HomeMy WebLinkAbout1717
,
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1717
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE HIGHLAND
OAKS SPECIFIC PLAN (S.P. 2003-001) FOR A PROPOSED
7-LOT RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED
NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND
NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF
ARCADIA.
.
WHEREAS, Nevis Construction, Inc. filed an application for a specific plan
to establish development and maintenance regulations for a proposed 7-lot
residential hillside development, Community Development Division Case No. S.P.
2003-001, to be located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and Northwest of
Canyon Road, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 23, 2004, at which time
all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community
Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached
report, dated November 23, 2004, is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds for the reasons set forth in the above
.<
report:
1. That based on the environmental analysis contained throughout the
project's Final Environmental Impact Report, and the attached SpeCific Plan
Review by the hillside-consulting firm of TRG Land, Inc. the implementation of the
applicant's Specific Plan Would necessitate mass grading of the subject property to
the extent that the proposed project would not be in compliance with the City's
General Plan Hillside Management Strategies CD-17 thru CD-20, as addressed in
the attached staff report.
2. That the proposed Specific Plan is inadequate because, if adopted, it
would establish modified development standards that would encourage the
potential size of the new homes to be substantially larger than the neighboring and
1
1717
.....
,
, -
,
.
"
surrounding homes within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association area,
which is inconsistent with the Land Use and Community Identity Strategy CD-21 of
the Arcadia General Plan.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council denial of the proposed Highland Oaks Specific
Plan as submitted by the applicant to the City as of the date of this Resolution.
SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect
the Planning Commission's direction at its meeting of November 23, 2004, and the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Hsu
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of December, 2004 by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Lucas, Olson, Wen, Baderian
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
~<3~/
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
ecretary, Plannl g Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FO~M:
~P.~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
2
17t7
.
e
.
.
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
November 23,2004
TO:
Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM:
. Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By:. Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project - Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIRI, Specific Plan S.P. 2003-001 and Tentative Tract
Map No, 51941
SUMMARY
Nevis Construction, Inc. has submitted applications for a Specific Plan (S.P. 2003-001)
and Tentative Tract Map (T.M. No. 51941) to allow for the construction of a seven-lot
residential hillside development located in the northeast portion of the City. An
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project.
The purpose of this hearing is to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to:
(1) Review the Final EIR (FEIR) which includes comments on responses to the
Draft EIR (DEJR), and
(2) Make recommendations to the City Council on the applications for a Specific
Plan and Tentative Tract Map.
The Planning Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council in
resolution form. The City Council will be the final decision makina body for purposes of
certifying the final environmental impact report (FEIR) and approving the applications.
The staff report has been divided into the following sections:
Section 1 ProjectDescription
Section'2 Environmental Impact Analysis and Final EIR
Section 3 Applications S.P. 2003-001 and T.M. No. 51941 including Staff's
Recommendations, Appropriate Findings and Action
Section 4 Planning Commission Motions
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 1
SECTION 1
PROJECT DES.CRIPTION
BACKGROUND
The applicant previously submitted an application on April 10, 2001, for a proposed 11-
lot hlliside residential development for the subject site; however, the application was
withdrawn prior to completing the environmental review phasecof the project. Since that
time the site, which is approximately 83.15 acres, has continued to remain as a relatively
undisturbed hillside area.
Existino Zonina 8< General Plan Desianation
The project site is zoned "Residential Mountainous Single Family (R-M)" with an
"Architectural Design (D)' overlay. The overlay requires design and architectural review
by the Highland Homeowners' Association, as established by City Council Resolution
5289 (copy attached), which was adopted on April 1, 1986.
The General Plan designation .for the site is "Single-family Residential (0-4 dwellipg units
per <lcre)".
Surroundina Land Use:andZonina
North of the project site are steep undeveloped slopes within the Angeles National
Forest. .
The more moderate hillside topography to the south of the project site is developed with
single-family residential homes. This area is zoned R-1 & D, and also requires review
by the Highland Homeowners' Association.
East of the site are the unzoned Upper Canyon Reservoir sites, single-family residential
homes, and the Arcadia Wildemess Park:. The homes and park are currently zoned R-1
& D and R-M respectively, and are also within the Highland Homeowners' Association
area,.
Properties to the west consist of undeveloped hillside open space areas, and single-
family residential neighborhoOds within, the City of Sierra Madre, which are within a
Hillside Management zone.
Develooer's Proposal
The proposed project is the Highland Oaks Specific Plan (SP 2003-001) and Tentative
Tract Map No. 51941 for a seven-lot residential hillside development located north of the
terminus of Vista Avenue and northwest of Canyon Road in the City of Arcadia. The
proposed development would occur upon a 1'3.~acre portion of an approximate 83,15-
acre project site; and the remaining 70.11 acres would be a dedicated ope(1 space
parcel. Under the proposed project an on-site westem canyon area would be filled with
approximately 117,070 cubic yards of excess earth material from the proposed grading
of the site to minimize the off-site tral)sport of such material. Forlhe exact location of
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 2
.
-
,
.
.
e
.
.
e.
.
,
f
the proposed project and other proposed design details, please refer to Figures 1 thru 8
in the EIR.
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND FINAL EIR
Prior to taking any action on a project, the Lead AgenCy must certify the adequacy of the
Final EIR and certify that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR prior to approving a project. In regards to this
project, the City of Arcadia is the Lead Agency and the City Council is the decision
making body.
The environmental review process began with the filing of applications for a SpeCific
Plan (S.P. 2003-001) and Tentative Tract Map rr.M. No. 51941) to allow for the
construction of a seven-lot residential hillside development located in the northeast
portion of the City.
Based on an initial study, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report was,
necessary. Such a report has been prepared to examine potentially significant
environmental impacts that could result from the development of the proposed project,
and further to identify mitigation measures that would either avoid or substantially
reduce those impacts. Attached is the table from the EIR (pages 4 thi'u 31) that
summarizes the Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after
Mitigation.
A Notice of Preparation was circulated on May 22, 2003. The Draft EIR was available
for review from August 11, 2004 to September 23, 2004, and both the Notice of
Completion and the Notice of Public Hearing listed'locations where copies of the EIR
were available for public review.
Notice of tonight's Planning Commission hearing was published in the paper on
November 1, 2004, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,Ooo-foot
radius as well as interested persons on November 2, 2004.
The 'Panning Consortium under contract with the City and under the City's direction
prepared the EIR. The City conducted its own independent evaluation and analysis of
the Draft EIR;prior to releasing the document for public review.
The EIR .identifies the following potential impacts that can be mitigated to a less than
significant level (see the attached table for details):
. Geology and Solis
. Hydrology and Flood Control
. Land Use and Planning
. Air Quality
. Aesthetics and View Analysis
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 3
,
,
The EIR identifies several unavoidable significant Impacts, as defined by CEQA that
would result from theimpJementation of the proposed project. These impacts are .
seismicity, biological, noise (short term), traffic and circulation (short term), and public
services.
If the City, as the Lead Agency, determines that an unavoidable significant adverse
Impact will result from the project, in order to approve the project the City must adopt a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations". The Statement of Overriding Considerations
states that the decision making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project
against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has considered the
adverse effects to be acceptable.
Altematives
The CEQA guidelines state that an Environmental Impact Reportmust.address "a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the iocation of the project. which could
feasibly attain the basic objectives of the 'project, and evaiuate the ,comparative merits of
the altematilies." Not every conceivable altemative needs to be addressed nor do
infeasible altematives. need to be considered.
The Guidelines further state that' the discussion of alternatives must focus on
alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the
project or reducing them to less than significant level while achieving major project
objectives, The following six Alternatives have been discussed in the EIR:
. Alternative 1: No Project (mandatory CEQA alternative). Under the "No Project" _
altemative the approximately 83.15 acre project site would remain as a relatively .
undisturbed hillside area, and as such could be preserved in perpetuity if It were
purchased by a public conservancy organization or public entity. 'The "No
Project" alternate would avoid the potential biological, noise, traffic and
circulation, and public services impacts when compared to the proposed hillside
project. Seismic, hydrology and flood conli'oLirripacts would still occur due to the
site's location and steep hillside topography, Since this altemative would involve
fewer environmental impacts, this' altemative is considered environmentally
superior to the proposed project.
. Altemative 2: Current General PlanlZonin9 Regulations. This altemative is
based on what the current General Plan designation and the applicable zonin9
regulations would allow within the approximately 13.04"acre portion, of the site,
Which is proposed for development. The remaining 70.11 acres would still be a
dedicated open space parcel.
Due to the site's environmental constraints it is highly unlikely that the current
General Plan Designation for the, area, which allows up to four dwelling units per
acre, could be maximized in deveioping the. approximately 13.04-acre portion of
the site. Therefore, .thlsaltemative assumes a maximum of eleven residential
lots for a more realistic comparison to the proposed project, as analyzed in
Section 7.2 of the EIR. There would be similar grading, drainage, and biological
impacts between the proposed project and this altemative; however, an eleven-
lot project would likely result in a greater level of impacts over the proposed
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23. 2004
Page 4
.
.
e
.
.'
project. Specifically, an increase in construction noise, air quality, traffic and
circulation, public services and aesthetics would be anticipated. Since this
altemative would involve a greater level of environmental Impacts, it is not
considered an environmentally superior altemative to the proposed project.
. Altemative 3: Two Residential Units. Under this altemative two residential units
could be constructed at the base of the site's east-facing slope i.e., in the vicinity
of the proposed access road entrance to the site. The home sites would be
similar to the three neighboring residences that exist to the north of this location
along Canyon Road. There would be a minimal amount of gradin9 required: and
the major landfonn features of the site as well as the majority of the natural
vegetation would be retained. Also, with fewer units there would be a lower level
of impacts under this altemative than the proposed project with regards to
grading, drainage, biological resources, noise, air quality, traffic and circulation,
public services, and aesthetics. Since this altemative involves fewer
environmental impacts, this altemativeis considered environmentally superior to
the proposed project.
. Altemative 4: Seven Residential Units With A Maximum 15% Access Roadway
Grade. This altemative is similar to the proposed project with the exception that
a greater amount of grading would be necessary within the 13.04-acre portion of
the site to maintain an access roadway grade of 15%. Although this altemative
is an improvement over the proposed project's 15 to 18% street grades, it would
not be in compliance with the City of Arcadia Fire Code that requires no more
than a maximum access roadway grade of 12% for new residential subdivisions.
The primary purpose of such a requirement is to provide a safe and adequate
access roadway for the operation of emergency vehicles. Therefore, Altemative
4 is not an environmentally superior altemative to the proposed project because
of the non-compliance with the City Fire Code, and the additional on-site grading.
. Altemative 5: Seven Residential Units With A Maximum 12% Access Roadway
Grade. Altemative 5 is also similar to the proposed project with the exception
that in order to maintain an access roadway grade of 12% an even greater
amount of grading would be necessary within the 13.04-acre portion of the site.
Approximately 63% more earth material would be graded and approximately
378% more excess earth material would be transported off the site - see Table
19 o(the EIR. Although a. 12% access roadway grade altematlve would be in
compliance with the City Fire Code, it is not an environmentally superior
altemative because it requires a substantially greater amount of grading and off-
site transport of earth malerial: and it disturbs more natural hillside area
compared to the proposed project.
. Altemative 6: Proposed Project Grading Without Filling of Westem Canyon.
This altemative would have the same impacts as the proposed project with the
exception that the truck trips to export the excess graded material from the site
would substantially increase due to not filling the canyon i.e., this altemative
would retain the canyon in its natural state. The truck trips would increase
approximately 347% over the proposed project, as shown in Table 19 of the EIR.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23,2004
. Page 5
~
,
Altemative 6 is not an environmentally superior altemative because it involves a
greater level of exporting earth material from the site in addition to the initial .
impacts ofthe proposed project.
CEQA requires that a Lead Agency identify the "environmentally superior alternative".
Based on the analysis in the EIR (see Table 20) the environmental superior alternatives
are the "No Project' alternative and the "Two Residential Units" altemative.
The "No Project" altemative does not achieve the project's objectives. Under this
alternative the site would be undeveloped, and'left in its natural state.
The "Two Residential Units" altemative would,meet most of the project objectives with a
lower level of impacts, and provide two home sites that would be similar to the
neighboring residences to the n,orth along Canyon Road:
Mltioation Measures
Mitigation measures have been identified in the attached table. from the EIR (pages 4
thru 31) that summarizes the Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of
Significar)ce after Mitigation.
Final EIR (FEIR)
Prior to taking any action on .the project, the City'Council must certify that the Final EIR:
. has been completed in compliance with the' Califomia Environmental Quality Act _
(CECA); .
. has been reviewed.and considered by the City Council; and
. represents the City's' independent judgment and analysis.
Plannino Commission Action
The Planning Commission should direct staff to forward their comments and
recommendation on the Final EIR to the City Council.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 6
.
.
e
.
-
SECTION 3
APPL.ICATIONSS.P.2003-001 and T.M. 51941
staff's Recommendations and Planning Commission Action
The following is a complete summary of the applicant's requests along with staff's
recommendations and the appropriate action and findings required for each application.
SPECIFIC PLAN IS.P. 2003-001\
Reauest
The applicant is requesting the adoption of the Highland Oaks Specific Pan (S.P. 2003-
001) to establish development and maintenance regulations for the project's seven
residential lots. access roadway, and the slope drainage system. Such regulations are
sel forth in the attached Specific Plan document which. if adopted. would replace the
current R-M zoning requirements for the subject property by means of a subsequent
zone change process.
Staff's Recommendation
The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the Highland Oaks
Specific Plan because of the following unavoidable environmental issues that are
associated with the project. The issues are as follows:
. Comoliance with the General Plan Hillside Manaoement Strateoies: Preservation
. of the hillside areas. Due to the environmental significance of the remaining
natural hillside areas, it is our desire to optimize the balance between
preservation and the potential development of such areas by assuring that new
development specifically complies with the City's General Plan Hillside
Management Strategies. The strategies are as follows:
CD-17 Maintain the visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the
importance of the exposure of hnlside development to off-site public
views and the importance of providing panoramic views from hillsides.
CD-18 Minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural
topographic characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only minimal
disruption.
CD-19 Protect the natural character of hillside areas by means of contour
grading to blend graded slopes and terraces with the natural
topography.
CD~20 Avoid mass graded pads within hillside areas. Smaller steps or grade
changes should be used over single large slope banks to the greatest
extent possible.
In order for the City of Arcadia to approve this project';t would have to be found
to be in compliance with the City's General Plan's goals. policies, and standards,
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23,2004
Page 7
,
includin9 the above Hillside Management Strategies. Based on the
environmental analysis contained throughout the EIR and the review by the
hillside-consulting firm (TRG Land, Inc.) the implementation of the applicaTll's .
Specific Plan would necessitate mass grading of the subject property to the
extent that in staffs opinion the proposed project would noi be in compliance
with the City's General Plan Hillside Management Strategies.
. Bioloaical Resources: The preservation of oak trees. .Based on the applicant's
submitted "Oak Tree Survey" of the subject property 158 oak trees currentJy,exist
on the 13.04-acre portion of the site to be developed of which 22 were fo"und to
be under the protection of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The proposed hillside
project requires the removal of at least 110 oak trees within the 13.04-acre
portion of the site, which includes 20 of the 22 protected oaks.
The Development Services Department .obtained the services of TRG Land, Inc.
to assist staff by providing a technical review of the applicant's proposal, since
they are a highly qualified consulting firm in the field. of hillside development.
Their report (copy attached) finds that the Specific Plan document does not
adequately address how the remaining oak trees will be preserved; and that the
'largest oak tree (i.e., a 74-inch diameter oak), which exists in the vicinity of the
prciject'saccess road entrance, is not likely to survive due to the amount of
construction that would occur around the base of the tree. Figure 8 on page 12
of their report prOVides a section drawing to illustrate the extent of the propose
alteration of the natural hillside area around the SUbject tree. The EIR also
confirms that the proposed developmentwill create significant impacts to the 74-
inch diameter oak tree.
. Land Use and Plannina: Compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land uses.
In staffs opinion, the proposed Highland Oaks Specific Plan is inadeqUate. In
addition to the above-mentioneq issues, if adopted, it would establish modified
development standards that would encourage the potential size of the new
homes to be substantially larger than .the neighboring and surrOunding homes
within the f'lighland Oaks Homeowners' Association area. The existing homes in
the vicinity of the proposed ,hillside project typically range from approximately
2,000 to 3,500 square feet. Under Section "5.0 Development Standards and
Regulations' of the Specific Plan the lot coverage requirement limits proposed
dwelling units not to exceed 65% of the total pad area of a lot. Therefore, the
new homes could exceed 6,000 square feet based on the proposed building pad
sizes that range from approximately 10,147 to 13,224 square feet. This issue is
addressed in the EIRon pages 162-1.63.
Plannlnc Commission Findinas and Action
The Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation, in Resolution form on
the proposed specific plan to the City Council. Therefore the Commission shOUld direct
staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at its l'1ext meeting reflecting the
Commission's recommendations on the Highland Oaks Specific Pan (S.P. 2003-001).
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Projecj
November 23, 2004
Page 8
e
.
.
e
.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP !T.M. NO. 51941)
Request
The applicant is requesting the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 to subdivide
two existing hillside part::els totaling approximately 83.15 acres into the proposed seven
residential lots and a large open space lot. The lot sizes would range from a minimum
of 33,67~ square feet to a maximum of 192,511 square feet; and the building pad sizes
would range from approximately 10,147 square feet to 13,224 square feet.
Staff's Recommendation
The Development Services Department is recommending denial of Tentative Tract Map
No. 51941 because of the following unavoidable public safety and environmental issues
that are associated with the project. The issues are as follows:
. Public Services: Emergency fire equipment access. Tentative Tract Map No.
51941 proposes a single entrance dead-end cul-de-sac street off of Canyon
Road to provide access to the seven-lot subdivision. The street would be
approximately 620 feet long, which exceeds the current Municipal Code Right of
Way requirement for such a street not to exceed a maximum length of 500 feet
[Sec. 9114.2. (c)). In addition, the street grade would range from 15 to 18%. as
shown on the submitted tentative map, which exceeds the maximum 12% grade
standard under the City's Fire Code. The Arcadia Fire Department has
requested that the 12% standard be observed because the subject property is in
a high fire hazard area that increases the need to provide a safe and adequate
access roadway for the operation of emergency vehicles.
. Compliance with the General Plan Hillside Manaoement Strateqies: Preservation
of the hillside areas. It is estimated that approximately 8 acres (62%) of the
13.04-acre portion of the site to be developed will be substantially altered by the
proposed grading operations. Approximately 151,000 cubic yards of cut earth
material and approximately 120,000 cubic yards of fill would be moved to create
the building pads, roadway access, and the slope drainage system that is shown
on Tentative Tract Map No. 51941. In order to accomplish the site grading the
applicant is proposing to fill an on-site natural canyon area with approximateiy
117 ,000 cubic yards of earth material, and transport approximately 33, BOO cubic
yards of excess earth material off the site. Based on the environmental analysis
contained throughout the EIR and the review by the hillside consulting firm (TRG
Land, Inc.) it is staff's opinion that the proposed tentative tract map, if approved,
would involve mass grading of the subject property, and therefore would not be
in compliance with the City's General Plan Hillside Management Strategies.
Plannino Commission Findinos and Action
The Planning Commission should direct staff to forward their comments and
recommendation on Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 to the City Council.
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 9
SECTION 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
Although the California Environmental Quality Act does not require a public hearing on .
the Final EIR, pUblic participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Tonight's
public hearing affords the public an opportunity to comment on the project's Specific
Plan, tentative tract map as well as the Final EIR.
Staff recommends that'the Planning Commission proceed as follows:
1._ Hear the report from City staff and the consultant.
2. Open the public. hearing.
3. Take public testimony from all interested parties, including the applicant.
4. Close the public hearing.
5. Planning Commission discussion; and
6. Planning Commission recommendations to the City CoUncil.
The Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for
adoption at its next meetingref1ecting the Commission's action and recommendation on
the Specific Plan in relation to the request by the applicant and recommendation of the
Deveiopment Services Department. The resolution will be forwarded to the City Council
for their consideration at a pUblic hearing on the proposed applications and Final EIR.
It is recognized .that tbe Commission~s actions are based on information to date, and
that the final decision by the City Council is contingent on the Final Certified EIR by the
Council.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party ttasany questions or comments
re9arding this project, prior to the scheduled public hearing, please contact Corkran W.
Nicholsor:l at (626) 574-5422.
Ap~fO'.ved BY:. ~./::'--."'?
14 . .
. ~4f'd~. '
na L. Butler .
Gommunity Development Administrator
Highland Oaks Specific Plan Project
November 23,2004
Page 10
.
e
.
.
e
.
Attachments:
. Aerial Photo & Zoning Map
. City Council Resolution 5289
. Table of Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after
Mitigation from then fEIR
. Initial Study
. Highland Oaks Specific Plan Review by TRG Land, Inc.
. Highland Oaks Specific Plan
. final Environmental Report
Highland Oaks SpecifiC Plan Project
November 23, 2004
Page 11
~
N
1011 0 1011 200 200 440 5IW SOO 700 800 900 1000 Feet
:""\-- - Io.........J
P777J Highland Oaks
~ Specific Plan
D Arcadia
I R-M I Zone
{Is
Highland Oaks
Specific Plan Project
Oevelopme[1fSarvices Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R:s.Gonza1e< Noiember, 2004