoadlParcel ~n for 2 Buildine Lots)
B. PROPERTY OWNER: Nevis Homes'- Canital LLC,
ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT: 650 West Hnntiueton Drive
C. FINDINGS (only check thosetluii Nlply, and proVide a written~pi!u1ation)
1.
, .1.
The pro~sed ttl!lterials, N/A. compatible with ~' e~~.materials because:
The Dnlnosed nrojectis comnlete new nrolKt.
2.
The.proposed materi!lls '
i
I' ' .
have a signifiC1ll1t adverse impact ,on the
, Will Not
3.
, ' ,
overall ap~ce of the pro~ because:' Siuneas No.1 above ,
The proposed project Will be significantly visible from the adjqi,Irlng: public
right of way because: It will involve construction of two new 2-stonr homes and
necessitate extensive Ilradin!! (earth movin!!) to create two new Imlded buildinlt
Dads above street leveL
4.
The proposed projKt Will Be significantly visible from adjoining properties
I
because: Same as No.3 ,above.
The elements of the structure's design are N/A consistent with the existing
building's design because: Same as No.3 above.
s.
6.
I
The proposed improvements: Will Be Reasonablv in proportion to the
improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because The nroDosed
homes,will be in the ran!!e of 4270 and 4650 Sa.Ft. of l)J(m!! floor area.
7.
The 10Clition of the proposed project Will Not be detrimental to the use and
enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because Tl.!.e
DroDosed homes (1 )will be reasonablv comDarable in :size to other nearby'
homes. (2) will meet all City Ordinance setback requirements (both from the
public: street and from all adiacentexistin!! homes and. will be situated on lots
of aDDroIimatelv one acre each. '
8.
The proposed project's setbacks DO provide for adequate separation between
improvements on the same or adjoining properties, becaUse See No.7 Above.
See Page 2 (Over)
.
.
.
Page 2
9. OTHER FINDINGS:
Allowin!! develoDment of this DroDertv as ProDOSed 'under'this current aPDlication should
hODefuRv. once and forever. resolve the lein!! litaiJdine:,Droblem that both the City and the
Homeowners Association has eXDerienced with developers un~uceessful attempts to trv to
subdivide the 'land iJito anYWhere from 7 to 15 or mote lots over the past 10 Ve8rs or so. That
woul!l be true only if the larI!e remainder Parcel 3 is placed into a conservancv or some
similar form of public ownership so that another private owner will not come back at some
future time with an attempt to trv to ,subdivide that parcel.
D. ACTION: Approval subleet to the foUowin!! conditions:
1. City approval of a "Parcel MaD" to create Two~) buildinlr sites (nareels of
approximatelY one acre each). with the laNe remainder 3 parcel to be placed in a
conservancv ,or some other similar form of ownershiD acceDtable to Citv to Dreclude further
attempts to subdivide that pareel. " , '" ' ,
2. ARB's Approval is a "in conceDt onlv" aDProval and the final construetion Plans
are to :be re-submitted to'the ARB fora final aPDrOval prior to issuance'ofDermits.
3. All (::itv buildinl!: setback and heie;ht restrietiODS are to be Strlet1v comnlied with.
4. FuR compliance with aU recommendations of,a proiect I!eolol!ist and soils enmneer
includinl!: recommended maximum slope I!I'lIdin!!. drainllf!e improvements and slopeplantinl!:
to coptrol soil erosion. "
E.
DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL RlWIEWB9ARP'S ACTION: 6/02/07'
, '
F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBERS RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION
Ralph L Bicker, Chairman
Guy Thomas Member
Phillip Consiglio, ' ' Alternate Member
G. REPRESENTING THE JflGHLAND'S HOMEoWNERS ASSOCIATION
H.
APPEALS
.,
Appeals ftomthe Board's (Co~s) decision sballheDllldli til thePlannink commission:
Anyone desiring to make sUch an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements,
fees and ptocedW'eli. $aid appeal must be pIIIde in writing and delivered to lIt~ Planning Offices,
240 W. Huntington Dr., An:adia, CA 91007, within seven (7) worldng days of the Board's
(Committee's) decision.
I .' .
L EXPIRATIONOF~PROVAL"
. '..': ' I
If for 8 period of one (J) year from the date of approval, any, projec;t for 'fhi!lh plans have been
approved by lite Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or'discontinued, said approval
shan become nuO and void and of no effect.
.'
R-2
.
2100 Block of Canyon Road, ArcaC;Ua, CA
Report on Existing Trees ~
November 15, 2007
.
By
Pieter Severynen, ,
, Certified Arborist ISA-WE-3271-J\
California Registered Landscape Archite<:t 1970
1728 Garth Ave, Los Angeles, en 90035 Phone/Fax 310,838-6744 E-ll1Jlil plsevefalearthlink.net
I
.
.
Report on Existing Trees
November 15,2007
Contents:
Introduction
Observations of existing conditions
Discussion about observation and probable
effect of construction on existing trees
Recommended tree protection measures
Photographs
Tree location map
PSA Experience
.
.
Page:
3
4
7
10
I3
18
19
2
.
INTRODUCTION
.
,
I
Background information: . I
On October 29,2007, StudIo R . r!'lquested me to
conduct &tree survey on an unnumbered parcel located on the west uphill side of the
2100 block of Canyon Road in Arcadia. Studio R had prepared plans for the
construction of two adjacent single fan1ily dwellings on the parcel. ~e would like to have
those 011 site trees catalogued that would be affected by the proposed construction and in
particular, he wanted to find out how to protect one large oak on sitd. Whereas the
property is in excess of2 acres and contains many trees, the tree report should address
only those trees directly affected by the proposed construction. A~ exchange of some
more emails for clarification, my site visit, and my receipt ofa Sept.120 2007 soils report
prepared by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. for this parcel,
Studio R retained my services for the folIowingassignment. I
Assignment: I
I. Perform an on-site investigation to identilYwhich trees will be directly affected
by the proposed construction of the two single family homes!
2. Assess the current condition cif the large oak tree (Quercus agnfolia) on site.
Determine what protective measures should be recommended in order to
safeguard this tree during and after grading and constructionJ
3. Determine protective measures to safeguard any other trees to be saved that may
be impacted by the construction. \
4. Prepare a written report outlining my observations and conclUsions about the
investigation.
5. Determine if any of the exan1ined trees are protected by the City of Arcadia, or
occur in the street right of way or are subject to jurisdiction by the Highland
Home Owners Association. '
Limitations of the assignment: I believe that within ,the scope of my investigation the
thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for drawing reliable conclusions, making
professional recommendations and completing this assignment. However the report is
limited to the investigation and documentation on the dates ofthe field work. I did not
use any lift-equipment or climb any of the trees on site.
.
3
.
OBSERV A nONS OF EXISTING CONDmONS
Investigative procedures:
Observations, measurements and documentation were performed ,from the ground. Only
non intrusive arborist equipment was used; no drilling was done to investigate the inside
of tree trunks. While conducting the on-site examination I recorded any relevant
observations of site, soil, root collar, trunk, central leader, branch attachment, lateral
branches, shoot tips, leaves and acorns.
.
Site observations:
The currently vacant site occupies a northerly and northeasterly facing, uphill slope,
which is quite steep in places, in a large lot, single-fumily home neighborhood. Slope
gradient varies from fairly easy to walk almost 1.9 to I (horizontal to vertical), through
difficult to stand on 1.5: I, to not possible to scale unaided .65: I. Th~ site abuts the
National Forest (picture I). It is covered with fairly heavy oak woodland vegetation of
indigenous plants that shows many mature oak trees, a rather dense cover of large shrubs
including Blue Elderberry, Sambucus nigra mexicana and Laurel ,SUlnac, Rhus laurinaas
well as many perennials and annuals including Monkey flower, Mi"1ulus aurantiacus,
Golden currant, Ribes aureum, Caterpillar Phacelia, Phacelia cicutaria and weeds,
including Castor Bean, Ricinus communis. In"between the trees and shrubs was an
abundant growth of lush poison oak, Toxicodendron diversilobum, s~rubs and vines up to
10' taIl, which made progress on the slope quite difficult. The soil is:silty sand. It is
subject to some surficial erosion. In two plaCes locally concentrated drainwater in a little
draw had eroded soil a few feet deep. A heavy layer of duff and leaves,covers the soil
especially around the oak trees.
I climbed the slope where possible and measured the trunk diameter :of each protected
tree at breast height (DBH, 4.5' above ground) and estimated the height,and width ofthe
crown. I also investigated the health of each tree. Note that bel;aUse of steepness of slope
some trees were inaccessible and I could not make direct trunk measuremen1s; there I had
to use best estimates instead.
General tree observations:
I investigated only protected trees. In thl" city of Arcadia these are Oaks (Engelmann,
California or Coast Live) over 4" DBH, or, if there are two or more trunks, at 3"+ DBH,
or any other oak at 12"+ DBH for a single trunk or 10"+ DBH for 20r more trunks. For
removal arid/or encroachment upon these oak trees a permit is required.
In addition the Highland Home Owners Association must approve the removal of any of
the following trees: oaks, sycamores, liquidambars, magnolias and pines with trunk
diameters larger than 6" at 3' above grade.
The site is divided into lots I, 2 andJ. Lot 3 is the large lot atop, to the southwest. Lot 2,
the small one to the northwest, contains two oak trees and one sycamore. Lot I, the one to
the southeast, contains the very large oak referred to above, which i~ close to the lot line
with lot 2, and some nine countable oak trees of varying sizes.
.
All the trees on site made the city protected tree list. Some tree-like shrubs including
elderberries, did not qualify as trees. Apart from one California sycamore all the other
"4
.
!
trees were evergreen oaks, Quercus agrifolia. Based on leafand cro~ characteristics it
seemed that almost none of those oak trees were genetically pure; it ~ppeared that all the
oaks had hybridized to some extent with other oak species. This does not make them
outstanding or unique; oak trees are notorious hybridizers and it is nht uncommon to find
individuals that show characteristics of more than one species. Alth6ugh it is very
difficult to identify other oak lineage in the field from leaf appearance and shape, it
seemed that potential candidates for the previous hybridization include California Black
Oak, Quercus kelloggi, and Engelmann Oak, Quercus engelmannii. I
Since this is a northerly and northeasterly facing slope not subject tQ the severe sun
exposure a southern slope would experience the vegetation appeared lush even after a
record dry year and on and offsite oak trees had grown to respectable sizes. In the
following columns, trees are listed by number (corresponding to number on survey);
common name; botanical name; size in feet, shown as height.x widt/:1; diameter at breast
height (DBH), i.e. 4'-6" above ground; condition and any remarks. Some of these trees
are also shown in the list of pictures.
Num. Name Botanical name Size:HxW(ft.)DBH Condition
1 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 25x 30 36"and,16" good
2 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 25 x25 18",17", 9" good
3 California Syc- Platanus raGemosa 30x 25 24" good
amore
. 4 Coast Live Oak Quercusagrifolia 60 x 65 3'9" and 2'9" fair/good*
5 Coast'Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 20 x20 II" '1 good
6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 25x 25 18" est. fair
7 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 30 x 25 18" est. goodU
8 Coast Live Oak Quercusagrifolia 35 x 40 15 and 12" est
fair/good
9 Coast Live Oak Quercusagrifolia 25 x 25 12" est.' fair
10 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 35 x 45 18,15,12" est. filir
11 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 20 x 20 6 and 4" est. poor
12 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 30x20 17" fair/good u*
13 Coast Live Oak Quercusagrifolia 30 x 35 15,10,8'1 fair/good **u
.
*The laige oak tree, no. 4, which bore an old aluminum tag, labeled'I'3', had two massive
trunks. The smaller of the two trunks had broken off several years previously at a point
about 25' above ground. Cause ()fthe break was not clear; it could have been high wind
or previous decay in the trunk. The decayed trunk is still lying on th~ ground. The loss of
almost half a trunk hild made a big hole in the previously symmetrical crown, so that
instead of 90' wide, the crown was now more like 65' wide. The brc::ak was rough, had
torn a 10' long chunk out of the trunk and some decay is occurring at the breakage point.
Below the break there is only one very large lateral remaining on the trunk. The tear
extends below the lateral, putting that at some risk of any decay started above. Close to
the ground an Qld surface wound, some 12" at its widest point, is slowly healing; while
there is decay occurring here, a ring of healthy woundwood surrounds the wound (picture
5
.
). Sounding of the trunk at the lower level did not indicate any obvious areas of severe
decay or hollowness. '
The larger trunk of the tree divides in two codominant trunks (meaning of equal
thickness) at about 25' up. ~
"Tree no.7 is leaning over, eventually might slide down into the stieet.
... Tree no. 17 is leaning, might become unstable even absent construction activity.
.... Tree no. 13 bears old aluminum label #5. '
I
I
,
Most of the trees growinsin the lower area (1 - 8) are in good shal'f\;most of the higher
growing ones only in fair shape. Still the trees add an enormousamqunt of aesthetic and
environmental value to the site and will do so even more after constrfuction; this holds
especially true for the large one.
Testing and Analysis
Testing was limited to sounding wherever there'was a question as tol internal decay and
the tree was accessible. No obvious decay or internal hollow areas were detected using
this method. However I did not test the area ofthe break in the big o~'s trunk; this
should be tested once the area around the tree has been cleared, and prior to any
occupancy of structures. I
I
I
.
.
6
.
DISCUSSION ABOUT OBSERVATION AND PROBABLE EFt'ECT OF
CONSTRUCTION ON EXISTING TREES
Effects on individual trees:
Tree no.1, which bore an old aluminum tag '125', appears to be only about 10' from
proposed construction. While it is very close to construction and willbe negatively
influenced by it, it appears that the tree can be saved. See proposed tree protection
measures below.
Tree no.2, bearing old tag '124': this tree too will be affected. Contqur lines and cross
section B-B' on the geotechnical report indicate severe grading that may well dispose of
the tree. Any chance to save it should be explored.
Tree no. 3, the sycamore, appears to be located within the footprint of the house and
would be lost.
.
Tree no. 4, the large coast live oak, bearing old tag '3' will need pruning regardless of
construction. The decay will continue to go down unless the broken ,trunk is cleanly
pruned (under direct supervision of a certified arborist) down to the large lateral. Without
pruning eventually the lateral could break off and-tear a largechunl<iout of that trunk.
Even with expert pruning there is,no absolute guarantee that the dec!ly will not continue
deeper down into the trunk. Pruning the trunk off altogether at the jl!nction with the larger
trunk would only make matters worse, because decay would spread into the main part of
the trunk and eventually might kill the tree.
Since part of the crown fell down the tree is now unbalanced. It will; experience uneven
wind loading and stress. Pruning for balance will probably leave effects as bad as leaving
the tree as is. Best remedy is to have the tree establish a new balance by growing the
missing part back. This is a very slow process.
Proposed construction will negatively affect this tree in the following ways. Construction
of the house retaining walls some 20'east and north downslope of the, tree will probably
cut off anchoring roots of the tree where they may be expected to be most'numerous. The
upslope retaining wall some 45' west of the tree will not likely cut off anchoring roots but
will interfere with the surface and subsurface flow of water that has ,nourished the tree for
the past several hundred years. Grading indicated by the geotechnicitl report contour lines
,
and section A-A' shows removal of several feet of topsoil in.the lIJ'elI around but
somewhat away from the tree" thus depriving it of feeder roots and possibly anchoring
roots. The proposed grading may leave the tree sitting on a tilted 'island' several feet
higher than the surroundings. Grading close to the trunk, underneath the branches, would
remove part of the tree's feeder and anchoring root system. Grading should stay away
from the tree, outside the dripline. Tree roots can easily extend two to three times the
width of the leaf crown, sometimes more. That is why judicious graping leaves at the
very least,the grade inside the dripline intact. The more grading and, construction activity
takes place close to and within the dripline, and the closer to the trunk, the greater the
,
chance of fatal damage to the tree. J
.
7
.
,
The geotechnical report proposes to scrape sevenil feet of topsoil off the slope behind the
two homes, clear down to bedrock, removing, all plant growth surrounding the tree. This
will reduce the tree's feeding area and stibstantially change the mi9roclimate that the tree
has grown up with. '
,
Tree no.s is located inside the construction area of the southerly utrit and will be lost.
Tree no.6 is located inside the construction area of the southerly ~t and will be lost.
Tree no.7 is located within the construction area of the southerly upit or very close to it
and will be lost.
Tree no.8 is located so close to construction that it will be lost. I
Trees no. 9-13 are located in an area where the grading plan shows considerable grading.
It appears likely that most or all of these trees will be lost.
In summation, tree no.4-must be saved, nos. I and 2 should be saved if possible, nos. 3, 5,
6, 7and 8 will be lost, and nos. 9, 10, II, 12 and I3 may all be lost but attempts should
be made to save,some of these if possible.
In accordance with City requirements, a permit j.s needed for removal and/or
encroachment on all affected trees, and the Highland Home Owners Association must
also approve the removal of trees. There are no trees located in the City street riglltof
way.
e
Overall effect:
In addition to the direct removal for construction or damage due to grading, Construction
may result in several other adverse effects to those trees not slated for removal unless
protective measures are taken. There will be additional cOI!lpaction of soil, and resulting
unavailability or lack of subsurface air and water and microorganisms; there may be
damage to.leaves, trunk and roots by nailing, storing materials, dumping or dispersing
chemicals or paint, leaving concrete or its residue on the soil caused by dumping or
washing oftools, or cutting off Of'branches; or disturbance of the natural grade.
Construction may take place too close to the trunks, trees may los.e part. of their root
systems, or have.major roots cut close to the trunk. Any of these impacts may put
significant additional stress on the trees; together they may be deadly.
The trees are used to a Mediterranean climate of winter rains and summer droughts. Last'
year was an extremely dry year and this may be another dry year. 'Even so many of the
trees look quite healthy. The north eastern exposure ana downslope underground water
flow contributes to their health. The proposed grading will strip the topsoil of the slope.
This will change the microclimate around the remaining trees into a drier one with more
reflected sun. The retaining waIls will interfere with surface and subsurface water flow.
The trees to be saved, especially the big one, will receive less natjlral water than before
and have less of a growing area available for the roots, with'fewer beneficial
microorganisms.
e
The newly denuded slope needs to be landscaped to protect the strlace. Planting will
have a hard time becoming established without benefit of topsoiL The new planting
should not interfere or compete with the oak trees. No plartting should take place within
8
.
] 5' of the trunk, and only sparse planting of adapted native material under the remainder
of the crown. The poison oak has excellent slope anchoring qualities,and should be
preserved if possible, even if cut back. The irrigation system should neither wet tree
trunks nor water under the tree crown. Ideally irrigation is applied irregularly and deeply,
but that will be impossible to achieve on a steep, bedrock slope. On the other hand, the
irrigation system should make up the water loss'that the tree will experience due to the
construction of the retaining walls and the grading.
I
Landscape planting of the slope needs to achieve both fire safety and erosion protection,
so that majority of new planting will probably consist oflow, spreading plants. Yet for
continuity of existing planting, for best eventual growth and for slopb anchoring and for
creation of new topsoil it would be advisable to get new oak trees eslablished. The best
course of action would be to plant dozens of acorns into the slope, in addition to the
preferably indigenous low growing plant cover. These acorns should be obtained from
nearby oak trees in order to preserve the local seed bank. The advantage of using ac,orns
is that the taproot can penetrate deeply into the soil, thus anchoring the plant more
securely than could be obtained by planting container plants. Acorn~ could be planted 5-8
to a hole in widely spaced holes (25'+ apart). Probably at most I 0% ,of the acorns would
germinate. The surviving seedlings would grow only very slowly, arid most of them
should be thinned out after several years' growth. The point is not sq,much,to create new
oak woodland, hut to over time establish a new soil profile and microclimate, thus
indirectly supporting the existing trees.
.
.
9
.
RECOMMENDED TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
Measures to induce better tree health prior to construction:
Pruning: See below.
Watering: Deep water once a month only if needed.
Aeration: Not recommended.
Fertilizing: Not recommended.
Microorganisms and mycorrhizae: No additions recommended at this time.
Pests and diseases: Symptoms of above ground rot, fungus, or insect infestation were not
observed or were so minor as ,not to warrant aggressive treatment at this time.
.
Root protection zone measures before and during construction:
The root protection zone extends from the trunk to the furthest points under the
overhanging foliage. Collectively this area at the edge of the foliage is called the drip
line. Most of the roots in this protection zone are located in the upper 12-24" of soil,
although some go much deeper. Both thin feeder roots and major stl11ctural roots must be
protected for the tree to remain healthy. Becausethe oaks are very sensitive to any
disturbance and the chance to inflict major damage to the trees to be saved is,great,a lot
of care must be taken to protect the trees that will be saved. Before construction the
arborist, architect and soils engineer should discuss how bestto protect the trees, and
,
whether placement of the retaining walls needs any adjustment. Before actual grading the
contractor, architect and arborist should discuss the tree protection measures so that
everyone is clear on the protection requirements. The following areiminimum protection
measures necessary during construction:
. Install min. 4' high chain link fence around the affected trees' root
protection zone, outside of the tree's dripline (it may not be possible to
protect the full root protection zone for some of the smaller trees, due to
proximity of construction).
. Do not attach anything to the trunk or dispose of anything within the drip
line.
. Keep the trees in good health by occasional deep watering and preventing
the soil from drying out.
. Do not store any materials in the root protection zon~.
. Minimize root dan1age. Avoid cutting major roots (over 3"). Use hand
tools for cutting. Do not cut major roots within 10' or the trunk: roots
there are relatively-inactive, and cutting them too close may cause decay
reaching into the trunk. Cut major roots> 3" dia. only under direction of a
cenified arborist. Where cutting is unavoidable cut at right angles at a
branching lateral root.
. Do not change the grade within the drip line.
. Do not use heavy equipment, which compacts the soil, within the drip line.
. Do not raise soil level around trunks above the basal flare (base of trunk
flaring out to form root system).
. During construction have a certified arborist on call to field review all
cases of root pruning of over 50% ofatree's root area, over 30% ofa
.
10
.
tree's major roots over 3" in diameter, or cutting,rootS close to the trunk
(within 10').
. Retaining wall design or location may have to be modified slightly to
prevent substantial root damage and to allow for some drainage water flow
through.
. Any landscaping on the newly shaved slope must respect the treeS' needs.
Sprinklers should not wet trunks. Landscape will have a hard time getting
established in bedrock after removal oftopsoil as recommended by the
soils report.
. Any unusual site condition potentially affecting the trees should be
immediately brought to the attention of the arborist.
Branch pruning before or during construction.
. Prune only in accordance with industry standards (ISA or ANSI 133.1)
and only under direct supervision ofa certified arbonst.
. Remove dead, diseased, damaged wood and structuro!l defects only. Make
cuts perpendicular to the branch, either at a side branch minimally 1/3 the
diameter of the branch, or at the trunk. For cuts at trunk, ,stay just outside
the branch bark collar, and prevent tearing of bark.
.
Recommended tree protection, clause in construction contract:
Since the trees to be saved ate, easily endangered by construction, the following clause
should be incorporated in the construction contract:''Theexisting big oak tree oak is the
focal point of the development and its preservation in a healthy state is crucial. The
contractor shall take the utmost care in preventing any harm .of any kind,to the tree, and
instruct all his/her on site workers and subcontractors to do the same. Therefore nothing
shall be attached to the tree in any way; it shall not be cut or damaged by nailing, hitting,
cutting or pruning, above ground or below. Trenching for footings must be sharp and
neat. Cutting of roots should be prevented, but where absolutely necessary, all roots
encountered there must be cut cleanly, with a clean sharp handsaw. No storage of
materials shall take place under the tree. No grading of any kind shaH take place within
the drip line area. No soil compacting heavy equipment shall be used under the tree. No
worker shall walk or drive equipment on soil to remain uncovered ullder the tree; if
frequent walking becomes necessary on any such areas, plywood sheets must be spread
on the walkway. A min S' high fence must surround each drip line. No chemicals,
cement,concrele, paints, solvents, or anything else except for clean water shall be poured
on or disposed of on the soil anywhere on the grounds; and no harmfUl chemicals'shall be
dispersed in the air. If contractor or hislher subs inflict substantial and evident damage to
or cause death <:lfthe tree, directly or indirectly, or by not taking and,enforcing any or all
of the measures above, during the full length ofthe construction period, then the
contractor shall pay the owner full value for damages caused, as determined by project
arborist, or in accordance with the following value schedule: $10,000 for the substantial
loss of or great damage to a major limb over 8", up to $100,000 for the death or complete
destruction ofa tree. Damages to the smaller trees will be valued at one fifth of the
amounts for the big tree."
.
II
e
Respectfully submitted,
Pieter Severynen
Attachments:
PHOTOGRAPHS
TREE LOCATION MAP
PIETER SEVERYNEN BIOGRAPHY
.
r
.
12
.
PHOTOGRAPHS
~
, .- rP~ ,
',"~>.~~';St: ..
<(c h-. ;'
........ I-~
""'. . 'T, \..,
.~~V .... '; ~.~,'
''<\' , I ~
~~ ..."" .,. .1, " ", ',,~ ~...
- ~ , ,:C') l.':~ ":.z">\.\~f..:"~~:>
" . . V' ~ ....:;):t' ~'" .
"'" '''''r~''
< ..~: . : "~~~w~.r.ft1{('
'. : it" .\;'- ,
,"'. ( WNt' -'-'
I.ij' ~:.. .: .1,,,,,,:,~~(, . II .f., ~.
("+......., '''''r__~ /' . -4""
"t:..~""",,,,,~,~ ' rf i:~. ' j ,. '0
lI. ~ ..1 1') '1 0 ......~
. ' ,~ . ~t../. -<r-f'-;,...t .t'U
~J::""', l .... /....;::..~'-::---
~ ~J ~.2~. -~:i~~~:. :_~~~. 1
---~
,
.
.
. -.
y-
1J
1. NEIGHBORHOOD
c~,
)\I"'fl\.~~. ..:;.v.;jt.~.
., ,~.,,:.~ r.
~'~ )~.. ....,~
:; > r-,,\
"..."
J
"
. "
' : ". .-~?o>
,~--r___~
.,
,;,/~"I:.'
i.\,'l-,
'-,'~' ::.:;:>; 1 " ,;.,0' '.' .;~~ i'
,', , . 'I.
L ':' ," ~~';.' c. (~!;" ,
.. . I ;..:_\. "':'~\t' j,;"L9
.- ~ . '.~ ,:,~"'" /.l' .,C" ,1j:..:S?~~
-" '-. ',', . ',' ."',.~;
..- ~.:~~: __..~~.\.~.~.:, ,"':~;', ~:. ~ ',.:.:; ~"-;'t' ,~' , ~'.'
," ,Ij ~"'"t,:..LN">\"" . ~"'.r '... ','
~.~ ""''i.'''~' ~'" _ ~
_ ;c.~ .
.)\:::F.
~~
Il-J" _ _' r~ "
~,1';(L' ."'\
'~ '.
'iJ<r', ,.;~.,'
;,'(1 ".},."."'4'f"" /
7V'-,'-.
.,j' ,
F~" /~
cr .:jecJ"~J,,, ~~ .
...~ . f
~,,,,,,,"--'"
,,6"
\.~"I
'I ,', .
," .,~ .."~n",:
., .
. "
11
"'. ~"o~ .,~~ ~:;.;.
..1.";""'_1:
f'~. .:~,_,
../'".. ,..../,
o /~f . I;-.~tr
"?,'~-", i1 {14" ",
~-~~~~~
'.. ='-.~
....._'~.'
, {
J
2. CA. SYCAMORE, #3
,
3. 'FIRESAFE'
ADJACENT
FRONT YARD
13
.
.
.
,
",
~:~J',
.~.. ...,;..:,
, ,
"
'~i2" ,'~~
(~\o. ~,'
-'~ :-");'" ~ .
"
.' ,,'I[,
~~><~:_','
ir:;,.;;r] :It
,.'",] ,
rf_'.,-f
L~~
').;f
, .11e:
. r
~
"
"
'ki"
,.
'.-~'~
. ,
;-...
,"
,(",
'j' .;':-v
11;'
\
...~ '0
_..~")
,
"
"':'--.,
, '
- -
.
~/,
"
,
I
~'>J
.-'l.:..... _
....~ -'
,t."
" .
" ,
;
'.~<. .
. - ;'
.
~.
.,
~' .
",
"""/f<,,'
.'
. '~j .
~_J_ _
.=,...--~'\
{U: ''-''- ~J
,;; '~ (:;"
:-~"
."
>-
o "';,
.,~:. (,
~JjA.--.r
~:.j;-.r"'fl;"-\.,-~ .
;( .
.~.) 0
.
"I'
~.
~.
...J
h,"o:.
. ';~r ...
',1-> ."'<,... '/ ~ ~ 'i',.
/. . I!'-: '"
'""',.~~,
..! ~~~ iiE:~:; . ~
.. .J ,';;"~~~- -~ /:'~t
"~;"ll1i"""~
'- /,I-~'~ ~l"" ...- ~
~~ ~ ~,~W.T ;;... .< t,' II:;j
" '1f'"II'J'~{- \~ ~~~'-
.!.. - '!:' '~'1::_.' .: .;.,...::~I
4. TREES #1 (RIGHl) AND #2.
" .
"
'1...c.1-.}_J!
.~ ~:.~
Or,: .1,':-":~:rd:~'~,~
~.f"l.i.>;.~~.- ~~.:
i.. ...11 ~.. .
\~:':'f'''~0~":~' ~:: _ ~
"
--:-M
"
.'
..!'
S. EROSION
./.'-~
,~.
6. LARGE OAK TREE, #4
14
e
", ""-"P;;':'1\'"~-;,,
c, -::r. Q. '7-.7.'.. ;J' "
.~~'" ~ '-"',"-'h .......1;';
~. ,'-r ~:~) ~~q_rh~ ~~..
. to.... _~, ",
"'" "f1' ,~.-:. . '. ;lS~-;;'
$~'lf.,~ ~~::-tf'
'To' \'\'''''..~ ~~ ~
4l', ''-''~_'' ~
1&#' '
~'
~,: :V-:., ,
r, :"-;r .:'''0
~r ."
l.,;' 0 ~
.
~,'
l~' n
, -
~-';
~ ~';~~J.:~:~~:~~"
c:_~~ ,.-'t;;rj~ "l
" , . "-'" ~ '..... .~
~ "".
1 ~'~
,,' '>~"- X"
, ;~:'~" 't1- ~}" ""r>
'1c ",l)I':'~;t."",:.".' '1'"
I .~~~ 1"'0 ~ .!~ ..
\" <'.;.~~:~\ ~":.j~..,
o
-=,
',,"':
,
,
~,
^' ,
~ \~;~?~,
%
<}.
e
", -4;
" " ,;<l"
{,~\r>'':<\ "
,-
.'
. ~ :~!~:~. ~..~:
. .::j"'::-" ...~
.
, ,
7 LARGE OAK
. OKEN
TREE - DR
TRUNK
~. LARGE OAK, #4
I
I
I
I
15
,
I TREE #4
OLD WOUNl),
9. I
I
I
!
,
.
-', ",'~ - s ':..~. '.Ii':; ;ij: ~A -1~
. '~.;:: "^"f!1"~,f,'~~ < ' ,
' ''"'"~;~ :L'k,~.",!\~,;;;..,~",.>v.;t-;,
' 't~.... "~f'<"7;~X/ k""),L. r~-'c*-'",~_
~. ..,..,~ " .' S / r'1fI~.#,<.:..,~\, ~ "'1'..... .0.
'. , '.. '. "~ ' "" 1"~i1;"1.- "',"" ":
11:'v;::.'\,t~"".~.At~~~,:.~" ~ ,s~~,,'J
',..t ~~.~ '-~~r~'I,~jllfJ@j.~')o _ '~i'\l: .? iA';o-_"
-:> "I, """:1-:.' ". ..,,_
'. C'". '" Ji' "~'". "r. ". . \. ";L ~'''':~,.
' '\.,. 'e<;"" ' n ,..." 1);.'5"i".'_. ""
,: ;".l1':':i{.,1. 4: ;,1' to::'~0\ '.' '~~~>>I~:'7}, ':~;
"" :!;~~, ~'" :;,( '~~~'r: tlSi ''"' "".
.'.;: j~ ~....~:v~} .~t\~'J.:-r(:
~,' , y/:-", r ~'~-if),J ",. .... ~:,~,
".'ro' .J~ ''h.,:~, ,/1' <" tr~..
A:dY:,.,...>" ;'j~l~~~
"'. .'--,1",1-.' 'E1'l~1,~,.", )Y--7f~",,,,_
L...: ..~'.. ....-.,] , . l":i~~. . ~i~
~.~':;;,-, k4h :'" P.
-, ....----
y;C; _....,.... ...~
!',
'.'
< ~-v"'?'(~"
'....:. )'c
",1 ~.
~'^"u~
(....-e;., ' >W,' '\
~~.IC\..' .~ J "J.
C";:'~..~:. :~;;~Y:~
. ~--" ,- '\ c i".;o...J.o.;o D_
".. ..,.".: "t.,.!;, f' ~~)W6
":, . '.1"0{. 19
r;' .~ . , c; Q,
.
~<:, .'.'."
",:.~.t"
J' ~,'"
" i '::."
" ,
" '" r- ". _. < '~'J:>' ...." ':
'-'~ ~ Ji..o: ~ ~;1.J
- .. -....:. ~ :"~ ,-"....p.~,
~:~'.~.~ ~~~.:-1.~:.;..j~~( ,~
\1"" \~tl < ..,.
~ ','v ,~ f) _
. .~.,.,
. ,. ~ i
I<..(~>
"
"
"
"
",,!:
. "
.~~
, /r;~-
'< ,
~~'S:;~--I} .
J'
"
~.t' 4"
'.~
.
~i:.,".t.
'~;i~z'~~.,,~,
,4)' $"}' ':,: <,;:; ~~
'~;::.. ,.~ .Ji!.~,,("',,
'. ~. n "',, 'Vi ~f
'~"<i. "...,</'tiz.', ','
. 'x '. '{Jf"~
'7. 0( jc . '"""
~, "l;>,,:..,
'!+,~.' .i.>., , '~".','~'
~ ""~',." "I'. ".
- , [)l ~ ~.r '~--:~-<'~~.;}l:.
'.'" "l',',,> ."?!~~f:1',--~~, :
;;",-.,;".~" ~: .~ ,\~ I''':''~;;''''''':'''l- .
"":'~"., ,I "'.~~ .."_~",, .," ,
l,,~ '~ 'o~.." , , Q
<r~' . :";' . '''~.'" '. ' ,
~~: ~. .J..1 . ~-:r1,..."'~'~
~'it '~.::'.:; "-~ . . ~
~
-;
10. TREE #5
11. TREE #6
]6
.
&
,
,;
12. TREE # 7
.
.
14. TREE #13
...<::";_.~'
13. TREE # 8
17
.
.
. to
J~m
! "
I al
! r
i Iii
I
I !I
I
1-
;
scalnJftI'__ 2 lz !i
~
oif
>- ,,2
ZfB
-< -
- u 1
..(...
61. . .
~;J.f12.
q( <jl q( <jI <j( ~ <jl
I ,
-.~ \ \ \1 \ : I \ ' \ :0 ' ,
.....~'\ ~ oo>-!-
\ '-,;.-L.I \ ,
.... ' 0
\ \ I \ I
I I
I \ I r ,
I ,
\ \ I \ \ ~ e6e'<
I I I \ \ .;., ,
/ I I I I " --{lOO(-'
-' / J J -,'-':'-6'1:<>>:
/ I / I ,
-<-(39G-1-
...- '" I I "
;' I I
~
'" /
...-
/
,
-
- .....
. --~...::.."
- .....
"-
(('
-
t:==,-.==.1iaDf
I:t!IJCltfJll._.......
RIIDdJ'4'''''''''
-~
m:il --II"
-~ ,--- I
_ n - - f-" - - -.-r I
at~ - j!!!!'f."!!!! , I I
JvlE___ ~- - I 1lI k '
(-C1Jert1i,Trr
, "I" ,'} '\ ,~ ~
~1'1F.._1
-rRE~ LCCAiJON MAP
~
I
l~
I~.
I ,
1..........1
I.......... J
j-"c:. _
II A1.11
e
PIETER L. SEVERYNEN
Certified Arborist ISA-WE" 3271-A Licensed California LandsCape Architect 1970
Pieter Severynen is the pJ;e5ident of Pieter Severynen Associates (PSA), a private linn providing
arboriculture and landscape architectural services to private and public residential, industrial and
institutional clients in the Westem United States. He is also the Direttor of Planning and
Design at North EastTrees, a private non-profit urban forestry, park and green space
design/build organization in Los Angeles that aims to restore nature's services and known for
its mini~parks along the Los Angeles River and innovative environmental solutions.
PSA consults on urban forestry, urban-natural environment interfade solutions, tree protection
and preservation measures, tree hazard' evaluation ,and the selection, :care, proning and long
term growth and survival of trees in the urban environment, from individual spedinens to the
urban forest and from plonning through on the job pruning supervision. The linn integrates
arboriculture and landscape architecture through design and .review of site planning, grading,
dt:ainage, landscape, planting, erosion contro~ itrigation, night lighting and hardscape plans,
landscape maintenance provisions and observation of project construction. PSA is familiar with
public and private recreation and open space needs, human comfort, zones, our emotional
connection to trees, plant requirements and growth habits including jCalifornia native planting,
and climate and soil variability. The linn designs emotionally appealing, environmentally
sensitive, ecologically sustainable, easier to maintain landscapes and plantings emphasizing
character-revealing trees. '
.
A 10 year certified arborist and a 30 year landscape architect, Mr., Severynen previously served
with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUn) Los Angeles Office as a
Landscape Architect/Land Planner, Environmental Specialist, and Community Planning and
Development Representative. His bands-on experience with plants and design dates back a long
titne. In 1964 he acquired his pruning diploma simultaneously with ~ BS degree in tropical
and subtropical agriculture from the State Agricultural College in Deventer, the Netherlands.
He operated his own nursery in the Netherlands. After graduating fi;om DC Berkeley in
landscape architecture in 1969 he kept combining hisinterests,in design and arboriculture: he
ptunes trees and shrubs, directs the pruning of large spedinens, and, he teaches worlrshops on
the pruning of fruit trees, the creation of character in ornamental trees and shrubs, the long-
term maintenance of plants, the design of gardens creating the best environmental conditions
for healthy plant growth. '. I
. I
Mr. Severynen is fascinated by the relationship between people and plants and their mutual
influence. As a public speaker he addt:esses land useplonn;ng; global worming; sensory
awareness; selection, care and pruning of trees; fire adapted landstaping;,urban-rural interface
design and environmental issues. He is a member of various professional organizations,
including Street Tree Seminar, and a long term Board member of the Southem California
Chapter of the; American Society of Landscape Architects.
.
,,.,