The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-10-09•:r1 AGENDA ARCADIA PLANNING COMIVII; Tuesday, Febnuary 10, 2009, 7:D0 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chamber; PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MOTION: To read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA TI'EMS TIIKE RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMLSSIO ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person. Al! interested persons are im~lted to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimorry concerning any of the proposed items set forth below jot consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time ojthe Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07.05 (69775) -REVISION An approximately 83-acre property generally lopted north of the termimts of vista Avenue and north and northwest of t:anyon Road. Nevis Homes The proposed subdivision, as described below, was conditionally apprdved by the Arcadia Planning Commission in August 2008. The nature of the subdivision is not changing, rather, the applicann is requesting a revision W Mitigation Measure 1.5 from the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that requires a nonrefundable $200,000 deposit to the City w fund the maintceance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land The applicant is proposing an aftemative measure to state an assessment district that would place the financial burden of maiMainine die open space on the owners of the two proposed residemial properties. TPM 07-05 (69775) is a Tentative Parcel Map for a three (3) parcel subdivision. Parcel 1 would be approximately two (2) acres in area and Parce12 would be 0.82 acre in area Both parcels are proposed for residential development The remaining parcel, Parcel 3, would be approximately 80 acres in area and would remain undeveloped. RECOMMENDATION: Apprtoval There is a ten day appeal periadfrom the date ojthe decision. Appeals are to be filed by February 23, 2009. 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TM 69958 1402, 1406 and 1410 South Eigbth Avenne Dexter 8`" Avenue, LLC The appfipni is requesting a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for a five-lot subdivision. RECOMMENDATTON: Denial There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by February 23, 2009. Any writings err documents provided to a majority of the Plamting Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Hmrtington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423. PC AGENDA 2-]0-09 CONSENT ITEMS 3. TEXT AMENDMENT 08-05 -REVISION Citywide This is a Revision to Text Amendment No. 08-05 amending the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations as set forth in Sections 9295 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Cade. RECOMMENDATION: Approve 4. RESOLUTION NO.1789 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15 and a related Parking Modification to expand an existiog 1,006 square-foot eating establishment into a 1,971 square-foot restauram with beer and wine service and seating for 33 patrons at 921 S. Baldwin Avemte, Units G &. H. RECOMMENDATION: -Adopt S. RESOLUTION NO.1790 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Modification (CUP 94-01 / Resolution No. 1508) to increase the seating capacity from 8 to 23 persons at an existing 1,376 square-foot eating establishment at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Unit A. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt 6. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF 8c UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT -Adjourn to Tuesday, Febmary 24, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Police Department Community Room Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item an this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services o&ce at City Hall, 240 W, Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 910(17, (626)574-5423. PC AGENDA 2-10-09 PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to theAmericans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5423. Not cation 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Public Hearina Procedure 1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The Planing report is preserved by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning report maybe answered at this time. 4. The appficam is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportmiity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES). 6, Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO 5 MINTTTES). 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal (LIMffED TO 5 MINUTES). 8, The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commissipn members may discuss the prc>Fwsal at this time. 10. The Commission then acts on the proposal and either approves, approves with condifions or modifications, denies the application, or tontines it to a certain date. 11. Following the Co+++m;ss;on's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. ('T'here is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution). 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five working day appeal Period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Coaunissin's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a sclteduted public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Temative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Pla+~+~' ~ Commission membe~a regarding mmy item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)5745423. PC AGI2+TDA 2-]0-09 r_ w ::,. U' • ~.....~ ..a c`~~°°~iY.°~H°~`° STAFF REPQRT Development Services Department February 10, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Revision to Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) for a three (3) parcel subdivision of an 83-acre 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. • SUMMARY On August 26, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776, approving Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775), Residential Mountainous Developmerit Permit Application No. RM 07-01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04. These entitlements were necessary to subdivide an 83.15-acre undeveloped hillside property generally located~~north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road. into three parcels, and to develop parcels 1 and 2 (totaling 2.82 acres in area).. with new single-family residences. Parcel 3 (the remaining 80.33 acres) would> remain undeveloped. On December 15, 2008, the applicant submitted a request to revise Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This measure requires a nonrefundable $200,000 deposit to the City to fund the maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped. land. The applicant is proposing an alternative measure to create a Mello-Roos assessment district that would place the financial burden of maintaining the open space on the owners of the two proposed residential properties. All other mitigation measures and conditions of approval would remain unchanged. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the revision request, with the new mitigation measure language as shown on page 5 of this • report. Revision to TPM 07-05(69775) February 10, 2009 Page 1 ,. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Nevis Homes Location: 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. Request: To revise Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved MMRP to establish aMello-Roos assessment district that would place the financial burden of maintaining the approximately 80-acre open space parcel on the owners of the two proposed residential properties. Site Area: The total size of the property is 83.15 acres; the area proposed for development is 2.82 acres in area. Frontage: Approximately 678.81 feet along Canyon Road Existing Land Use: The subject site is currently .a vacant, undisturbed hillside/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 Zone General Plan Designation: Single-Family Residential (0-4 dwelling units per acre) Surrounding Land Uses & Zoning: North: Angeles National Forest -Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain consisting of relatively undisturbed native vegetation and wildlife South: Existing hillside low-density single-family residential neighborhoods within the City of Arcadia East: Arcadia Wilderness Park and existing hillside low- density single-family residential neighborhoods within the City of Arcadia • L~ Revision to TPM 07-05.(69775) February 10, 2009 Page 2 • West: Undeveloped hillside and mountainous. terrain and existing low-density single-family residential neighborhoods within the City of Sierra Madre PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of the revision to Tentative Parcel Map No: TPM 07-05 (69775) were mailed on January 20, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map), and the Highlands, Homeowners Association President and Architectural Review Board Chairman. Because the. revision request is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper. Staff did not receive any comments from the neighboring residents or HOA representatives regarding the proposed revision.to the parcel map. BACKGROUND The subject property is currently an undisturbed mountainous/hillside area containing native vegetation and wildlife. In September 1977, the Planning Commission recommended a zone change of the subject 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 under Ordinance No. 1614. In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide the subject property into 11 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 00-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 51941) but withdrew the applications before 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. TTM 51941). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal due to significant and ,unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project (Resolution No. 1717). The City Council subsequently denied the applications (Resolution No. 6466). On August 12, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed. and approved the following applications fora 3-lot subdivision of the property: • Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775), to subdivide the property into three separate lots • .Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01, to grade parcels 1 and 2 in preparation for two proposed single-family residences • Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04, for the removal of or • encroachment upon 12 on-site Oak trees , Revision to TPM 07-05 (69775) February 10, 2009 Page 3 On August 27, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776, • thereby formalizing approval of the proposed project. Concurrent with the approval of the entitlements, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project. DISCUSSION Nevis Homes, the applicant and 'current property owner, is proposing to modify Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved MMRP, which currently reads as follows: maintaining aarcel 3 in perpetuitv." The Planning Commission approved the proposed subdivision subject to the condition that parcel 3 (80.33 acres in area) be set aside as permanent open space. This would require aGeneral -Plan Amendment to change 'the parcel's land use designation from "Single-Family Residential" to "Public Facilities and Grounds" as well as a Zone Change to designate parcel 3 as "Open Space." The question then arose of who would be responsible for maintaining parcel 3. Currently, the Los 'Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner /Department of Weights & Measures periodically clears brush and weeds and charges Nevis Homes for the maintenance work through a tax lien. However, because formal designation of parcel 3 as permanent open space would strip the property of its value, there is concern that • the property owner will default on the tax payment and the City will end up paying 'for the maintenance work. Therefore, staff recommended a condition stipulating that an endowment be created to fund the maintenance. of parcel 3 in perpetuity. The City's Finance Department conservatively estimated -based on the average annual cost of weed abatement activities -that such an endowment would need to be at least $200,000. The applicant is now proposing an alternative mitigation measure to ensure that parcel 3 is properly maintained..Ratherthgn create an endowment, the applicant proposes to shift the financial burden on the future owners of the two residential properties (parcels 1 and 2). This would require the creation of a Community Facilitieg District (CFD) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. The Act allows a CFD to be created to finance public improvements and services when no other source of funding is available. The CFD would be formed prior to sale of the residential properties to avoid a vote by residents. Under the proposed assessment district, the future owners of the two residential properties would be required to pay a special assessment each year that maintenance work is conducted. Staff estimates that the assessment would be roughly $3,000 every two to three years for each property owner. In staffs opinion, the proposal to create an assessment district is superior to the endowment measure. The approved measure presumes that a $200,000 • endowment will generate enough interest to cover maintenance costs in Revision to TPM 07-05.(69775) February 10, 2009 Page 4 perpetuity; however, in the event the endowment funds are depleted, the City could very well be left with the burden of paying for the maintenance work. The applicant's new proposal places the entire burden on the two future property owners, which is a preferable solution as long as the residences will still be marketable; evidently, Nevis Homes thinks they will be. The City Attorney estimates it will take approximately 90 days to establish the CFD, and recommends that the applicant provide an up-front deposit of at least $7,500 to cover the cost of setting up the district. The applicant must also agree to grant an easement to provide access to the property. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department determined that the revision to Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-05 (69775) is exempt from CEQA under Section 15308 (Class 8 -Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) and Section 15317 (Class 17 -Open Space Contracts or Easements). A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached. 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 a royal of the revision to Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-05 (69775) to modify Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to read as follows: 1.5 Prior to recordation of the parcel map, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) shall be established to place the financial obligation of maintaining parcel 3 in perpetuity on the future owners of parcels 1 and 2. The project applicant shall irrevocably deposit the sum of $7,500 to the City to cover the cost of establishing said district. Revision to TPM 07-05.(69775) February 10, 2009 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve the revision to TPM 07- 05 (69775), subject to the following findings: A.1. Find that the revision to the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are consistent with the Arcadia General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage from the project into the public sewer system will not violate any requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this region. A.2. Find that this revision to the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Sections 15308 and 15317. A.3. Authorize and direct the City Engineer to approve and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project that includes the revision. • A.4. Approve this revision to the project subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Planning Commission. • Denial If the Planning Commission takes action to deny the revision to this parcel map, the Commission should make specific findirigs based on the evidence presented and move to deny the revision request. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following findings which must be expanded upon with specific reasons for denial: D.1. Find that the revision to the proposed map is not consisteht with applicable general and specific plans. D.2. Find that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.3. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. D.4. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.5. Find that the design, of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. u Revision to TPM 07-05,(69775) February 10, 2009 Page 6 • D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. D.7. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the February 10, 2009 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Steven Lee at (626) 574-5444 or via email at slee aC~.ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji sama mmunity Development Administrator Attachments: Resolution No. 1776 & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting • Program Aerial photographs and vicinity maps Radius map Photographs of site and surroundings Preliminary Exemption Assessment Plans • Revision to TPM 07-05 (69775) February 10, 2009 Page 7 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-OS (69775), AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. TR 08-04 FOR THE SUBDNISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN 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 R, Inc. on behalf of Nevis Homes, for approval of two, new, single-family residences, Development Services Department Case No. RM 07-01, in conjunction with • the related subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-OS (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 of 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-OS (69775), and • Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2008, 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 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: ® SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Deparhnent in the attached report is true and correct. 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 scarring 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 e. Be inconsistent with the provisions of Division 0 of Part 5 of • 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-OS (69775) Residential-Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07-01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves Residential-Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-OS (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 • 1. The applicant shall sign the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), thereby agreeing to pay the City monitoring fees and implement the mitigation measures at a minimum in the design, 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, • 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 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, -4- 1776 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 check review 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 annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or 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 provided for in 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. -5- 1776 • 7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for RM 07-01, TPM 07-OS (69775) and TR 08-04 shallr~be grounds for immediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals. 8. Approval of RM 07-01; TPM 07-OS (69775) and TR 08-04 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residences. • SECTION 5. .The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 26th day of August, 2008. Chairman, Planning Commission A' Planning Commission A('PP~RO~VE_D AS T~pO. F,,O~}R1V-1: Q Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -6- 1776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) 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 adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Chairperson and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August, 2008 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Parrille and Beranek NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Baderian and Baerg Secre o 'the Planning Commission • }' nw F~ •. S~eetlh.S4°~° Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 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 California 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 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 Application No. RM 07-01; and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08-04. This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on the following pages that correspond to the 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. Mitigation 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 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 7HE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER DATE DATE • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07-OS (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 Timin Entit Com lets? Im act -Aesthetics & Biolo ical Resources 1.1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and throughout grading and construction, the project applicant Duration of Planning and shall comply with the recommended construction Building tree protection measures identified and grading Services in the certified arborist report dated November 15, 2007 (see attached). 1.2 The project applicant shall plant Following indigenous low growing plant cover completion of and acorns obtained from nearby grading and Oak trees into the slope. The construction Planning and acorns 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. 1.3 The project applicant shall agree to a General Plarr 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 Prior to Planning zoning designation and the rezoning recordation of Services of parcel 3 from Residential parcel map Mountainous to Open Space. 1.5 The project applicant shall irrevocably deposit with the City the Prior to Planning nonrefundable sum of $200,000 for recordation of Services purposes of paying, in whole or in parcel map part, the cost of maintaining parcel 3 in perpetuity. act -Air Qualit .1 The project contractor shall water the grading site at least twice a day Duration of Planning and (morning and afternoon, or as construction Building deemed necessary) using reclaimed and grading Services water or chemical soil binder, where feasible. 2.2 The project contractor shall wash off Duration of Planning and trucks leaving the site and cover dirt construction Building in trucks during on-road hauling. and grading Services 2.3 During grading operations, the project contractor shall spread soil Duration of Planning and binders on the construction site, grading Building unpaved roads, and parking areas at operations Services least every 4 hours and at the end of the workday. 2.4 The project contractor shall apply chemical stabilizers according to Duration of Planning and manufacturer's specifications to all construction Building previously graded construction areas and grading Services which remain inactive for 96 hours or more. 2.5 The project contractor shall re- establish ground cover within the Duration of Planning and construction site through seeding construction Building and watering on portions of the site and grading Services that will not be disturbed for a period of two months or more. 2.6 The project contractor shall sweep Duration of Planning and streets to prevent silt and other construction Building debris from being carried over to and grading Services adjacent public thoroughfares. 2.7 Traffic speeds on all unpaved road Duration of Planning and surtaces shall not exceed t5 miles construction Building per hour. and grading Services 2.8 The project contractor shall suspend Duration of Planning and grading operations during first and construction Building second stage smog alerts. and grading Services 2.9 The project contractor shat! suspend grading operations, apply soil Duration of Planning and binders, and water the grading site construction Building when wind speeds (as instantaneous and grading Services gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 2.10The project contractor shall keep construction equipment engines Duration of Planning and tuned. to ensure that the air quality construction Building impacts generated by construction and grading Services activities are minimized. Im act - Geolo & Soils 3.1 The project applicant shall follow all recommendations listed in Chapter Duration of Planning and 6 of the Geotechnical Engineering construction Building Investigation dated September 20, and grading Services 2007 (see attached). Im acf -Noise & Trans orfafion?raft!c 4.1 Grading and construction activities shall be limited to the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday Duration of Planning and through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 construction Building p.m. on Saturdays. Construction and and grading Services grading activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. 4.2 The project contractor shall ensure full compliance with the construction Duration of Planning and staging plan for rough grading, construction Building including the placement of waste and grading Services 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 Duration of Planning and a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through construction Building Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and and grading Services 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays to avoid school and rush hour traffic. .4 Grading activities shall not last more Duration of Planning and than 6 months and shall occur grading Building between April and October to avoid Services the rainy season. • • E a - .. ~, _ L - ~- ~ / . • .6~D .~ - ' i~ ~ .axn<o ~. J p u~xwu R•I RLM / yI G I YIi ~ ;T a-F- a o; 7PM 0TO$ [6975, so ' . •• • RM 07-'01 ~ • • • sa ~ +~' • 'O Sub`jeel- P,-operfy "' ~ F~Ito ' % R•M . J G!o, ~p-I ADI ..~pl ', 0 • +D' _~ . ,~ .~o • ~ .\rD .;D. ~ ~~ T ~ I D ' ' .I . pp ~ f ' b\ R I R-I II 'I R-I .~ MM • 11 R I fl_I .' G R-pl Rpl t9 ~~ ~I R-I ~ t ,~ R_I i ~- • fll 1 R•I RO r \\ PD 7 ~ ~ +D a ems. p-D ;9 •/ i )GOOL /// 'R-18D ,..p.t.~n u~mw~ ~ ~-I q-I P-I ~ Iu -__ R- ~ as cp ~ ~ ' R-1 ; ° rR-1 . C R.O.O w ~~ P` ~ 1 ~I ' (f ~ L .~I Q` ~~ R0•D \~ i• s R•15 R, ~ a-I q-0' D R-D' \ R•a D\ - \v a~ R'I~~ romwnu a. xn« acxeo. ~ ~ ~ ~ .g. ~ t m 1 ry 2 ~a E _ .i 1 PSrcvll6 (.oca~'ian.Ma~ TP)~ o7-OS (bga~s~ 'FDA.,,, ~S a ~'iT'1 ~7-C51 ,,. 4 R ~Q i n „z a V. a c~ I~ ~. pro~zos ec~' , Z new Ids ~ ~~ .(~ ~~ E ~n E A ~ oel ~Z 17 1 ~ e ~I3 ~ ~ .e ~ n '~ s ' AGE ^' ~ q"~A IA~~~P ~, .G~^ ~ C~ r tL, ~ µG~ V1' ~ l0~ ,Y w 4 p . 41 IA ~~ . ~~, 4 a .T, O-c' PfSi` ~ ~ ~\ ~I1 w w 12 •~ 6 a 17 n b• - IR w z' SEd°.. v..~ g 1i ,. ]V. F.G \IF V~ at - $. 1A b iGC ZS FS ~G 24 ~ 1 .+ c 9 +c KGW 27 EGS ~ 0 1 Ln l Ls 3 } G Y 2B t~ t w + 2 ~ 7aa ` ,4 r R 2B ltit'f Z tin d s ~ 4A 1 T.TL Q nA w :G~- N W m u n J ? ` ° _.~~ ~4 Ga -t;9 Nlh I Si T IG ~~ 1µ;R-~ 4 Eu ELKINS Is yYy t Id 13 id a. ' 'e G1 _c G ~y L pp~ ~d q= Ah w F s A C 7 ~~ x ~a ~ ¢ ~ w c t 7A Ca. ~~. ~ A r A - T a~ ~~d GG 56 bt' ~ 4T • ~. r I x ° ~ 155 6G to 1'~~ 6 5t ~<i a~ ~ 5! Z 10 Yy N Z A n rt Z 4 Y O F 7 L .51 ° s I j RC ~ -c.4~..: El , .. ice- v ~OOZ =,L 3NJS-~ 'o~ -vwvaav rm=n,~..,iw,.-imunnmi.mauo ~ ~ ~. dtlWdlHSil3NM0= EL09ZL0`iQOS9LSNdtl I ox~~, JUJibl2~ NOLLVWNOiM'd~3fONd ?/G r,v ~o~ ~~ -- . • 1 Q :: J~ i m ~ ~; ~~ ~~ ~ ~. \\ \\~ \ ~~ \~~? a ` I ~ -• \ \ 1 b ~ \\ '~~`\S2 ~~ ~y.o~. .y :~ Q I •~ ------- \~ \N ` ~i® - W -~-; ~ LIR 4 ~!1 /~1 i / F y ® ~ i i v,Ie h • • ~, ` V ] ~ ; w 1'\ Z I ~~ ' / .~~~^\ .... d i 4.~ I ~4i - H ~ ~•~ ~ ~ l C ~~~ a J °J a ~Y, l~ ~ rs~rg~y• r~7!'~Ay-~dr~~°~yq ~ rrHr; r, I 3 ~ $ ~ ,~ I, .y, - ' 1 y .'~ yt~ ~q ^ 4 t~4 ' `. / @ ~ .~n.~ '~ f Z E Y ~ ` `~ o .~~ ~ ti a o~. ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~\ tA I \~ .>a F ~A ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~:~~ / ~ _~ ~~ ~ \~ ~ ~IrN R ~ \~~ \_ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ - i \~ sF=RR ~ ~ ~ ~ v6 o x -, OYF/ mr I ~ 6 ~ rn aFi s ~ :: J RI~ ~,~.~_ ~n~s .i~ l ~ u... ' i l '. ibl r.. ~L '~ Ian ...~ it ~ ~ %'~.[1 Y~-~ \~~ iii ~ Srfi f ~~, ~ al .'' ve ?-.,,, 1' ~~ ~ ~ -_T L. !!, ~..j ' 7~, - n,~ '~. < ~~ ;"~/ f a .;!~ ~ \''~ , ~ 'fir }? ~ ~ ?i.N ~~~ OY ~F "i..~ f~4~' 4 ~ f ~-. d ry` t~ 3 ~ ; ~ ~ ~"„.t ~> X44 ,. ,~ ~, r ~ y ~ ~ a .,• ~ $ W 9 .~'~~``~ ~: ~. ,r Photographs of Subject Property • • [behind homes] and west) ~J • Subject property -existing native vegetation • C~ • • Across the street from parcels 1 and 2 Across the street from parcels 1 and 2 • CJ Y J 't110tl021D' ~~ b6S[-C/Z~/L9) ..tl BBSf-C/L-(9Z9) Pl gg 3AIa0 NOANdO II, 940Ni Y~'Y1017tlY 3~ - ~ '' Y 11NlI 'PYON ONItlOIOJ 6lBll ® t ~ 6 s Nolslnlaens sloe-F "~NI `S31`dI~OSShcJ3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a z ~ $ ~-~ +/ _ _ - i Lam- ~ ;~, f:- `~.;\~~i; ~ e'' -~ l l ~ l 1' ~_ §Q 'r~~ / ~ e~ 9~~~~ ~'S~~e 161 1 e ,;"\,-~/°;::~ _%',A>;.~% / ~ ~ z 1111 lil ~ .. °~~•! g°I I, ` ~ ~ ' - \\'1 ~~~ -= ,,~8,-- - :,_, ~~ Ili!I I8o~ 4 ~ ~' ~~~ 1 ' \~~ ~ ''~ /%~_ -~ j":=;=-. ' ~ a~ 111 ~„e„ `]~ I pv II•w a I~e.~r \\`~` `~`\ ~~ ,~ '' V ~'i'' ~'1I .1,\ 111, III ~I~1 ~ ____-` - ~ / , ~,`\\i' \\ \\'.` --- \, /~ / / ~ZS~q %J //1 X11,;\\\\,,\\\\\\\ f .-`_ ``~~i,~i~ ^+// ,1 \_ - 1,~ 111;1' O- C(~l -~.: ~SI 1'll \\\,\\\\\`~`\;.-"--- _~'; n+ -•.\ \_ __L'%/ \~ li 111 ~ 4 ~ ~g@ :~ -J -,; , I,\\\\\, ,~\\\~ ;~~,-~=-_::. ~?j~ (~;- ~ ---= --== -',.\ ; ,,,x,11, , , 1 1 11111 l l \`\ ~C"-~---;~\-~i~ - as 1 4 i I ~\\ `` 1 `~ 1 1 1 r ~~jj ~ ~ g m i 1 ~ \ \. r~_ "l +.,. 1 1 I I I I e ~` !' / `\ a, \\ 1 1 , 1 11 / L, ~5< y~ / //~/11,: ~~//: ~)\\ ~`_.~ \ I I` II 1 1 \4.!//I `, \111 111 a `y Z~ ~caz ~ If -"'i/,I; ,/,,'/ c \r.-. .\`/ 11 II \\~- 1 \,111 1I I-. ~ ~ ~ u t v / ; /'~ \ 1 `\ \\ 1 i "N t l.v'~ L=-_ ,~:.\ '1 ~~\ i\ ~; \\~`.\ ~ II ~ II II 1 -- ----\_ 1~\I\~\ / rr U ~9gg9w J//. \\ 111 /1~1 \`. ..~I--~ v ( \ \ \•/ 11Ii . \e U d~, Y 8~ / / .' 1 \ I I 1 I .::.`: 4~-" -\\ \424. \ l I ` \\'. 1 1111 ~... `\\ -___ ,-lw `"'iii.. `\\11\\~ ~ `~\-~,\~t 444. \`~\ ~ , 1`~\\ 11111 \ ~~ \\~ Lam C~Ck' CB 3'b :,i'/' li i~'\\~`C~-~T\;\`.;.\•~-.g •d ~, .\`~\`.1\\\\1 '\\ 1 11\ \\\\,' 1111 11 ~\ W G< ~ ;: i:~'1't"\ I EJI\ \ \ . 4 , , 1 , \,,\\\\'i\ 1 ~~ 1111 ,\ R 1 ! C1~i ~ 8k'~ .../, \ .n-'__r 1 1141 1111\\\`'\\\\44'I~1 `~"liil \\ ~~~ i 1;', / 1 `\ \ i / : / l I 1 1 1 \ \1\\1 ~ l1 l ter' ~`IC \ • 1 2z <w / 1 ~ - 1` i ~ / ' ' 1 I ~ 1 l 1 '1 \\`11 ,, 1 11 \ p -q-"I I 1 ~ ` ~ \ `~ ~ j 1 O p(~il tF \\~~~/\I \I :, \__ , //O()yy,,/ / , I I I 1 11111 J 1 I I '\~~ `- \`~ \` I I I (~-'/\~ w OS Z_ 1 / I / T/ / / r I I~ 11 \111 i l l! ~\ 11 1 1 1 \ QM ~ 1_i'„ III RR p~% / ' r I I I I ~, 1111 i l l . \ \ \ ~g 111 ! ,--_ .' g l l r l :piSrll/J `~: , i I 11 1 ~1~ ii; it i ~'_ . _, l;'l` i i ' ~\ , 1 ~z- ° I - s'' ,- / 111111\' , ~.y 1111, ` ~ .f / i /~~-_ / Y 1 1 !/ /l r )1 `~~` `\ , ],`11111111 `I\~ ~ ~-' , ~/ ~ \`.~~ ~O ~1 ~\I \\;I `44 ~~ ~`~ l \ 'y ill ~'/~ ^\\ O 1~, \ l ill jl _///..\\.~~-~~-I 1•`t u~l`__~\\I 11~ a. I r ~ill~~ -._ ',//'~i/\1~:\"/r"I\ /O\'E,\\_-,1 I1111~1 II ~. Il I ~_ '~ j~/ \ \ 1,111\. ~~' ~ \ \\\ \\`~\ 1 ^ Ie l~r,l/,I -_-lr\ 111/ ~ ~1\\.\~ \. fr%r/ 1` / / /~i Ilia =-r'~~+'1:%f1)/ii:l ~ QOI~{ \I \~ \ 1 f~l Y ;11 ///1/1~~~ III ,111`. \\~~~r_. --"~'.Ol/iI/U p gg •~ ~1 ill / /%"111111 r_/~\\\.\. 11 ,` `. - ~__ fh ~' , p6i7~~~yyE1 I I ~ l ttt't/ ~i\,\\\(1(1 j\~;~~~11\~I\\\ ~-~~-~ Q r,[0~\I\` `~``~ y \ ~ '{L. •••• 1i01 61~ 1i/i /:I I/~I l'F Ir I /`il li 1\\\I\\~`I\~_~'ii.~\`1\\ lJ-' \I ~'1\ ` \ \\ '~y ~~~~ '_ ' / % I ~ i I I '~-}F IiII\ \\\\\ \``'`,I/i,^ 1~1ii O i ` _g g// ,//~ % i \ \\\~r-1--1I~C'/)%~~~/__,~\~\I\`\`-`!:''~I ~/III\~ (~]~(7~~1)~ ~ ~ , \ ~ \ •1 !EF °~ ~- -/ ,' ; ~ ; 111\', \,: l--~d` y`\`;~~.~\-= x,11\~,,,1\I \\ \, ~ " _ ~ , , , . -~;\ J ; , , 1 , , `, `. ! ~ , . - I I I I .1 ~ ~ ~-- -~"° '' , 11 111 'lyid ~' ° '-.`~;= ; ; 11 ''' \I \\ \\`, -; II ;'; ;'/ `.`d ~ ~ ,_ 1 111 ! see ` ____' I ~ I 1 \ rN t ~ b ~ , ,. ~ 1 I `1 • 1 ~11J1 1 ii ~~ I _ \ : l` :; ~ _1 Ills il~a'~ ~ ~at _ _~~ ~ .r~ 1 I „-\ Q~_ i ~ ~O'1-~1 r 1'/. J 111, 1\~ 1 1 ~ r~r ICs ,._-.1 Iri1 ( ~ ~\~` i i I ,~ \\,l`_' `~- `- _'/i,~\ ~~..`~,~`.-.,1~ \ --' 'I/ \ 1\ 1 J 1 1 ~\ r __ ____, _ ,:___ \ \ \ \ ill', °= .1 '11 \ '/I/`--: /I! 1 Mll:p;!1 ~~~~ 1 _ ,111 -_ ;/, _ , ,, 1 __ _ _ = -- `' ~ `\ 11 ill' C-- ': ",`^i";~ - .~__- ..~"/' - - -- _, 1 / I ~~\~(' _- s'il`l - ~,,. iiY ~ ~~ 1-' ~ 1`' iii )\\,, \\ 1-~/il i / - _ '~ '____ e° yg ~ /, °i /'~ 1 iii ll 1, ~-~_ r ~~ PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Revision to Tentative Parcel Map No. 07-05 (69775) fora 3-lot subdivision of an 83-acre property. The applicant is proposing to modify Mitigation Measure 1.5 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to create aMello-Roos assessment district that would place the financial burden of maintaining parcel 3 (80 aces of open space) on the owners of the two proposed residential properties (parcels 1 end 2). 2: Project Location -Identify street address and cross sVeets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7'/'topographical map identified by quadrangle name): An 83-acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road in the northerly foothills of the City of Arcadia, adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, in Los Angeles County. 3. Entity or person undertaking project: 4. Staff Determination: ^ A. City of Arcadia ® B. Other (Pdvate) (1) Name: Nevis Homes (2) Address: 650 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia. CA 91007 (3) Phone: (626) 254-0099 The City's Stall, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Locel Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ^ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ^ The project is a Ministerial Project. c. ^ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ^ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. ® The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 8 & 17 Section No.: 15308 & 15317 f. g. ^ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. ^ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: ^ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: Section No.: • • r Dale: February 5. 2009 Staff: Steven Lee. Assistant Planner :>r . +,. February 10, 2009 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: James Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 for a proposed five (5) lot, single-family residential subdivision at 1402-1410 S. Eighth Avenue SUMMARY of the tentative map application. Tentative Map Application No. TM 69958 was submitted by property owner-in- escrow, Mr. Charles Huang, to consolidate three (3) properties for a five (5) lot, single-family residential subdivision at 1402, 1406 and 1410 S. Eighth Avenue. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's subdivision regulations. However, due to the undesirable layout of a single-sided cul-de-sac, its potential adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties, and an unresolved property line encroachment issue, the Development Services Department is recommending denial GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mr. Charles Huang (Property Owner-in-escrow) LOCATION: 1402, 1406 and 1410 S. Eighth Avenue REQUEST: A proposed tentative map to consolidate three (3) properties for a five (5) lot, single-family residential subdivision LOT AREAS: 1402 S. Eighth Avenue - 25,578 square feet 1406 S. Eighth Avenue - 25,578 square feet 1410 S. Eighth Avenue - 21.450 souare feet Total 72,606 square feet (1.67 acres) FRONTAGE: 165.60 feet along S. Eighth Avenue ~~. EXISTING LAND USES & ZONING: 1402 S. Eighth Avenue- a 1,336 square-foot single-family residence constructed in 1953 1406 S. Eighth Avenue - a 1,990 square-foot single-family residence constructed in 1955 1410 S. Eighth Avenue - a 974 square-foot single-family residence constructed in 1942 The subject properties are zoned R-1-7,500 SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Legal non-conforming 2-unit residence; zoned R-1 South: Single-family residence; zdnetl R-1` East: Equestrian trial and Santa Anita Wash;;zoned R-1 West: Single-family residehce; zoned R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre) BACKGROUND The applicant is in ,escrow to purchase the subject properties to develop asingle- sided cul-de-sac and five (5) new ,single-family residences. After consulting with staff, the applicant approached the neighbors to the north and south of the subject properties to explore the possibility of incdrporating additional lots to enable a standard, two-sided cul-de-sac layout. Despite the applicant's extensive efforts, he has not been able to come to terms with either of the neighboring owners. The neighbor to the south is not interested in selling or developing their lot. Without-this lot, a standard, two-sided cul-de-sac cannot be developed. Nevertheless, the applicant has worked with the neighbor to the north who is interested in either selling or participating iri a cooperative development. However, it appears that there are significant differences in their ideas .about land value and how the land should be developed. Because of these impasses, the applicant is proceeding with this proposal. The applicant has provided a .letter explaining his efforts to include the adjacent properties. The three (3) subject properties have approximately 72,606 square feet or 1.67 acres of combined land :area. The density factor in the City's General Plan for this area is zero to six (0-6) dwelling units per acre, and the zohing requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposal satisfies these criteria. TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 2 Public Hearino Notification Public hearing notices of Tentative Map No. TM 69958 were mailed on January 15, 2009 to the property owners and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject properties (see attached radius map), and was published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper on January 15, 2009. Staff received iwo letters of opposition from the adjoining neighbors; they are attached to this staff report. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a tentative map to consolidate three (3) properties for a five (5) lot subdivision to develop asingle-sided cul-de-sac and five (5) new single- family residences as shown on the attached tentative map. The proposed subdivision has lot sizes ranging from 9,226 square feet to 13,888 square feet. All of the lots meet the standards of the City's Subdivision Code, and exceed the minimum 7,500 square-foot lot size requirement of this R-1 zone. A standard public right-of-way per the City's Subdivision Code is 60 feet wide, which includes a 12-foot wide parkway on each side of the street and a 36-foot wide roadway (curb face to curb face). A standard cul-de-sac terminus has a diameter of eighty feet (80') between right-of-way lines and a 56-foot diameter roadway area. There is an alternate 50-foot wide right-of-way, which reduces the parkway width on each side to seven feet (7') with the roadway remaining 36 feet wide, but it includes a provision for afive-foot (5') easement across the front of each new lot for landscaping and sidewalk purposes. This easement is considered part of the front yard setback. While there are no specifications for an alternate cul-de-sac terminus, based on the reduced parkway width of five-feet (5') on each side of the street, the minimum diameter of the alternate cul-de-sac terminus would be seventy feet (70') and the roadway area would still have a 56-foot diameter. The proposal is for a hybrid right-of-way that is generally 55 feet wide. A standard 12-foot wide parkway will be provided along the fronts of the new residential lots, but along the south side there will be a seven-foot (7') wide parkway that widens to nine feet (9') near the intersection with Eighth Avenue. The City Engineer is requesting further widening of this portion of the parkway to approximately twelve feet (12') to allow space for a handicap curb ramp and to improve the vehicular line-of-sight. Sinale-sided cul-de-sac This proposal satisfies the City's subdivision regulations and is consistent with the General Plan land-use designation of the area. However, staff is not in favor of this proposal because of the undesirable characteristics of single-sided cul-de-sacs, which are not entirely consistent with the following Community Development Goals: TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 3 direct the amount and location of land uses in a manner which enhances the environment, social, physical, and economic well-being of Arcadia • protect the integrity and quality of existing residential neighborhoods The south ,side of the proposed .single,-sided cul-de-sac will have a long block wall with minimal .landscaping along it. This will have a stark and unattractive appearance, and introduces a physical element (i.e., the long block wall) that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. Such features tend to degrade the integrity and quality of neighborhoods. Single-sided cul-de-sacs have been developed in other neighborhoods. The most recent one is Magnolia Court, which was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2004. Magnolia Court is on the east side of MayFlower Avenue in the 1100 block. Another one-sided cul-de-sac .is Sharon Road on the west side of South Baldwin Avenue in the 1700 block. Sharon Road is selected as an example because staff still regularly receives comments about it, even though it was approved in the late 1980s. Attached are photos of these two examples of single-sided cul-de-sacs. As seen in the photos, a long block wall along one side of a cul-de-sac has a stark and unattractive appearance, which will remain for a long time if the adjacent property is not eventually incorporated into the cul-de-sac. It is for this reason that staff feels the proposal is an undesirable development. Notwithstanding staffs opinion that ; a one-sided cul-de-sac conflicts with the aforementioned General Plan goals, the General Plan also includes strategies for defining future land uses that calls for a balancing between the following: • protecting existing residential neighborhoods meeting the need for new housing for all economic segments of the community providing a wide array of recreational opportunities; and the expansion of commercial, office, and industrial uses designed to meet the retail and service needs of Arcadia citizens; contribute to a sound local economic base; and provide local employment opportunities. The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, which has the following concerns: Street right-of-way requirements are an issue. A less than. full-width dedication leaves the street. in an incomplete configuration. There is a conflict between requiring afull-width dedication and how to maintain afull- width parkway on the side across from residential lots. TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 4 2. Maintenance -There is no easy solution to the question of maintenance responsibility for the parkway area on the side across the street from the residential lots. Maintenance of parkway areas are generally the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. In the case of a one-sided cul- de-sac, however, the adjacent property owner is not a participant to the development, and therefore it would be unfair to burden that owner with the maintenance of a new parkway area. The easiest solution for maintenance purposes is a full-width concrete sidewalk, but this is relatively unattractive. Because there is'not an adjacent property owner to maintain the parkway area, any landscaping or street trees have no simple means of being irrigated or maintained. The only way to guarantee the maintenance of any landscaping is far it to be done by the City. 3. Street intersection requirements -The street corner nearest the tract boundary comer typically does not have adequate area for an ADA compliant handicap curb ramp, and may not meet the City's vehicular line-of-sight requirements. The solution is to have a slight "S" curve in the street alignment to move'it further away from the tract boundary as it approaches the intersection with the existing street to create a larger corner area. This potentially creates a street right-of-way that is wider than the standard requirement and results in a varying parkway width through this transition .area and at the new corner. 4. Street aesthetics -Although there is a chance that someday the adjacent parcel would be developed to complete the cul-de-sac subdivision, in the interim the community has to live with an unattractive parkway and potentially view an expansive fence or wall, and the adjacent property owner has to endure the exposure of their rear yard area. 5. Street construction reimbursement - If the developer is interested in pursuing future reimbursement of street construction costs from the adjacent benefiting parcel(s), the City does not currently have a mechanism to do so. This would take some effort to establish and track for a designated time period. Neighboring Properties It is staff's opinion that this proposal, if approved, would have adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties. The owners of the adjacent properties to the north and south of the subject properties have submitted the attached letters of opposition to this subdivision proposal. The owners of the property to the north, 1332 S. Eighth Avenue are David and Lucille Cheng. Approval of this proposal would sandwich their property between the new cul-de-sac and the existing Camino Grove Avenue cul-de-sac. The Cheng's property would end up with eight (8) backyards adjacent to their side yards. Their 65-foot wide by 440-foot deep lot could no longer be subdivided for a more efficient TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 5 future development. The attached letter of opposition from Mr. Cheng includes a draft layout of a subdivision that would incorporate his property to create an eight (8) lot subdivision: A preliminary 'review of this layout indicates that the City's subdivision staridards might-be met with minor alterations. Nevertheless, it is not a preferred layout because it is a one-sided cul-de-sac. The Chehgs' letter and draft layout are attached: Staff has identified only three (3) other cases where a single lot has been sandwiched between cul-de-sacs. These are 558 W. Longden Avenue, 646 W. Camino Real Avenue, and 1103 S. Eighth Avenue. Photos of these three (3) lots are attached. While these situations are an awkward land use pattern, it is clear that being sandwiched between cul-de-sacs has not deprived these properties of their value. The lots on Longden and .Camino Real Avenues are relatively well maintained, and 1103 S..Eighth Avenue was recently improved with the construction of a new, six-bedroom, 6,200+ square-foot house. To the south of the subject properties, is the Johnson family's lot at 1414 S. Eighth Avenue. They are concerned .about the 30-inch diameter oak tree that is adjacent to their north property line; their barn. that appears, to encroach about one (1) foot onto the subject properties; being able to keep their horses at the city-required distance of 100 feet from existing and proposed residences; and the loss of horse properties and the outdoor lifestyle. The Johnson Family's letter is attached, as are photos of the adjacent properties, the barn encroachment, and the oak tree. If this proposal is approved, the subject oak tree would have to be evaluated by a certified arborist to determine if the tree can be preserved along with the proposed street improvements. Also, the tree would prohibit a continuous block wall from being constructed along the. property line, which could make it difficult for the Johnsons to secure their. rear yard. It is not likely that the proposed new residences would impinge upon the Johnsons' ability to keep. horses. If the Johnsons currently have horses on their property, the City regulations require that they.be kept 35 feet away from any new residences. If, however, there are not currently horses on the property, then any horses brought onto the property after the issuance of building permits for the new residences would have to be kept 100 feet away from all new and existing residences. In this case, it appears that the Johnsons would have to keep any horses on the rear one-third (Y3) portion of their lot, and would not be able 4o use their existing barn for the keeping of horses. Property Line Encroachment There is an existing barn on the Johnsons' property that- appears to encroach approximately one (1) foot onto the subject site.' ,The City Attorney advised staff that since this barn may have a prescriptive right to remain, an approval of the tentative map as ,submitted could be compromised.. The applicant acknowledges this encroachment, but it has yet to be definitively resolved. TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 6 Therefore, based on the undesirable characteristics of a one-sided cul-de-sac, the apparent inconsistency with the Arcadia General Plan, and the unresolved property line encroachment issue, staff recommends denial of the proposed tentative map. Other Requirements The applicant shall be required to comply with all code requirements as determined necessary by the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director. CEQA This project qualifies as a Section 15332/Class 32 categorical exemption and no further environmental review is required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. This exemption applies to in-fill developments meeting the following conditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Development Services Department has prepared a .preliminary exemption assessment to document the exemption determination. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends denial of TM 69958 If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the encroachment of the barn upon the subject site shall be addressed; possibly by one of. the following methods to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, the City Engineer, and the Development Services Director: a. Revision of the tentative map to exclude the location of the barn. b. An agreement with the neighbor to remove or relocate the barn. TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 7 2. An Oak Tree Permit shall be obtained prior to removal of any oak tree and/or construction under the dripline of, any oak tree. Such permit shall include mitigation measures, subject: to the approval of the Development Services Director that compensate for the removal of any oak tree, minimize any impacts on an oak tree, and prevent any damage to public improvements. 3. The proposed street alignment shall be shifted northward to accommodate an ADA compliant handicap curb ramp and to provide an adequate vehicular line-of- sight, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Development Services Director. 4. That after the .issuance of any building and/or grading permits for this project, a Rough Grading ,Verification Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to the placing of any concrete on the site; and a Final Grading Verification Form shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to any final building inspections and issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. Said Grading Verification Forms will stipulate that all grading operations have been completed in substantial compliance with the final grading-plan- approved by the City Engineer. 5. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services Director.'.. 6. That a tree preservation plan identifying by size and type all trees with a diameter in excess of four inches (4") shall' be presented to the Development Services Department for its review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Approval of a tree preservation plari may require'the altering of the design of the proposed subdivision and the potential building footprints. 7. Approval of TM 69958 shall not. take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed- the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval. 8. 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 concerning this project and/or 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 provided for in 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, TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 8 action, or proceeding concerning the project andlor 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. PLANNING COMMISION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve tentative map application no. TM 69958, based on the following findings: A.1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the City's General Plan. A.2. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not violate existing requirements prescribed by a California regional water quality control board. Denial The Commission must make at least one of the following findings based on the evidence presented, expand upon the finding(s) with specific reasons, and move to deny the project: D.1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. D.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. D.4. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. D.S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a City Council to TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 9 determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. D.8. That the proposed waste discharge would result in or add to violation of requirements of a California regional water quality control board. Jf any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter, prior to the February 10~' public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447. Approved by: s Kasama ommunity Development Admihistrator Attachments: Tentative Map No. 69958 Aerial Photo with Zoning,,lnformation Photos of Subject Properties Letter from Applicant 300-Foot Radius Map Photos of Magnolia Court and Sharon Road Oppositioh Letters Photos of Lots Sandwiched Between Cul-de-sacs Photos of Adjacent Properties, Barn, and Oak Tree Environmental Document TM 69958 1402-1410 S. Eighth Ave. February 10, 2009 -Page 10 i 66SPt9Z-BZ9 ~Xtld 8BS£-iBZ-BZ9 ~3L 90016 t1~ 'GIOb'~21d ~ _~ ~.+=a , 90016 tl0 YIQtlOW ''3A'd H1B 'S 01'71 '8 9071 'ZO71 a ~ e - I ~,£ ! e 6j tl 11Nf1 ~Btl08 'JNItlQ70J 6181/ r' ~ ~ ~ ~ tom" ~~NI `S31'dI~OSSd lJ3 No1S1n1aens l0~-9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~® . z ~~~ 2 U N f ~_ ~~z~ . ~ ~ ~ m n: ri <_ 0 ~~ ~j ~ <3 ~ V ~~ ~S ~ , h y S+ a ~~ s; ~ ~< Z ~i i <E Q _~ W~ m: F- ~ ~ ~9~Sr~~~ q q '<~ q €~ 11,x€ G a 5~, q~~ ~g n~~~ ~~g ~~dag~a~ li~`r ~! _ _ HS'dM b'lINV d1Nb'S ~, _~~_ _ _ ; n ~i _~,~---- y9'Sgl 4 ,~- - ~ r d ~ _ a,~-~ e e ¢~ ~ ~, ,~~ ~ ~° dl a~ .; _ ° 4 PI~~ 1 N i ~_~ ~~ R 3 B ~ ~~8 ~~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ s~~8e~~e:en~g6~~ q$~~t I~I~EI'FE~~[tlE ~~Q~~~ BBO®9606 099 6 6 ~qq qq qqq 4g~~~~~~ ~g9q qh lq QqM p p5~~33~ e§5~§5~k ~~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~~ i 4a " ~I ~..- ~, ~ ~4~ ~II .e ~ -4M f Q k~ tl j I. C b -te'e' of-~~ o~ ~ Z I a' ~ 4 ~ 13 -"',~ k~j T 0 _. 13 ~~ Y~ ~_ e (E~ --~_~-- `° `G~ fill LL i~ I ' ~$g ~Y gg _ z~_ _ ~1 LI L _ a,„ i °~ i 3~ g k1~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~~ < ~~ ~ L ~ - ~ ~ I - ___ a , ~ ~ _._ - I 1 ~ ~ , IQi ~ f, r$,~ <"~ I op~ g~ `~ I t n , I ~~ yI &I ~ I ~ ~R'ry,l , I r ~ tl 9 o a y - b ti~ 4 ~ , , a}~~ ~,I I 1 ~~ ~~nl ~ p3~1,~oi 40 ~s 14 0 ~~ 11 P~ -~bb-u5L ~ ~b .b b a I 5 Q --~''~_-~ e_15 H18 ~'-- ~tl '------- 1f~ 1402, 1406, .1410 S. Eighth Ave. TM 69958 w s ~_ N 0 ~Y ~_ W 0 ~}- -ur N 0 ~}' Charles Huang Dexter 8m Ave, LLC. . 11819 Goldring Road; Unit A Arcadia, California 91006 February 5,2009 Commissioner Bob Baderian Commissioner Ed Beranek Commissioner Frank Hsu Commissioner; William Baerg Commissioner.Tony Parrille Arcadia Planning Commission 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, California 91066 Re: Tentative Tract 1Vo. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8a' Ave, LLC Subject Property: 1402, 1406 and 1410 South 8a` Avenue, Arcadia Dear Members of the Arcadia Planning Commission: My name is Chazles Huang, a current and long-time resident of the City of Arcadia (the "City"). I am the managing member of Dexter 8`s Ave, LLC ("Dexter"), owner of the property Jocated at 1402, 1406 and 1410 South 8a' Avenue in Arcadia (the "Property"). I am writing to seek your approval of Tentative Tract No. 069958 which is scheduled to be'considered by the Planning Commission on Februazy 10, 2009: Background The Property is zoned R-1 and consists of three existing parcels currently improved with small single-family residences. The southern boundary of the Property adjoins a single pazcel owned by Gwendolyn Johnson, and the northern boundary of the Property adjoins a single parcel owned byDavid Cheng. The northern property line of Mr. Cheng's property abuts the rear property line of the properties to the north, which fronton Camino Grove Avenue, a cul-de-sac which intersects 8a' Avenue. A' copy of an aerial photograph depicting the Property in reference to the surrounding properties is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dexter. acquired the Property in 2008 with the intent to subdivide the Property to develop additional single-family homes (the "Project") in accordance with the Property's R-1 zoning designation. Dexter retained EGL Associates, Inc. ("EGL"), a civil engineering.firm, to prepare a design for the Project. EGL advised that the most feasible design would involve fivelots for single-family homes on a single sided cul-de-sac. Four lots.wilt front on the cul-de-sac, and the fifth lot would be areverse-corner lot fronting on 8`~ Avenue; at the entrance of the cul-de-sac. A copy of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Page 2 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 8m Ave, LLC. Section 9113.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that each lot in a subdivision in the R-1 zone must have a minimum width of 75 feet, except for reverse-corner lots, which must have a minimum width of 85 feet. Section 9113.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that each lot in a subdivision shall have a minimum depth of 100 feet. The proposed lots fully comply with applicable lot width and depth requirements, and no variances from applicable requirements would be required for the subdivision as proposed. The proposed cul-de-sac is designed to meet all applicable City standards, including the minimum width of 57 feet at the intersection with 8a' Avenue to provide for the construction of accessible curb ramps. In connection with the preparation of the Tentative Tract Map, I met with Jim Kasama, the City's Community Development Administrator, to discuss various issues concerning the Project. During our discussion, Mr. Kasama expressed reservations regarding the development of a single-sided cul-de-sac and expressed concerns regarding the possible effect on Mr. Cheng's property to the north that would be "sandwiched" between the proposed Project and the properties located along Camino Grove Avenue to the north. The possibility of including Mr. Cheng's property in the Project was discussed at this meeting In response to Mr. Kasama's concerns, I explored the possibility of acquiring Mr. Cheng's property. Mr. Cheng showed interest in selling his property, but we were not able to agree on a reasonable price. Subsequently, Mr. Cheng suggested that he become a partner in the Project and that the Project include Ms. Johnson's property, which is adjacent to south of the Property and another single family lot that is south of Ms. Johnson's property.. I approached the Johnson family, who indicated a willingness to sell their property only at a price that far exceeded its fair market value. In the meantime, Mr. Cheng proposed a design for the Project which included Ms. Johnson's property and proposed the development of fourteen lots for the construction of single- familyhomes surrounding a new cul-de-sac: Mr. Cheng further proposed that he retain Lots #1, #2 and #3 of Exhibit C in exchange for the incorporation of his property in the Project. A copy of Mr. Cheng's proposed design is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Because Ms. Johnson's property is not available for inclusion in the proposed development, I consulted with my engineer who prepared an alternate design for the four parcels owned by Dexter and Mr. Cheng. The resulting design would result in the creation of eight parcels to be accessed by adouble-sided cul-de-sac. However, even if the proposed cul-de-sac were to be reduced to a maximum width of only 50 feet, two of the proposed lots would not meet minimum lot width requirements and would therefore require variances from Municipal Code requirements. I met with Mr. Cheng and Mr. Kasama to discuss the alternate design, but the discussions did not result in agreement, partly because Mr. Cheng continued to insist that he retain three of the resulting lots in exchange for the contribution of his property. A copy of the alternate design is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr. Cheng has now proposed a further design, which would result in the creation of eight lots that would require access from asingle-sided cul- de-sac with a maximum width of 55 feet. Under the new design, the proposed cul-de-sac would not be wide enough to accommodate required curb ramps at the intersection with 8th Avenue. Page 3 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant Dexter 8t6 Ave, LLC. Moreover, at least one of the proposed lots would not meet minimum lot width requirements and would require a variance. Mr. Cheng also neglected to account for the existing trail easement along the eastern edge of the Property, which will further reduce the available buildable area and require at least one other additional lot to obtain a variance. Even if the proposed lots were consistent with'the City's development standards, the five lots that Dexter would retain are inferior in size and configuration to the five lots in the proposed Tentative Tract Map. The incorporation of Mr. Cheng's property into the Project under these circumstances would therefore be disadvantageous to Dexter from an economic standpoint. A copy of the new design is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Reasons for Approval I recognize Mr. Kasama's concern regarding the possible effect that the Project might impose upon Mr. Cheng's property; however, I feel that the concerns are lazgely unfounded. If the Project is developed as proposed, Mr. Cheng's side yazd will abut the rear yards of the proposed lots. The Municipal Code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet and a side yard setback of less than six feet in the R-1 zone.' Development of the proposed subdivision will therefore result in a greater distance between the proposed single-family residences and Mr, Cheng's.property: Moreover, as stated above, I reached out to Mr. Cheng and tried to work with him to come to an amicable and feasible resolution. Lhave made significant efforts and incurred additional costs to explore the possible incorporation of Mr. Cheng's property into the Project although I was not obligated to do so..The proposed Project is in full compliance with the City's zoning and subdivision requirements. Any modification of the Project to include Mr. Cheng's property would require one or more variances to include the number of lots necessary to accommodate Mr. Cheng's asserted financial interest. At this point, I feel that I have exhausted all reasonable means to accommodate Mr. Cheng. Although I understand Mr. Kasama's concerns regarding Mr. Cheng's property, this should not be the sole basis for evaluating Dexter's application because the City has previously approved a number of similar subdivisions. For example, as shown Exhibit F, the City has approved at least five single sided cul-de-sac subdivisions, two of which resulted in a single parcel (APN 5785-001-027) being left between the two projects, and two of which resulted in two individual pazcels (APNs 5780-004-024 and 5780-004-025) being left between the two projects. 'As such, the possible effect that the Project might impose on Mr. Cheng's property is not unique or unprecedented and should not be the sole basis for considering the merits of Dexter's application. The proposed single-family residences are permitted by right in the Property's R-1 zone. Moreover, the Project proposes to convert underutilized lots into an economically viable single- familyresidential subdivision that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Project will comply with the City's development standards including lot size requirements, Page 4 of 4 Re: Tentative Tract No. 069958 Applicant: Dexter 81h Ave, LLC. setback requirements, and all other applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, I respectfully request the Planning Commission to approve Tentative Tract No. 069958. Very truly yours, Charles Huang cc: Mr. Don Perunan Mr. lames Kasama Mr. Jason Kruckeberg ~xtii bi~F ~ g 665f-fBZ-9Z9 ~%tl! B9SC-f9Z-9Z9 T!1 pOOIb V J `V ~Q V JO V 90016 YJ 'tlI4tl~NY ~ , ~ Y ilNn 'atloa ~Nlamos s19n ''3Ad H18 'S 01'71 'B 90'11 `Z071 ; '~NI `S31b'I~OSSb lJ3 Noisiniaans l0~-5 0 N N O® Z G N }~~ S T _~ yp ~$ Y 18g _.-g__•~_ HSVM HlINd H1Nb'S ~_-_-_ ed ~L~~~ vi _ L rn.eo La _~ N 4 yL x B9'99L 3 BO 9aLO N ''/^~ F p``ppp p ___y~y~ ___ _ _ ~ o J W ~$8~ ~e I! ~~ e ~ ee~g1S ~ ~ e e~~ 61y@p ~ Q dE a ~~ i l ^ ~ Z ~~ ni~~ ~~g~ ~ j I A}}~ 9 9 ll~ll~l pI~ ~ijjl Y~lltt+.uese~~~tl e~~c TQ ! Y . ~~vre y~'~vf ~~ it F- ~~ o~<~ '~,, U ~~ ~~ Q LLLL~F~ O o<== a LS vi aZ LLa~g O ~ y-~, 7 v y_ 1 s ~ LS SU4U 4 ~~Orof` lsi 9 2 ~ y ~ x W '~ ~ Q2kIQN ~ ~~~ tt O ~ ~Fy~y 3 ~ SWB ~I 4 ~ I z agNY~~n!g "i~3~ midarc e m ~8~3 ~ ~ ~C G A ~g .R ~ I e I.--... I -s'd ' ~ ~ g ~ 7 8 #E 5~ ~i~~ 9i3 ~r3~ dYR ~ gg4~~ I ~l~~s i~ ~ ~ s 4~ _ i r ~ ~ g ~ ~~9~~fa g~e ~ ~~ §t ~ ~ ~ ~ I d € ~Aggg n@~~@~@It ~ne aE ~@ ii q ~ ~~e eao®aea® ea6 ® ® i S _ e a y ~ ~ ~e ~~ I~~ Q i w gs~ ~ I i ~ J a ~ ~ I v egg ~~~ R g ~. ~~g 3~ ~~fi ~_ ~~=~ I ~'~~Itg~4~ ~ ~ 4 ~ u ~ g y p ~~,~~~aa 5 ~ ~ M e p 4 e& e ~~g ~~g~ ~~~~~~~~ y ~ @?@p~ qi~~ O~ -~ ~ I _ _~ _, Oi @ I Z n I Qi r-J U I I ¢'' ~ - -~ ~ , q~ "~ 9 ~~s~, ~~ ama i '~~ \ KMN.~~ ~p i y in'q-' ~ 4 ~~ `~ a .~-~ ~ sus 3~~-.~ °o1;~~ypE ti ~~~- ~, o ~,_~ ~ g8 tg;; 1•`1LI ~ ohs ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ iF~ I I< P _ k~j I~ v° I I I°+ m~ I °i~ ,, Jas r ~ a 4 „ s ~~ ~'-- I n I ~' ~ I ~ g.I alit ~ L q ~I 4 143 I i X I~ I ~ ~l. I a I _ I~ I d o I li I u A ~ 1 Ala L 1S H18 - 3~q-°' 3tl _~~-- _ _~i_____r__1___-_ ______~_____e_s___e__=~ xh~6~t 6 YROM (PRI)JN( O 2000 1>i YO/OT. 1T18Y /rte. T6tdiA6Rt P 1 3 Rq I _( . ~S? , 'i5' ~ 137 ~ r ~xh~bct C ~~ {9~.. Q (~ " ~ • lJ PROM ,69'0£Z rn (MOM)JPM l2 2VVS Y~e4/a~ a. er/no. •v+ra+~~~+ . M i 0 I - ~ I '~' ~ I I I' I ~ ~. `~ i) ~ I I~ Si ~ I o ~ 1~ ~ ' I ,ss oa I' {' ~ 0 0 {0. ~~ 1~ o ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ I 05 ,69'08 ~ ,69'S5l ~ ,00'SL I~ I ~ of o~lo~~~~°~ ~~ I I ' ~I ~ o 0 ,ZO'S6 b °~ ! I i l o~ ~~ ,oo'vo i. 0 0 o~ ~> ~ ~ N I ,oa'oo ~I I o~ ~~l ~$ ~ I o ,69'0£Z ------------------ 1S~H18~+---- b Exhibit D r~.,, ~. ' ' I (~~ ~ ~ "J ~Q , ~~Q O II N I O II O .. I ~o Il~o ' ~ ~Q I ~ I I I I ~ _ r I ` Nyl mY/ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! ~ I I ~ + ~ I i s la~~ ~9, t ~ ~ ~ ~ I : ~.y I ~ I ~ I ~ ~U ~ ~ I ~ ¢ , Q I ^ ~N I I ~O 1 O ~ ~ ~ ~, I~ a I ~ , I , ~ ~ ,~,~M ~ I ~' U ~ Q g ~ ~ ~ II I ~ ~O I Q m~ M 1 I ~ ' \ ~ w ~ I ~~~J ~N .. ~3 ~' ~ N I . -• '+ I I ~ 1~ V z O ix`-, ~ ! 1+~ oC ~ I m'te IT v' ~~ ~ ~ Q i O ii N O ~, o I ,1. Q o~ ~~ OHO ~~ N~ ' ICI O t- I 1 ~,.~~ OM ~ ~~ Y ` ~ ~ ~ I ~~ N I +~ ~ ~ I ~-~~ ~ I op S) 9' LL~~ I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I ~~ ~ I I ~~~I ~~~ ~" s Q ~ I J ~- ~ ~ ~ Ii i I ~~ ~# m.. N I I I 1 ---'~__~ :~ I 8fti Ave. Exhibit ~ ;. -~.~T-- _ a ~ V i . 1-~ N ~ ~ ; I A ~ i m ~ ~~ = D m -~-1 ~ ; A mt~ I - I m ~w ~3 e -~ , ~ , - ~- N~g~m ~ r N e r ~ a 'Z ~ J Q W Z ~ ~ z V O D ~q lw ~ ~~ n =~ I lV ? ~ ~j' i a J ID O7 n ~ , Ices Leos ~ a r ~ ~ N rn a ~~ . ~ pv~~• ! W Alr Y t ,~ ~~ i ~ . u ab.L~N _ ~ :..e' .. ~, r ~s.N uts . n ~ K^N eti~' ~ ID ~~ t- I-0 "t F~ D ~ n m F-i Z O W- ~ o J F~ O MELANIE ;0 !D m I~ s o g., m !o ~ ,. Z I .a ~~ - !~ IN w e W n i' Sy K At ~' T 60 z O A $ LOVELL AV E. ~ ^~ r=a ~p a y~gs~mt QQQQ AIC: 4~Ow y0 C04 WO Vpa WZNUtirp S> 'WU TN~0 P0~ Exh~b~f F-i OP pS'° ~~ N a' w . NJ w 1.~~ Ci ~w i s ~ € "a o Y` ~'i ~1 j1 O ~O ~ ~~ 1 } i lY ®_~ w ee °!~. i . i ed . ~" V _ ~~ ~ O 1• ~ ~rr~~ ~Y ~3~ m 1 ,~? ~a ~--92A~ ~ 1j ~ ~ _ m~ >n~ e2q° y ` ~ w~0 B2aT 6T I Y.At~i ~ -r `f ~ ~~' s I fJ 19881 q. ~~ ,~gtUTA ~ N ~d ~~ Di ~ ~ ~ ---- ~~ aim eeAe - ~ g'~ ~ 0~ 6~~ ®~~ O~ ~ ~ i L T s . ~ m ~ # . b~N ~ $ q21 w .~ I gq ~~~~®.~'Q~.~~ °~~ Y ~ _ 20 •n f°.: 4723a 14. . U ~G d ~~ ee 5 ie ~ NO® y OM ~ ~N ~ ^ ~~ r~r ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ a ~1'~ ~ -~' ~ 1177 ~~ ~ y~1 q~~~j 8 'wra~ -- Ip }g ~' .ate V ie ° 8 K{I lS .°S~ ~n ~~ 1~1 . ~ ~~" ~~° r ya$/ g ARON° ~ S.c "' COMPAN`!'B TRA g 1 G£ ~a B~ ~ , n ~ LAND 1 ~ ~ . 1. Ig O 1 Q a I _ ~.- "-. 1~~ f 11 1 ~_~ -°~_ y j-I ~m .. ~ I 1 - 1~-- _ 11 1 1~eal ®~ffi ;;®~ gg I m 11 ~ ® 1 1 n~~ ro ~ -~ Ir ~~ .rllll~~_ ~ 111 ~m Ii p 1~ O o ~ '' 137~~ 1~ g ~ - 1111}1 111 ~1~ ® 11 O B n~ ~° - ~ AVE a , 1 ~ 11 1 1 1 1 xmhui ~~ 1 III MB i ee 1' 1111 I~ a LEMON ~°ia-+ ~ !~_ 11 . 1 1 ~ _ _ ~. 1 1 - 1. 1 II 1 s~ . y I ^I _ 1 ~$ . Exhibit f -2 a~ e'm~$ so ~~~o i~ ~^ m Y ~ D ~ ~ ~, m ~ ~ 1~ N r ~ z N Q .._ b ~ ° ~~ O m /y~ J T~T ~N D !a {is N ~i :z .p m o Oc ~tA _~ I~ (Di ;: n m ~~ m I~ N z m z ~ m o -f' ~I. ~ A ri~ N N A A N j~ I~ o .a •~C ~S ~~..M '€ ~; m T "o SCOTT PATRIGIAm WAY IDDI' N S -- 60 .~~ V O n _~ O N O ~ Eicti,brt F-3 $ ~°. r^ a~$$$= ~$p2p~p n$t,. w~jgj~~A lho~G~ ~i aki~$ v N N w ~ J 0) I ~ ~ ems Amm ~ ~ c N `IST AVE. ;A r8fe t , a m ; ~ ~ ..,~ tit... P ~• ~ & ro' ..I D 6D p o f M Y C 6 N _ 0 ~ W A V Z ~ tOF J/ ~ ' CO O l F~ W , ~ N N W ~ 4n ~ C wO l tY ID , I I~ D ~ D o .~ J 1 ~ ~ D I~ w ~ ~ , m D N ~ '~ m Im w I J " ~ . I -+- - A ~: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `; o•+ -~ . ~. ~ _~ ril 1 A A m 'YD N J ,~ ~ r y m : a ~ WATSON y Q , ~ A 0 DR. . , ` , 1 ~ ~ g ~® $ ~ ~~ ~ O •2 ~ ~ , J/ /ao ro . _ ~ i W - ~ ~ i m g Q g t° gPti '~ ~ ~ ®' K i~ .o a~'w. ran «, ~ ®.r w s 1. ~ e Kk ~ O P a ~ Y ~ ~ ~ i tn ~~ m (~ W AKE , , s' w 't '--- wk>, .a ~ §Ep~a E ~ . J vO A N © ~ ~ ®~- gi /J .0.t ' .. C ~ h 9W® wK O• O ap K$. ®~N Z N _____ ~ N ENO ! }+W ~ tl30'M'Y'.V. Ill.p i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ . ! yy M b q D ~I m R ~ ' r ~ o ~ 9 b ',+ y/,y i /e0,t9 ~~ 9G5 60 ~ A R w h 2ND w w " ~ ~AV~. a 1 ,gz4 I ~ BBB, ~xhibif f -4 ~ $li&li $3~~t"~oE°tiy"a> $ot~8'~Sk Nwu~~~ V V D ~ ~n vnvrv 5UEMORENO e~~ (626)350.5944 OWNERSHIP/ OCCUPANTS 1137 RADIUS MAPS-lANO USE-PLANS MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING PROJECT INFORMATION 1402,1406, & 1410 S. 8TH AVE. ARCADIA, CA. 08-379 SCALE 1" = 200' °. °. .w.n B M.I "tea-.veaav. `h Q k,.e I ;°,;~ W Rv r _ 2 ]I 5 a. ~ x ii S ~ 1 i RIB - - 'I Ov ®10 a q ~~ ~ ~e t°O d E ® ~` I n`~~ , n - aam -JtLwu __ a +____ O-_____------ AVE Y Y ~ -~ ' ® 0 ~ Q7 h 1~' YJ ~ ~ Y F a .O. 19 ~ ~ C }f ~ g k' Of ~-r-~ O b `:JPo? l 9iA Tn2 Q S •' ®4 g,Q A s & 9 ~ ` ~ _ r/ W ~ k t' }. "h FF °f1I4. ~ }Xtl/i f ° V 1 O CAMINO GROV AVE. ® ,o„ i .G ®36 yj , IPO 'e ur u se r }n ~?¢$ ®ii k ~ k B©~ 0©8-8 A -w ' .21 28 29 ~ 31 ~ 3E "' { `s <.Yr°' O ,,; r.. ~ o rsa~ °' A 3 ~;rrt°, "` 5 ~ rm/° ~ 40 a ~ Q z ° k ..i-\ .9E ~ ~ rI n/S ;1 °0 /. (/;ice/]t ~ ~ I^. y /n~ '~ ' ~~ °u ' an `/ ~ 8 ~A Cli I' 21 -- - CA O GROVE o- $AVE. b ~ Y q1 58 k 72 M1N [m~t+' x v tl rM ' j b Y (~5~ (,y2~,) 33 a ° ®fJDt-• O i~ '19 M M .Yi/_l 6 -iB - ~ i x NI.R (0 ~n 1B h ;~` •'~ `i' 45 y ren ~ e ~a z !7( w ~ - - I 9~ tras ~ -------- _ _ 2 ~ MY q6 56 N S'~RSa ' ~ -_ I~ 17 e 3 8<y ~ ~ H .>z, ,x e t6 r--O ---~ ° <i .47.8 .1 $ e Qn° ag x - 16 a ~ nreno" l i` ~ 55 B B :s B ~z --- ~ - ,xs Q ~' ao ~-------- ---------------- x 9 W z -- BB - ¢ IM 15 ~ g O ~~ NG ~2„ ~~- 8 Qm d - _ . ~~~ gg 924 rs e9 ` a, can o-wm 8 ~ O s 2 8- e~ 8 '49 B 8 W 044524 ~ 14 ~ x 6 TB ~ ,Yax ,aa. Yel3 x 22D.9Y F M422 2DR _. y99•°e 'e2a95F g tU1xBF - ~ ~ s ~ TRACT p NOx x 53680 B la'I' " S a ¢ ~ 52 tl 0 Z s 13 s ail „ ,m2x ,xae~ ,x9sx „,xBx a,~e. ~~ I ~ ~ 6~s ~ , ` - 11 70 e 9 nvsev ~ 'x t°~: »w~ ,/ 1 ,9 . _ $'~ _ 7.Q I fp 1+, xrs sr - Q` $ 8 Qe 3 i •P' ex x w nss Yiea °~a s g ~ 8 51. ~70~ q~e0 g » 3 8 yrev 8 C A C i + ~%' s p+Ri°,,, t e PAMELA PLB a,~e ~'x.u ~` ',x.,MB 9-~ (~,e•.R109 -45+0 46 in "a G • a~ ° all e °.rc ~ R (TRACT 'e NO o aao 808 8 _ a,OY =: ~ a .^ t 7 d nx v' x e,z9 ~ ~~CL to DO _ t, - pie +,~:- s 'b av;>r.n __~_~_________________ S ,a., : r°' +o 'Q~ ° 70 ry . 8 N 8 ,~ 7 8 B~ F - 8 ~ m9esv ' n B _ JJ?ii _ 8 as 9Lr au YvY na9oss ,mns ,xacss ,mm av a,.o- u I ° u 8 MBxa, 295x - x 13 x- x1 $ _ ~+~' >e9,. O Z ~; ~ s a e. € ~. I I G'\ uo.9z _ _ _ _ o 912 O 8 ~ v4. 1 x,xru g u,~~ ~ o- ~t n~ Q'i: ~~~ .'Of neu•~a° v Y 10_=x ~~8 2 Ins I~ 3 ¢ I I 8 re B~. I ~i. I ICJ 10 I l~ ps1IZ I,o I n I^.I uR __ c O a m 8 ~~ I ~ BI I z ~ ;~ I `-~ I ~/ I ~'I ~ n, x re MB I I 70 I -~ ,~9s~~ I I I I~ a 63 :° m l m .mr a a22 ~nu +s I x l 1 >s I ,xv2• I~n ,aa2, ,i x l n ~ n l as ee9•xw @ e CAMINO 1 REAL B REAL Magnolia Court single-sided cul-de-sac Sharon Road single-sided cul-de-sac -- h- ~. a; "N Attni Mr. Thomas Li,_Associate Planner To: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT City of Arcadia 7 Community Development Division /Planning Services Re: Application No.: TM 69958 Location: 1402, 1406,& 1410 S. Eightlt Avenue Request: A Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for afive-lot subdivision. Deaz Mr. Li; February 1, 2009 Thank you for the Notice of a PubliaHearing: Application No. TM 69958. We are the ~roperty owners of 1332 S. Sa' Ave., adjacently north to [he properties 1402, 1406, & 1410 S. 8` Ave. We unequivocally oppose the TM69958 for the following reasons: (1) If the TM69958 were to be approved'by the planning commission, our property will be surrounded by~a total of nine homes from the north andsouth`property lines.,Please see Exhibit A. We feel that an increase of neighboring homes.will.take away our privacy. (2) The surrounding homes will likely diminish the market value of our single-family home. (3) Approval of the TM69958 will terminate all future possibilities for us to develop our property, and as a result, imit the opportunity to "improve not oirly the aesthetic value of 'our home but the city's overall appearance. We do not wish for our home to be located on alone and narrow property; sandwiched between multiple homes. Although we strongly oppose-the TM69958„we_are not against`Dexter 8`h Avenue, LLC developing three single-family homes; one,on each ofthe separate lots-1402, 1406, & 1410 S. 8"' Ave. Alternatively, at the very least, we would be willing to combine our property with the applicants to fomi an eight-lot subdivision, instead of the proposed five-lof subdivision. Please see Exhibit B. We believe that this would satisfy the applicant, ourselves;' and the city as a whole. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider our issues and objections. Sincerely Yours, ~' d~~ FEf3 C ~ 2909 ~~ v David & Lucille Cheng .. Property Owners of 1332 S. 8`h Ave. Arcadia,`C?. 91006 .. w o - r, d a ti ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ Z oq Z G C7 0 0 .. rn ~d U N W ~ N M M .-. 7 r. e ~!a!u~3 ~xhibi f A 8 ~!q!4X3 ~` ?.. -_-- - ~ I M N 4 ~JJJJ I ~. - "_{I 4 1 _ ~_ _._ ~ . • ~ ~vx qva. 'm's< .xmum n'~ Y, i k k l e i _ ~ le N M. ; I i r i i ~ . ` ~ ~a ly O O Q ( ~ ~' I ~ II E'; ~ II I eF. 0 ~ a~~. ^ I .~I i I.r:' I by ~^ .. - .. .. I ~ ... _ I _ ' T ' FU{y U~ I /, - .. . I ti~ I T.,oorl t°'~ m'c<. a i .x Y r i~ - ~ ~~~ . I ~ I ~ x ~e ~ ~~:. I ~.- i ~ i ~'. NN I~ N i r ._~ la..a rro, .,' nr.. ~ ~' ~•g ~' ~,~' a g o~ , F I..a ,~ e Y n/ ~`~ IY ~ ~ ~ (IMF SY.S 4 ~ A 9 ~ - V ,~-~-~ ~ ° ~ Ida ~ v I ° ~ ra u~i ~- _ .\~. w + (c4~) ~ '~ N r Q ~C II N ,->z ~ Y~. .. N ~ I ° I r oQ I ~~~P~ ~.I ~~ ~ ~ 0 } II : N ~ x U: c r i Q ~ 1 ~~ t ~ ~~~ ~ t I r _ _ k I Q .. ~ ___ .i e~ al~or ,-~- ~~ ~ ~xh i bi t ~ ~ ~ ,~ Mr. Thomas Li January 28, 2009 City of Arcadia Planning Dept. The Johnson Family 1414 S. 8a'. Ave. Arcadia, Ca. 91006 JAN ~ J 2009 Dear Mr. Li: First, thank you for responding so promptly in providing us with a copy of TM 69958 in order for us to review it's contents. We will have to strongly oppose this applicant because of two main reasons: Aone-sided cult-a-sac has been strongly opposed in the City of Arcadia for many yeazs now. In fact; back in the late `80's, we fought off a similaz development on our South fence line. A 420' "alley" would be the result; found to be not astatically pleasing in this city. In addition to added traffic congestion, it only adds to the saturation of our school district. That is certainly no way to maintain the prestigious title we have just earned as being one of the nations best. Second, if the project goes through, we would then be in violation of the City ordinance that says our horses must maintain a 100' distance from dwellings meant for housing. There exists other issues to the applicants TM as far asover-sites, labels, and descriptions: A 30' (foot) oak tree along our fence line is labeled a 30" (inch) tree. This tree cannot be removed, and it will destroy that sidewalk in a year or two. Additionally; the fence itself is not drawn in correctly, and one of my barn structures is not labeled at all. In fact; his plan intends to cut right through my barn wall. That structure is in use, and was built on this property back in the 1920's. This applicants property has changed hands four or fives times since then; this structure has been "grandfathered" in (the applicants recent property line survey revealed that the bazn was built one foot over the property line). The barn wall is the fence line itself; the fence stops atone end, and continues from the other. As you may know, our property and lifestyle is very unique in comparison to most. We have an Equestrian Trail that is actually an easement of our property (given for the conditional use of a County maintained Equestrian Trail). This, you may not know... I can go clear to the Pacific Ocean via the San Gabriel River Bed, and endlessly North to Oregon and beyond via the Pacific Crest Trail, right out my back gate. Enclosed is a video that illustrates our unique situation. This video contains four different chapters; I would like you to review the first one (it is only 3-4 minutes in length) titled "Entry Video". I believe it is very important for everyone involved in the decision of this project to view this clip in order to grasp our situation entirely. I would like to play this at the meeting on February 10, 2009; however, you may feel it is best for your department to review it in it's entirety beforehand. Incidentally; this video made it possible for me to receive the title as "2006 Ultimate Outdoorsman Finalist" on ESPN2. The remaining chapters on the disk contain that footage. Thank you again, The Johnson Family (Residents of Arcadia for over 50 years) d P i w N M O W Z 3 a~ In n ~ s s~ ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ ~ a .~ N ~ ~~ d- `. ., 0 t~ OPr~ 't"REE Dbl. '~"bI'E PKDPERT'( Lt N ~ ~~,.o„Q, ~,.. ~ . e4rdN"e PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption) Name or description of project: TM 69958 Locatiori: 1402. 1406, 1410 S. Eiphth Avenue 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. X B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Dexter 8~h Ave. LLC (Prop. Owner in escrowl {2) Address: 11819 Goldrinp Road. Unit A Arcadia; CA 91006. ' 4. Staff Determination: The City's .Staff, having undertaken and completed. a preliminary review'of this_project in accordance with the ,City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project 'does not require further environmental assessment because: a. The. proposed action does not constitute a, project under CEQA. b. The project is a Ministerial Project. c. The project is ari Emergency Project. d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. X The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class:. 32 f. The project is statutorily exempt: Applicable.Exemption: g. ,: The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency: Name of Lead Agericy Date: January 5. 2009 Thomas P. Li " Staff ~roz .~pw~l~ INf MEMORANDUM Development Services Department February 10, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner Steven Lee, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Revision to Text Amendment No. 08-05 amendino the Citv's Architectural BACKGROUND On December 9, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with one Commissioner absent, to recommend approval of Text Amendment No. TA 08-05 and the related single- family design guidelines. The proposed text amendment is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council at the March 3, 2009 meeting. SUMMARY Since the December 9~' meeting, Staff has re-evaluated item number 6 of the text amendment and is proposing to amend the list of projects that are eligible for administrative design review. Specifically, Staff would like to eliminate the 250 square- foot cap that was originally proposed for small single-family additions because establishing a square footage on additions could hinder the streamlining of the design,. review process. Many additions that are in full compliance with the design guidelines and zoning regulations would exceed 250 square-feet in area. Additionally, Staff feels it would be appropriate to include detached accessory buildings (guest houses, pool houses, garages, sheds, etc.) in the list of projects that qualify for administrative review. The modified list would read as follows: (1) Roofing material; (2) Window/door change outs/replacements/additions; (3) Fences/walls/gates ; (4) Exterior finishes sidi~; (5) Patio enclosures, covered patios, and trellises on residentially zoned property; Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05 February 10, 2009 Page 1 faseiy~-fesideesa: (6) Minor first floor additions and detached accessory buildings on single-family zoned property; (7) Other types of exterior alterations as deemed appropriate by the Development Services Director or desighee. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of the revision to Text Amendment No. 08-05. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendation and comments to the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. If any Planning Commissioner or. other interested party has any questions regarding this revision prior to the February 10, 2009 meeting, please contact Lisa Flores at (626) 574- 5445 or by email at Iflores@ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved By: Jim sama Community Development Administrator Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05 February 10, 2009 Page 2 ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 1789 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 08-15 AND A RELATED PARKING MODIFICATION TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 1,006 SQUARE-FOOT EATING ESTABLISHMENT INTO A 1,971 SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT WITH BEER AND WINE SERVICE AND SEATING FOR 33 PATRONS AT 921 S. BALDWIN AVENUE, UNITS G & H. WHEREAS, on October 10, 2008, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by Terence Kwok to expand an existing 1,006 squaze-foot eating establishment into a 1,971 squaze-foot restaurant with beer and wine service and seating for 40 patrons; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 08-15, at property commonly known as 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Units G & H; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2008, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2008, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing for CUP 08-15; and WHEREAS, based on testimony that the owner of another restaurant in the same center had recently submitted a Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of permitted seats in that restaurant, the Planning Commission voted to continue CUP 08-15 to the January 27, 2009 meeting in order to review both CUP applications concurrently; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2008, the owner of the restaurant proposed by CUP 08-15 submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the continuance and act on the application as soon as possible; and :\ WHEREAS, on January 13, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the business owner's request but voted 4 to 0, with one member absent, to reaffirm the continuance to January 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, a second public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2009, 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 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data provided by the Development Services Department in the staff reports dated December 9, 2008 and January 27, 2009 aze true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed project is a minor alteration of an existing facility and is therefore exempt from the California Environrnental Quality Act (Class 1 Categorical Exemption, Section No. 15301). 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape. to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, loading, landscaping and other, features including the shared parking with the other businesses in the same center, are adequate to adjust said use with. the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed 2 Resolufion No. 1789 _.- project with an approved parking modification complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to cant' the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15 to expand an existing 1,006 square-foot eating establishment into a 1,971 square-foot restaurant with beer and wine service, subject to the following conditions: 1. The business hours of the restaurant shall not exceed 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week. 2. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 08-15 (a 1,971 square-foot restaurant with beer and wine service and seating for up to 33 patrons), subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator. 3. The approval of CUP 08-15 includes a parking modification to allow 50 spaces in lieu of 75 required for the commercial center in which the subject use is located. This 3 Resolution No. 1789 parking modification is approved only for purposes of allowing the specific use approved by CUP 08-15. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 08-15 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the restaurant. 5. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency access, and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshall, City Engineer, and Public Works Services Director. 6: Approval of CUP 08-15 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), business owner(s), and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 7. 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 concerning this project and/or 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 provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decisior. 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 4 Resolution No. 1789 .~ r option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 8. A notice indicating the maximum seating capacity approved by CUP 08-15 of 33 persons shall be conspicuously posted and maintained inside the restaurant. Said notice shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Administrator or designee prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 10`h day of February, 2009. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: .~ P.1~~~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 5 Resolution No. 1789 Li 1Y~ RESOLUTION NO. 1790 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 08-19 TO REVISE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING MODIFICATION (CUP 94-O1 /RESOLUTION NO. 1508) TO INCREASE THE SEATING CAPACITY FROM 8 TO 23 PERSONS AT AN EXISTING 1,376 SQUARE-FOOT EATING ESTABLISHMENT AT 921 S. BALDWIN AVENUE, UNIT A. WHEREAS, on December 9, 2008, a Conditional Use Pemut application was filed by Terence Kwok to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and parking modification (CUP 94-01 /Resolution No. 1508) to increase the approved customer seating capacity of an existing 1,376 square-foot restaurant from 8 to 37; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 08-19, at property commonly known as 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Unit A; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2009, 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 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data provided by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated January 27, 2009 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission fords: 1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed project is a minor alteration of an existing facility and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1 Categorical Exemption, Section No. 15301). 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a Conditional Use Pennit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, loading, landscaping and other features including the shared pazking with the other businesses in the same center, are adequate to adjust said use with the ]and and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project with an approved pazking modification complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the :Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning aze consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and parking modification to increase the customer seating capacity of a 1,376 square-foot restaurant, subject to the following conditions: 2 Resolution No. 1790 'rY :1 1. The restaurant's hours of operation shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. 2. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 08-19 (a 1,376 square-foot restaurant with seating for up to 23 patrons), subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator. 3. The approval of CUP 08-19 includes a pazking modification to allow 50 spaces in lieu of 70 required for the commercial center in which the subject use is located. This pazking modification is approved only for purposes of allowing the specific use approved by CUP 08-19. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 08-19 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the restaurant. 5. All City requirements regazding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency access, and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Mazshall, City Engineer, and Public Works Services Director. 6. Approval of CUP 08-19 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), business owner(s), and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 7. 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 3 Resolution No. 1790 approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or 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 provided for in 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. 8. A notice indicating the maximum seating capacity approved by CUP OS-19 of 23 persons shall be conspicuously posted and maintained inside the restaurant. Said notice shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Administrator or designee prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 10t° day of February; 2009. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~~,- ,~.. P, ~--et~,.~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 4 Resolution No. 1790 ;: MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 7:00 P.M. The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive, with Chairman Beranek presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Pamlle and Beranek ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING City Councilman Gary Kovacic City Attorney Steve Deitsch Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg City Engineer Phil Wray Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama Associate Planner Tom Li Assistant Planner Steven Lee Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to read the Resolution by title only and waive reading the full tent of the Resolution. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Beranek asked Mr. Deitsch to explain the process for reviewing Items 1 and 2. These items will be reviewed together since they are interrelated, both in the same shopping cerner and both applying for a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant. Mr. Deitsch advised that the staff reports should be read consecutively and then the Public Hearing opened followed by the decision. Mr. Kasama noted that each Commissioner had a letter from Mr. Vince Vargas regarding Tent Amendment 09-O1, item 3, TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS -Five-minute time limit per person None PUBLIC HEARINGS ' 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 08-15 (Continued from December 9, 2008 and January 13, 2009) 921 S: Baldwin Avenue, Units G & H (dba Happy Blues Crab) Terence Kwok (Architect) The applicant is requesting a Conditional establishment into an adjacent unit to create a and wine service and seating for 40 patrons. Use Permit to expand an existing eating 1,971 square foot dine-in restaurant with beer 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 08-19 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Unit .A (dba Dumpling House) Terence Kwok (Architect) The applicant is requesting a revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and parking modification (CUP 94-01 /Resolution No. 1508) fora 1;376 square-foot eating establishment with seating for eight (8) patrons. The applicant is requesting to increase the number of permitted seats from eight (8) to thirty-seven (37). Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report for both Items 1 and 2. Mr. Lee added that the City Attorney recommends revised wording for Condition 3 as follows: "The approval of CUP 08-15 or 08-19 includes a Parking Modification to allow 50 spaces in lieu of 75 required for the commercial center in which the subject use is located. This Parking Modification is approved only for purposes of allowing-the specific use approved by CUP OS-15 or 08-19.". Mr. Lee also recommended adding a condition stating that maximum seating capacity shall be conspicuously posted and maintained inside the restaurant. In adidtion, this notice shall be subject to approval by staff prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. The public hearing was opened. - Commissioner Parrille questioned the comment on page 4 of the report that reads: "...the proposal could create a serious parking shortage". He asked if that refers to the application for 40 seats. Mr. Lee explained that there could be a serious shortage of parking spaces under the current operating conditions, with Dumpling House allocated a total of 44 seats. However, with the approval of both these CUPS, as recommended by staff, there wouldn't be an increase in he total number of seats and there wouldn't be a dramatic increase in demand for parking. Commissioner Parrille asked if there would still be a shortage of 25 spaces and Mr. Lee confu-med that the parking modification would allow a deficiency of 25 spaces. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Nansook Lee, the future owner of the business in units G and H, said that he would prefer to have 40 seats and he feels that the parking survey supports that number. However, rc Muau~res 1-27-09 Page 2 ,r after careful consideration he has decided to accept the city's proposal in the spirit of cooperation with his neighbors at the complex. Ms. Betty Ren, owner of the Dumpling House in Unit A, said that staff is currently recommending 23 seats for the Dumpling House but she would like to increase that to 30. Previously she had 44 seats because she was not aware that she was supposed to be limited to eight seats. Ms. Ren says that she cannot make a living with only eight. Commissioner Baderian noted that the staff report says the business license originally allowed for only eight patrons and asked Ms. Ren if she was aware of this. Ms. Ren said she was not. Commissioner Baderian asked if the number of patrons allowed is noted on the business license and Mr. I{asama explained that the number of patrons has only recently been added to the business license certificate. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the projects. There were none. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baderian asked if the owner was advised that the business license allowed only 8 patrons and Mr. ICasama said that it is not clear. He noted that it is possible that the applicant was not made aware of the limitation. Commissioner Parrille said that he is concerned about the lack of adequate parking as 90% of the parking lot is occupied at lunch time now and with additional seating it will be fully occupied leading to parking on the street. Commissioner Parrille said the Commission must be easeful about granting approvals when parking areas are inadequate under our municipal code. Commissioner Baderian said he agrees with Commissioner Parrille. Commissioner Hsu noted that Units A and B each have about the same amount of square footage yet Unit B is allowed 40 seats and Unit B only 8 seats. He noted a fairness issue and asked Mr. Deitsch if the amount of seating for Unit B can be reconsidered at this point. Mr. Deitsch explained that the CUP for Unit B has already been approved and is grandfathered in. He said the Commissioners must evaluate only the two applications presented today. Chairman Beranek pointed out that the seating capacity is still for a total of 96 seats but with a different allocation between Units A, G and H only, since the number for Unit B is already established. Therefore, parking will be about the same, without an increase or decrease. Pc MQnrrrs t-s~-a9 Page 3 Commissioner Baerg expressed appreciation to staff for a good job on a compromise that would allow both businesses a chance to succeed without causing additional congestion in the parking lot. MOTION: It was moved; by Commissioner,.Baderian, seconded by :Commissioner Parrille, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian and Parrille NOES: Commissioners Hsu, Baerg and Beranek MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-15, subject to the conditions in the staff report, as amended, including the addition of Condition 8 related to posting of seating capacity. Mr. Deitsch wished to clarify that the additional condition would address maximum seating capacity not occupancy and Commissioner Bearg wnfirmed that. Commissioner Parrille pointed out the increasing traffic on Baldwin Avenue and increased parking particularly on weekends. He expressed concern for traffic conditions when the new Westfield wing is opened in the spring and said that attowing substandard parking on a heavily travelled street is problematic. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Hsu and Beranek NOES: Commissioners Baderian and Parrille MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-19, subject ,to the conditions in the staff report, as amended including the addition of Condition 8 related to posting of seating capacity. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Hsu and Beranek NOES: Commissioners Baderian and Parrilie Once again, Mr. Deitsch asked to confirm that .the additional condition related to seating capacity and not occupancy. Commissioner Baerg said that was correct Pc Mwvres t-n-0v Page 4 3. TEXT AMENDMENT 09-O1 Citywide Text Amendment No. TA 09-01 establishes regulations for wireless communications facilities in the City's Zoning Ordinance; Article IX, Chapter 2, Part S of the Arcadia Municipal Code. Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staffreport. Mr. Deitsch said that in his letter Mr. Vince Vazgas has submitted some thoughtful suggestions; however, many of them aze already addressed in the ordinance while some of the suggestions would actually be prohibited by law. Mr. Deitsch reminded the Commission that the law is still somewhat unsettled in regard to how cities can regulate wireless facilities, particularly insofaz as aesthetic issues are concerned. He noted that the more restrictions imposed, the less likely the city may be able to successfully defend a challenge against an ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Vince Vargas briefly reviewed the contents of the letter he submitted to the Commission and said that the issue caused a lot of discussion at the May 6, 2008, City Council meeting. It was suggested that the codes in effect in neighboring cities be reviewed to see how these issues were handled. Mr. Vargas said that on May 13, he submitted the codes of five cities which were used to develop the proposed Text Amendment. He expressed his appreciation for the fact that the Text Amendment demonstrates an effort to protect residents by enhanced regulation of wireless facilities. He noted that he felt the Text Amendmern would be more effective if the wording were more specific and if there was included a requirement for evaluation by an independent communications engineer. He also said he supports regulations for wireless facilities on public rights-of-way. Commissioner Baderian suggested asking the City Attorney and staff to review the correspondence submitted by Mr. Vargas and to return at a future date with recommendations. Mr. Deitsch offered to give a brief response to the points on Mr. Vargas' letter, and suggested that if the Commission wanted a more thorough response, one would be prepared and presented at another meeting. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to close the public hearing. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Baderian asked to hear Mr. Beitsch's response to Mr. Vargas' recommendations. Mr. Deitsch said that the first suggestion of a requirement for a new Conditional Use Permit for future collocation at a facility such as Orange Grove Park is forbidden under California Senate Bill 1627 and restricted by Federal and State statutes and the California Public Utilities Commission. Pc MrNtrrEs 1-27-09 Page 5 Mr. Deitsch said the second suggestion of the requirement for an applicant to show that they considered existing facilities is already covered adequately in the proposed ordinance and he would not recommend a change, and the requirement for independent RF engineers to approve the application is covered by the Telecom Act of 1996, which prohibits. regulations that make service more expensive. Since this would be considered an expense item, the regulation could be successfully challenged, legally. The suggestion that the ordinance should be more specific regarding setbacks from residedtial properties is already defined in the Municipal Code. Item 12 is the same as the suggested requirement for the applicant to consider at least two other locations and has already been addressed. Section 9288.6, IZB, regarding hiring an RF engineer is an expense issue which could result in a potential successful legal challenge. Mr. Deitsch said that in reviewing Mr. Vargas' list, he feels that the ordinance adequately addresses the points raised. However, he offered to give it a more thorough review if the Commission felt it was required. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to recommend approval of Text Amendmem 09-Olto the-City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek NOES: None CONSENT ITEMS 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1786 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 08-18 to allow teen driver safety classes with a maximum of 18 students in a 493 squarafoot conference room on the second floor of an existing general office use at 420 E. Huntington Drive. 5. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2009 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to adopt Resolution 1786 and to approve the minutes of January 13, 2009, as presented. Without objection Resolution No. 1786 was adopted and the minutes were approved by voice vote as presented. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCII. AND PLANNING COMMISSION Councilman Gary ICovacic said that he was not present at the last City Council meeting because he was at the Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., so he was not able to report on the meeting. He mentioned that Chinese New Year was iwo days ago and the Pc nmvvres t-27-0s Page 6 Chinese Association along with the Chinese Booster Club will have a celebration on Satur at the Community Center. Mr. Kovacic said that on February 3, the City Council will atten the Board of Supervisors meeting where Arcadia will be recognized for being named by Business Week magazine as the Best City in the State of California to Raise Children. The Arcadia High School Constitution Team will travel to Sacramento to compete in the State finals and School Board elections will be held in April. MOBIFICATION COMbIITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Parrille said that there was no Modification Committee meeting today. FURTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama said that a proposed revision for the Canyon Road project and a Tentative Tract Map for afive-lot cul-de-sac will be presented at the February 10 meeting and he reminded the Commissioners that the joint meeting with the City Council for the General Plan update is scheduled for February 24. He also mentioned that the City Council upheld the Commission's denial of the Boba Tea Zone, Inc., and Pingo Yogurt Shop Conditional Use Permit application. ADJOURNED to 2-10 8:10 p.m Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission PC MIN[TI'ES 1-27-09 Page 7