Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-09AGENDA
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
+a..ir .rp'B
Arcadia City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the
proposed items set forth below for 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 of the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-05
754 Fairview Avenue - Grand Pacific Communities, Corp. (Manager for the Property Owner)
A Tentative Parcel Map for a four-unit residential condominium subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009.
2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-06
120 South Second Avenue - Howard Tran
A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009.
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-01
1512 South Santa Anita Avenue - Johnny Ngo (Property Owner)
A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot, single-family residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-07 & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 09-02
721 West Lemon Avenue & 1741 South Baldwin Avenue - Hope International Church
A Conditional Use Permit, the related Parking Modification, and Architectural Design Review for a new 1,273 square-foot,
church office building at 721 West Lemon Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission
meeting. There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning 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. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423.
PC AGENDA
7-14-09
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pursuant to the Americans 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. Notification 48 hours prior
to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
Public Hearine Procedure
1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
2. The Planning staff report is presented by staff.
3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning staff report may be asked and answered at this time.
4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission.
5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity 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 MINUTES)
7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal.
(LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES)
8. The Commission closes the public hearing.
9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time.
10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or
modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date.
11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the
decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented
at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) 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 (5) working day
appeal period.
13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan
Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the
Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing.
14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there
is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning 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. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423.
PC AGENDA
7-14-09
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-08
67 East Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102 - Meiling Lin
A Conditional Use Permit for a 722 square-foot tutoring center with up to ten (10) students on the ground floor of an
existing commercial office building.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission
meeting. There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution.
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-04
1431 South Santa Anita Avenue - Dexter Pamela, LLC (Property Owner)
A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot, single-family residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-13
1228 South Golden West Avenue (President Square Shopping Center) - Caroline Yang (Prospective Tenant)
A Conditional Use Permit and the related Parking Modification to convert an existing 1,224 square-foot retail unit into a
restaurant with seating for 53 persons.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval
A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission
meeting. There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution.
CONSENT ITEMS
8. RESOLUTION NO. 1796
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-
12 for a vehicle recovery and storage business comprised of a 20,301 square-foot automobile storage warehouse and a
16,100 square-foot gated outdoor automobile storage yard at 5449 Peck Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt
9. RESOLUTION NO. 1797
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit Application
No. CUP 09-10 to operate a tutoring center with a maximum of eight (8) students in a 2,000 square-foot commercial unit at
34 E. Huntington Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt
10. MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2009
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning 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. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423.
PC AGENDA
7-14-09
U~~. G~L~r•°a~.v,~ydr
Inrorp . [ed
~~uu.~ s,iaos
Co~knity oil°~'~~ STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-05 (Map No. 71143) for a
4-unit condominium subdivision at 754 Fairview Avenue
SUMMARY
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-05 (71143) was submitted by Grand
Pacific Communities, Corp. to subdivide the property located at 754 Fairview Avenue
for residential condominium purposes. The proposed 4-unit subdivision is consistent
with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Code. The
Development Services Department is recommending approval of TPM 09-05, subject
to the conditions on pages 3 and 4 of this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Grand Pacific Communities, Corp. (Manager for the Property Owner)
LOCATION: 754 Fairview Avenue
REQUEST: A Tentative Parcel Map for a 4-unit residential condominium
LOT AREA: 17,820 square feet (0.41 acre)
FRONTAGE: Approximately 66 feet along Fairview Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The property is currently developed with a 2,055 square-foot single-
family residence built in 1943, and is zoned R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential with a maximum density of one unit per 2,000 square feet
of lot area.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The surrounding properties are developed with multiple-family
dwellings and are zoned R-3.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Multiple-Family Residential - Maximum 24 dwelling units per acre
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-05 were mailed on
Thursday, July 2, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those
properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map).
Because staff considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the public hearing notice was not published
in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On June 18, 2009, the Development Services Department approved the applicant's
design concept plans under Architectural Design Review Application No. ADR 09-06
for the four-unit residential project. This approval was based on staff's determination
that the design was in compliance with the City's zoning regulations and architectural
design guidelines.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Tentative Parcel Map for residential condominium
purposes. The subject property is zoned R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, and contains
17,820 square feet of land area. The R-3 zone allows for a density of one (1) unit per
2,000 square feet of lot area. Based on this density factor, a maximum of eight (8)
units would be allowed on the subject property. The applicant's proposal to develop
four (4) condominium units on the site is half the density allowed by the Zoning Code.
All development standards have been met by the project and no modifications are
necessary. Therefore, staff has determined that the requested subdivision is consistent
with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.
The site currently has one oak tree with a trunk diameter of 4 inches that is proposed
for removal. The specific type of oak is unknown at this time. In accordance with the
City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, if the tree is an Engelmann Oak or a Coast
Live Oak, the applicant must file an application for an Oak Tree Removal Permit prior
to final plan check approval. The oak tree application will be subject to review and
approval by the Development Services Department (if a certified arborist determines
TPM 09-05
July 14, 2009
Page 2
that the tree is diseased or hazardous) or the Arcadia Modification Committee (if the
tree is determined to be healthy).
All City requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services
Director. The proposed plans have been reviewed by these departments and some
special conditions are deemed necessary in addition to the standard conditions of
approval. These conditions are listed as conditions 1 through 3 of this staff report.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Development Services Department has determined that the proposed project involves
a minor land division in an urbanized area, and is therefore categorically exempt from
CEQA (Class 15, Section 15315). A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of TPM 09-05, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer will be required to pay the following fees prior to occupancy:
Map Fee: $100.00 + Final Approval Fee: $25.00 = Total $125.00.
2. The developer shall post a $200.00 deposit for a Mylar copy of the recorded map
prior to occupancy.
3. One (1) 24-inch box specimen Australian Willow (Geijera parviflora) tree shall be
planted in the parkway, in a location to be determined by Public Works Services.
4. If the existing 4-inch diameter oak tree proposed for removal is an Engelmann Oak
or Coast Live Oak, an application for an Oak Tree Removal Permit shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to final plan check approval.
5. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department, Public Works Services Department, and Development Services
Department.
6. That condominium Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) containing
provisions for property maintenance shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Attorney, and shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map.
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,
TPM 09-05
July 14, 2009
Page 3
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.
8. Approval of TPM 09-05 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 acceptance of the conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve TPM 09-05, subject to the
following findings:
A.1. Find that 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 project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315.
A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director to approve and execute,
if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project.
A.4. Approve this 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 this parcel map, the Commission
should make specific findings based on the evidence presented and move to deny the
project. 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 proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act.
TPM 09-05
July 14, 2009
Page 4
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.
D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D.7. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to
cause serious public health problems.
D.8. Find that the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein
said lot is located.
D.9. 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. In this connection, the legislative body
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 subdivision 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 legislative body to determine that the public at
large has acquired easements 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 July 14th public hearing, please contact
Steven Lee, Assistant Planner at (626) 574-5444 or via email at slee ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved:
Ji sama
mmunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial photograph and vicinity map
Tentative Parcel Map 09-05 (71143)
Radius map
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Photographs
TPM 09-05
July 14, 2009
Page 5
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by R. S. Gonzalez, Jury 2009
754 Fairview Avenue
TPM 09.05 (71143)
N
100 0 100 200 Feet
5) I (809) (805) (7831
I '812) (810) (802) I M)
R-3
C
Z
G)
)DO
m
(759) Z
(758)
FAIRVIEW AVE
F750) (7
(738)
R-3
R-3
(732)
(724 I
(724-1
(7391 ~(7~35)~
(753) (743) J~ (811) (8051 1803) LO
754 Fairview Avenue
Development services Department ~ TPM 09=05 (71143)
Engineering Division
~®aalty of ~°d
ftp&Wby. R.S.Gonzalsz, Jury 2009
6690-M-9b9 :XVJ NgC-£9a-M "131
L0016 d0 `dI4GM'd
90016 V0 'VIOV08V
s V 11Nn 'OVON ON18M stall `inNgAV MIA81VJ * 9L
'ONI S31`dIDOSSd 193 WnINIWOGN00 Si Nn
1 u alWiin ~
2-
I
i
® r
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
_ I
r I
Z U I
I
gg I
Lou,
°ZOj p
lilt a
l ~ F=
Z o ~I y
C3
s ~I}~ 7~IU(IIIIIR
v Mug
U
N
Q z_
X31
39
I
ep
d tell
:,12g
~d~~3 d~~~ Dlt~~~
S II
NN 11
W \ 1.01.99
I
~I.
0, I bt:tY1~%
~ ~
I c~I
y
*!R-
I N
I I
.I
i I ro`A
I I
I
I i
I II
I
1 'I I / l
~I ~irs
I AI
~
I R
Ib
IW
1
I
b
~ I 4
W
!al
lit i
I I
I
~
I
I
I
n
1 I
I
IM
I~
~ M
1
i2
1
\ 11
\
I
I
,I I
i '
I
1
1& 1
I 1
s ~I r---
I Ay
I
1 ~I
I
I
I
1 r°
1
~ I
I•e s I
1 I
I
4~ I
JI ~ 1
tl
I I
I r,.
I ~ I 1
I II I A ! ~ Rt ~ 1
I I I~ I '
I I I I i
I I ~ I I I'Po I
~A----
r----~ ,`'-tea << t,
~Yf ~i ~v ~ Sri
e* s' ~I
6
3AV M,bIAbIV3
J ~J ~ A9~
I
' I . .y
Ll
\\,i!~ I-IYWI v SUE MORENO
JI =ff (626) 350-5944
OWNERSHIP I OCCUPANTS LIST
RADIUS MAPS - LAND USE - PLANS
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
106 LAMBERT AVE.EL MONTE, CA 91732 -FAX(626p%l
6D
SCALE 1"= 200'
I I xfu 1 era "~v
I I ,eau- _ ' 7r ~p pgeueas
I urr I ,ma,s i srao ; , asz ky um L .sAe.
O
0 O O O O D O Y s ©a ,n,.,
O75 I O 19503 7 e 2 3 T 6 5 4 w a 1 ,arts! __W G
,e O % w-
fgd t~ r
3 jl R 4ie R 3 Y 2n S 1 10 = p less * r e ~,LK O O `r •q Moirnw i~'
~p ieso !e7'J
a 0` " r.u - K
Rai e5mw
I as F $ SOUTHV%Wi 3
I s SOUTHVIEW o
I ~ t J
I ro aio W2133M y SHEET <
'ps•A TRAC NO 0 z yq 4rre• 2 $3
I e 7 q 8 9 10 1 1 1 $ ®N°tP Ar
I i 5 6 R 7 S i 0 O 'A O O 3 a, A
se p ,e n fe ? to O ©
,aeoes /9 t0 Z/ Aar se+se e, ,vs
ME, 33 29 28 MB 6 - 33
~4 , c.:. I uae Mg 584 2T - exae a.u r 4A7etl• laJ
8 ~
an w i szw R A3 e° es,' O Q.
8 R--1893 ,D A' aaM' ~ JO
5 109 SHEET 2 was ~p
7J a p4
EET
120 Z
( 80 a 7 m 6 E 110 t t
I
1 1% 32i. O 3~1 O O 0 78 79 79 100 a 101 « x 119 141 o
T 3 I 199 EW < Q
108 m i
~ N j , sr
I N = dj a s,.u~+ t~
I so ~
I ,o r e+~• es••7 ~ A s
I 70 7"
m
yt v Of y - t VE. e 4 FAIRVIEW xa•wf 'a6' ~
«
~ ~ 0 5220 95
NO 2731 TRACT NO 8 O @~ sov ,modus
MO.
~ ,e?A
I N' 2 now
I ,
i
a
72 73 74 + 75 0 71 O
p O 69 R~1 . 7 Z 17 7°
SHEETS ISO 4 1' 66„7 Aw 77
i a>sAe
1 SHEET 6 ,anus g
4r7i ~ = O t ~
' a ;
.e» o w n., a ® O
M /00 I _ ,snow L's J I:
1 ~ 10 ~ 20
° I i 32
"OR
57 48
69 1 44 31~
fl fET a p eo TO 9 68 56 47 46 SMEET7 n.a.-- Is it li~ 53 82 I = R i t-
Ma
AY
II 29 SHEETS M B sa, 55 2
MB 33, aa, r
SHEEET2 S~HEET3 i n.,, AVE.
A A Na',vf 1 ,
9? I ~ a ,om (I I Y
1
AQIA
u Ne Ye I 1
r 1 I ' S a A[K•ro'ro"E y 07 "'p K
1 AVE. /e17 1 ea
11 NY•10'10•! . 70 SHEET 2 I ~r
Pv N 12731
n NO I ; O O m I O K
' 122
( h
I SHEET 3 ' I wiLO,xa 2 I~ ' 1 1
117 11
m 1© 116 2". Z ~I O 1 c: [.J ~111LDIxe~
~i (t~e~ s 1 u
O L,1 •'-9 70 107. AtaR - ry
'r 1 GW1l j
J A >7 a
710 co
m I r1tiS v/+o nets i E. I uO A Z
to
ca
HD G • 'y s 70 ~Y 1+ o , ~6°N" k O i O 123 s.7a~ R M 1
N IC g r, 1~GI' O 1 4 w , O ~s
a i~ v 125 A" a"fl! a
o~ W.r ro tstsrsF OSHEETS 126 w a( ai
r {f1~ Iasi
36lsr $Z G~ Z eD ~ : 12B Z 1 lk u. 1
Ila OF co~S F~ n R M
' t- 1 a F. 1 ¢ pm
~ x a Ro 1 7J ~1/
Ip
X131 R 1 ai 1 d V 1A C. Ib A +
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-05 (71143)
2. Project Location - Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
754 Fairview Avenue (btw Baldwin Ave. and Golden West Ave.)
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A. Public Entity:
B. Other (Private): Grand Pacific Communities
(1) Contact Name Richard Chou
(2) Contact Address 100 N. Barranca St., Ste. 950
West Covina, CA 91791
Staff Determination:
The City, 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:
b. ❑
The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
C. ❑
The project is a Ministerial Project.
d. ❑
The project is an Emergency Project.
e. ❑
The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
f. ®
The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15 (Section 15315)
g. ❑
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
h. ❑
The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
i. ❑
The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
[Name of Lead Agency:
Date: July 7, 2009 Staff:
Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A"
4
PROJECT SITE: 754 FAIRVIEW
F~
f
L~-v: . (aid r
AVENUE, ARCADIA, CA 91007
PHOTO 1: E OF PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING S'LY ON FAIRVIEW AVENUE).
'14m/ *480
PHOTO 3
NE OF PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING N'LY ON FAIRVIEW AVENUE).
grit X~aa
~wv lt~
=r,
Inenrpnr. rcA
AnyurS, X903
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094) for a two-
unit residential condominium subdivision at 120 S. Second Avenue
SUMMARY
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094) was submitted by Mr.
Howard Tran for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision at 120 S. Second
Avenue. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Code. The Development Services Department
is recommending approval of TPM 09-06 (71094) subject to the conditions set forth
in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Howard Tran
LOCATION: 120 S. Second Avenue
REQUEST: A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit residential condominium
subdivision
LOT AREA: 6,175 square feet (0.14 acres)
FRONTAGES: 50 feet along S. Second Avenue & 136 feet along Bonita Street
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The subject property is currently developed with a 985 square-
foot, two-bedroom residence built in 1934. It is zoned R-3,
Multiple-Family Residential with a density of one unit per 2,000
square feet of lot area.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
North: Bonita Park; zoned S-2
South: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3
East: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3
West: Multiple-family residential; zoned R-3
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
MFR-24 - Multiple-Family Residential at a maximum density of 24
dwelling units per acre
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-06 were mailed on
Thursday, July 2, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those
properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map).
Because staff considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the public hearing notice was not
published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On August 14, 2007, the Arcadia Planning Commission approved Modification no.
MP 07-04 and Architectural Design Review no. ADR 06-30 to permit the following
modifications and approve the architectural design review for a two-unit residential
project as shown on the attached plans:
A 13'-0" to 16-0" street side yard setback in lieu of the required 26-0"
minimum (Section 9255.2.4).
2. A 23'-0" front yard setback in lieu of the required 26-0" minimum for a covered
porch (Section 9255.2.3).
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a Tentative Parcel Map for residential condominium
purposes. This proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The subject property has 6,175 square
feet of land area. The density factor in the R-3 zones is 2,000 square feet per unit.
This would allow for a maximum of three (3) units on the subject property. With the
approved Modifications, all development standards will be met by the project.
All City development requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director,
Community Development Administrator, and any service districts and utility
providers that will serve the project. The applicant has been notified of the City's
TPM 09-06
120 S. Second Ave.
July 14, 2009 - Page 2
general and specific development conditions and requirements. Two special
requirements are listed as conditions numbers 1 and 2 of this staff report.
CEQA
This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15315 as a minor land division in an
urbanized area. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Tentative Parcel
Map Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094) subject to the following conditions:
The developer is required to pay the following fees prior to recordation of the
Parcel Map: A Map fee of $100.00 and a Final Approval fee of $25.00 for a
total of $125.00.
2. Prior to recordation, the developer shall post a $200.00 deposit for a Mylar copy
of the recorded map.
3. 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.
4. Condominium Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) containing
provisions for property maintenance, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney, and shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map.
5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia
and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to
attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City
of Arcadia 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.
6. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094) shall not
take effect until the property owner, applicant, and civil engineer have executed
TPM 09-06
120 S. Second Ave.
July 14, 2009 - Page 3
and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Community Development
Division to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map
Application No. TPM 09-06 (71094), subject to the following findings and direction:
A.1. That 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. That this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that
this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315.
A.3. Direct and authorize the Development Services Director, or designee to
approve and execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project.
A.4. That this project is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff
report, or as modified by the Planning Commission.
Denial
If the Planning Commission is to take action to deny this tentative parcel map, the
Commission should make specific findings with reasons based on the evidence
presented, and move to deny the project. The Planning Commission may wish to
consider the following findings, which must be expanded upon with specific
reasons for denial:
D.1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act.
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.
DA. 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.
TPM 09-06
120 S. Second Ave.
July 14, 2009 - Page 4
D.6. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D.7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to
cause serious public health problems.
D.8. That the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood wherein
said lot is located.
D.9. 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 legislative
body 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 subdivision 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 legislative body
to determine that the public at large has acquired easements 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 subdivision, prior to the July 14th public hearing, please
contact Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner, in Planning Services at (626) 574-5422 or
tschwehr@ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
f Kasama
mmunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-06 (71094)
Aerial Photo and Vicinity Map with Zoning Information
300-foot Radius Map
Plans
Photographs of the subject site and surrounding developments
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
TPM 09-06
120 S. Second Ave.
July 14, 2009 - Page 5
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 71094
IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 58 OF SANTA ANITA TRACT AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 34, PAGES 41 AND 42 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
~I 2ND
Lo
-
-
NOO°02'00°E
SSMH
-
AVENUE
Q
1-
'
SCALE: 110'
ZI
REMOVE
F_%. DA
CONST. CONC. C&GANDS7w
BO.OO
l
~
PROJECT:
pI
y"'
472-C
120 S 2ND AVENUE
LL
ARCADIA, CA 91006
APN No.: 5773-016-039
Q I
-
ER &
OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:
HOWARD TRAIN
I
w
ONCRETE
SIBCFALK~
120 S 2ND AVENUE
ARCADIA, CA 91006
TEL'. (626) 831-9922
PREPARED BY:
ENGLES SHEN 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
1111 CORPORATE CENTER DR., SUITE 302
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
TEL. (323) 266-0866 FAX(323)266-0867
NOTES:
ZONE' R-3
LOT SIZE 13,240 SF (0.30AC) GROSS
6,175 SF (0.14AC) NET
EXIST. LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE
PROP. LAND USE 2 CONDOMINIUM UNITS (2 STORY)
NO. OF UNITS 2
NO. OF PARKING PROVIDED: 4 (2 PER UNIT)
NO. OF GUEST PARKING: 2
SEWER PUBLIC
WATER PUBLIC
DRAINAGE GRAVITY FLOW TO STREET
NO OAK TREE ON SITE
REMOVE ALL ON-SITE TREES UNLESS OTHERWISE AS NOTED
REMOVE ALL EXISTING ON-SITE BUILDING
BENCH MARK:
NAIL & TAG ON TOP OF EAST CURB, 2ND AVENUE 105.67
FEET SOUTH OF S'LY LINE OF PARCEL IN QUESTION,
ELEV= 470.990'
Huntington Or I I ''//A Huntington Or
Q
Santa Anita Golf y
Course
y
N
N
ComDu9 Dr
Ar. ie
High School
VICINITY MAP
qB m EC!"-W
MAY, 2009
RAW
I
~ h=
-'EXIST. DRIVEWAY
q
(
j v-
1N
I /
E REMOVED
it
I N I
~
3
I/ I
IN
~
1
r a
PROP. RAY < F
Ic)
_4MffZI(
I
I
7 TG
1
I
Y
I
Ca•-~-~-------_-_-
-
-x
w
1
I I
I
1
47
fiBF$
S
4400
~
FH
~
D
CAPE
I
'
I
-I
t x
-
.
744DTS -
41
E
_
,
/MVATION LIN
PROP. 6'HT MAXI
I
-
EXIST. TREE
CONC. BLKWALL
I
r T
~T
,
-TnnEMC
8 MATEL GATE
473 91 FG
I`
K
)
I I
, ~7~,®
I
10.
I 47442FS -
n
I
I
83F
7
\ L
ul ~
EX. WOOD FENCE
TOBEREMOVED
.
I
4 FF
FF=474.50
3
I
I
I
PAD-074.00
V
I
I
PROP
6'HT MAX
I
I
I
~
I
~
star
.
I
CONC. BL
A
i
-
4 S
.
I
-
g GARAGE g
`
I o
~
asx ~
~
5-1
F
I
PROP. 6'HT MAX.
EX BUILDING
-
~
, °
CONC. BLKY/ALL
»
s
-
C
I
Ia i
'Q
`
1 `
S4
g 1
~ ~ aa,. ~
hI3T
°
EMO
EX WOOD FENCE
2
1I
GARAGE
05%
"
TO BE REMOVED
MIN
....I q
n~
"
10
PROP. B'HT
4 s LAWN
EX. WOOD
TO BE BEG
CONC. B I
WIF
- I
x
IN
I
I a4. F
474501F I 4 42F8
47608F5 P F-74_ o
LAND Pill
I
IF
I
NI
Di
I
PROP. B'HT
CONC.BL L
8 MATEL G TE
I
~
IANG GAPING
` 47~4pFs 147a5e
fY- Y
07
\ 181T
PAgKING
>
I
I
N
M
LANDS
CAPING
'413, .1
s
CAD
/
473
473
74TC
2/FL 170
3 PPRItING
I 47: 8___ r
567.59'
I~
t`
I"
I~
I
I
~ 0 30'
}fix
30'
I I-
Iw
w
I~
I
I~
µ2
I
YIP
_ DWY
26'X=3'Y=5'
I()
~I
I
~ Iz
10
I co
wru LS - r
0°02'00"E Ex. CL FENCE 50.00
N0 ' PPl ' ? 30'
PROP 6'HT MAX. TO BE REMO ) t~ ii IN23~Src
SOUTH E ST EAST
RNJ EX. RNJ NEW RN✓
_ 30' 42' I
20' - 10' 1 16' 14' I 12' ^I
EXIST. PAVING I EXIST. PAVING w
I i 55' CITY DEDICATIONI ~t•1
P
~ 2% 1 P~~pXPTT ~ j - I 2% pEP
1------- --Z I
EXIST. I E%IST. P.C.C.
EXIST. CURB 8 GUTTER PARKWAY EXIST. CURB 8 GUTTER WALKWAY
HALF SECTION -BONITA STREET HALF SECTION -2ND AVENUE
NTS NTB
N
SN
co
I ~
N
AVE1
s
A-
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by. R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009
,p d 120 S Second Avenue
,.......K TPM 09-06
s a~
N
100 0 100 200 Feet
ALTA ST
(152) (158) (162) (166)
R-3
ILU
Q
Z
O
W
L
(119)
(124) 1 I R-3 (125)
BONITA ST
(154)
(158)
(162)
- (205)
R
3
-
(207)
W
(221) Q
'*S
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
4~~unlty uC \l~s
Prepared by: R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009
(200) 1 1 (201)
R-3 (207)
(206)r~.
(211)
(210)
(215)
(212)
(217)
(218)
(219)
120 S Second Avenue
TPM 09-06
BONITA ST
(212)
T T T
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 71094
300' RADIUS MAP
DR. ;4' s° HUNTINGTON
L /Ker•' 9fl _
4
50
~h
M 20
6
11ZSA[.
26
I s
sr
~2
I g h
h
4?
30
SD
/
r
t \p A, 4 ems) 'o
RIP W,
E
39 /2 13 /6 1 B
1 ~N o 14 15
h /5 17
w
V)
h /a I $ 1
100 s0.a+ to so
i
0
.n
f~
a
S0
50.0 118.03
Z3 ~
BLK
~
37
w 38-48
70
$ cn EET 3
26
25
24
2
3-
37
a
24
3
55
L 1/
so
saAr 13.03
V
5
ao SHEET 6 i7
I S 1 14
36
O
Z
N
~ 934 \ 4r ' .;~k,~ do
C1TY \ Y
g.alIt Ac,
Y
~ r.
w 2
Q
Yarie't~
O P8 BLK%I
X4917 70 g 72
60 Per. 133 K,
1t 67 /95,H Q
SHE AfJS 4 4;
1 9 BONITA
r-
00
v
80
58 Q
a0
ST 1W I
PART0O9 72 Ig OF 3 ~o g
6 I
207.21,
S P O
M R g C-TRACT NO 53966
if t0!
A~ a9 I
- OR
SANTA ANITI
~3s.5Q- - 58 1 20-27 34 12 T $i - 1230 1 aoR SHEET 13
12 7 s~ sa 1868 M ^1288 C-P M zo7.so323
Ao
a
a
.
6 p
58
b 60-61
0
59
20
\
,p Pon
N e~
26
25
24
23
22
1
wR
Q
a SM ET 3
p
8+ 12
50 73 - 74
123
x°
207
d
1W2~
1 S
HEET
72
.
.
_
Z
215
1
N
5
98
50
1871 -11 9185 23 99854F
95 o.s° 17
5
° Q
-
.
C -pm
~
30 -
~12-80-81
N
ct)
170
144
,
o
1
0
72
C-TR N0
0
215
SHEET 2
64
C-TRACT NO
53700
28-35
S
g
Q
.
v
EET
SF
POR
SHEET B 130
!00.03 50 G
SHEET 4 f4 V
r
15
O
/46
in is M 56 I "
I Q o 13
14
15
g
11 Y3
h is r7
l~ a
~
a 16. u
7
10o.oe So
50
71 70
a 12
1
- 74 - 75
g 1a g
Z
72
1 85
S 89.50'E 200.15
28389 SF
80
1p0
10-19 g
:
9 2B
0
N
MB 1273-51-52
31
CO
T- 1 =
_
2~' -4
GPM
252 - 6 - 7
v
rn
r- ,
74 r-
138
SHEET 4 h
port
c+~ w S
a N
.poi
o .poi
~
O
d
M
N 1
SHEET 9
Q
52
10c 123
$
0
U
I m ao 8S 100 83.50
34
- 41 - 42
$ CALIFORNIA M R
,
1866 1666 1924 0~~, n4,_
T~97 •OiR9
OLIL-L69-£z£ „ ; ~ NOW vO vlavoav
=is V3 ')Wd A3~L W)A L!!! X a x i m A. s a lwa 3AV oNZ 'S OZ I 6
.omsimisw ssnllAaaia
'-AV A311MV'J 3 08S sKwM°~ sum!~ 0 w 4
~~ilaav '~cwa Mraa3t liOllu~i19smallll SlINn M3N-Z Q
'iaiw! swanuilorrlsMlta
i!S
Z
0
m
C4
old
11,1111 la lot
kv-
0
3AV aNZ 'S
OZLZ-L69-£Zf N~l,~ 90018Vo YKIYONY N
991M VO ')IVVd kAMNON usuisws+s~srao~sarNa
" 3AV A3h WJ 3 09Z "°~swM°~sa w°~0ri ~o°o°wm i i'"~aar°x u~ 0 3AV (INZ 'S OZ l
133UNOMV )IOMM 30N3N31 OJMWV;MA SllNn M3N-Z ■ I g Q
4
N N(N
<m
zz
ll1~RNd IgLS11_'~
4
0
LL IL
~N
a~
<m
f-r-
=N
OBIS-L69-£ZS ~ ~ a 900MO VIOV38V G^~
SS VX V 73!l31NON1 3AV QNZ 'S OZl 0
'3&V A3h11Hi1VS 09Z sw x way • mar x ie
133LIWW 'MU 3ON38A a°"'w~r uJO1•na«°Oiws~::axi SIM M3N-Z
4
~ N
foil
o © ® © o© e
11 T"
z
Subject Property 120 S. Second Ave.
South of Subject Property (124 S. Second Ave - duplex)
East of Subject Property (212 Bonita St.)
West of Subject Property (127 S. Second Ave.)
Asry~i f. t»)
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
TPM 09-06 - A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit
condominium subdivision within the R-3 zone.
2. Project Location - Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
120 S. Second Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A. Public Entity:
B. Other (Private):
(1) Contact Name j Howard Tran
(2) Contact Address 120 S. Second Ave.
Arcadia, CA 91006
4. Staff Determination:
The City, 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 an Emergency Project.
d. ❑
The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ®
The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15315
f ❑
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
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:
Date: June 29, 2009 Staff: Tim Schwehr
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A"
Iecetperst A
Au9u.t S. 19p3
0
ya~uaity of
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: James Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-01 (70963) for a
proposed two (2) lot, single-family residential subdivision at 1512 S.
Santa Anita Avenue
SUMMARY
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-01 (Parcel Map No. 70963) was
submitted by the property owner, Mr. Johnny Ngo, for a two (2) lot, single-family
residential subdivision at 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue. Although the proposed
subdivision does not meet the minimum street frontage requirements, the proposal is
consistent with the City's General Plan, and would allow for the future completion of
a standard cul-de-sac terminus on Santa Anita Terrace. Therefore, the Development
Services Department is recommending approval of the tentative parcel map
application, subject to conditions as listed in this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Johnny Ngo (Property Owner)
LOCATION: 1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
REQUEST: A proposed tentative parcel map for a two (2) lot, single-family
residential subdivision
LOT AREA: 31,050 square feet (0.71 of an acre)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 135 feet along S. Santa Anita Avenue
Approximately 21 feet along E. Santa Anita Terrace
EXISTING LAND USES & ZONING:
The site is developed with three residential units constructed in 1924,
1945, and 1954, zoned R-1 - 7,500
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family
dwellings, zoned R-1.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre)
Public Hearing Notification
Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-10 were mailed on June
18, 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 June 22, 2009.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to split the existing 135-foot wide by 230-foot deep lot that
fronts on Santa Anita Avenue, and remove the existing improvements for the
subsequent construction of a new single-family residence on each lot. The size of
the new lots would be 20,925 sq.ft. for Lot 1 and 8,288 sq.ft. for Lot 2. There is also
a 1,837 square-foot area dedicated to the City for the potential future development of
a standard width cul-de-sac terminus.
Lot 1 complies with all applicable subdivision and zoning requirements and will
maintain a 135-foot street frontage along Santa Anita Avenue, with a lot depth of 155
feet. Lot 2 will have a lot dimension of 75 feet by 135 feet. It will comply with all
applicable subdivision requirements, with the exception that it will only have a street
frontage of 20 feet 10 inches, in lieu of the minimum 44 feet required at the end of
Santa Anita Terrace, a street with a substandard cul-de-sac terminus, that is, it has
no turnaround "bulb."
The applicant initially submitted a proposal to extend Santa Anita Terrace and create
a new half cul-de-sac that would provide Lot 2 with the required 44-foot street
frontage. However, staff found this proposal to be unacceptable since a standard
cul-de-sac could only be accomplished with an approximately 2,000 square-foot
dedication by the adjacent property to the north at 1504 S. Santa Anita Avenue. At
staff's request, the applicant approached the owners of this property to solicit interest
in the extension of the street. However, those owners are not interested in altering
their property at this time.
TPM 09-01
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 2
The revised proposal will not extend Santa Anita Terrace. Access to Lot 2 will be
through a 20'-10" wide right-of-way frontage to be provided by widening an existing
driveway at 28 E. Santa Anita Terrace, as shown on the submitted Tentative Parcel
Map. There will be a 1,837 square-foot area dedicated for potential future
construction of a standard cul-de-sac terminus if the property to the north is to be
subdivided. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshal have reviewed the subject
proposal and do not have any issues with this arrangement.
The subject property has approximately 31,050 square feet or 0.71 acre of 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 subdivision and zoning regulations require a minimum lot size
of 7,500 square feet. The proposal satisfies these criteria.
Based on its consistency with the General Plan, and the allowance for the potential
completion of a standard cul-de-sac terminus on Santa Anita Terrace, staff
recommends approval of the subject tentative parcel map application, based on the
conditions in this staff report.
Other Requirements
The applicant is required to comply with all code requirements as determined
necessary by the Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director,
Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed
project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of
historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration
was prepared forth is project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-01 (70963), subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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
TPM 09-01
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 3
Director that compensate for the removal of any oak tree, minimize any impacts
on an oak tree, and prevent any damage to public improvements.
2. 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.
3. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and
Public Works Services Director.
4. 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 plan may require the altering of the design of the
proposed subdivision and the potential building footprints.
5. Approval of TPM 09-01 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.
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.
TPM 09-01
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 4
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map Application
No. TPM 09-01 (70963), based on the following findings:
A.1. Find that 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 the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the
attached Initial Study are appropriate; that this project will not have a significant
effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there
is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends; and therefore,
approve and direct staff to file the Negative Declaration.
A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director to approve and
execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project.
A.4. Approve this 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 intends to deny this application, 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.
DA. 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.
TPM 09-01
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 5
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
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.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter, prior to the July 14th public hearing, please contact
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447.
Approved by:
James asama
Co unity Development Administrator
Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-01 (70963)
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information
Photos of Subject Properties
Comments from Engineering Services
300-Foot Radius Map
Photos
Environmental Document
TPM 09-01
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 6
D_
0
O
6692-29Z (9Z9) xDJ 899£-29Z (9Z9) lal
90016 VO 'DiPDDJV
v 1!un T008 6u!JPIDO 61911
'ONI `S31VI30SSd 103
IX
S
7F
3~r aro1 ~ 3~r Dm1
a
3n nrr n,Nx x
~
g
a
]IY L/
pr D
Yi
S
in6~
O
~ V
Q
t
O
h ~
~
y
y
Jig,
J
W
UV
R
~
?
#
y
a£a£ g
11.1
V
g
~
1d„
Q
ig
W
.
I~w
I
N
~
Q
I ~~s ~i
a
z
~ ~~a E
L I
uj
N
g.
I
I
II
,
N
I
~ec9
N I I
o as
z w
~
2
w
y
~ ~
ES
gig
e
_
4®®
® ®
F
n gags a
lee 0@
181 1 W~
3
Ali
3
C~ de
d6E~
o~
~~47 k'~ ~Rt4I42~
e~
a
90016 VO `VIddoad
3nN2AV ` iINV d1NVS °S Z191
NOISIAmens Slob z
oa ~ tl
YE ~
i
8e ~il~rP a $ / y`}
e
F7
I3/V V11N V1NVS Moe
Fs s
I
'1 q~p - a
® w
a
Iw
Q
_J
Q
W
a
z
U
o 0
is 0
~V-
~ Q
LLJ
° I >
I~ E
0
~w
J
H
_J
Q
w
0
a ~ a ~ ~
R-1
I
R-1
Subject
Property
N
100 0 100 200 Feet
Pfta
Z
(1431) Q
R-1 0501)
(1511)
A ANITA TER W
Oct
Q
Z
Q
Q
(1527) Z
qc~
!E AL AVE
(12) (8)
1412)
(27) (31) (37)
(21' PAMEL
(20) (30) (40)
(1430)
R-1
(1504) 27) (33)
(32)
SANTA ANITA TE
(32) I
(28)
(1560)
R-1
(1564)
(15) (21)
CAMINO REAL AVE
(14) (20)
(1608)
_ ti
1512S Santa Anita Avenue
S
Development Services Department TPM 09-01
Engineering Division
Prepared by R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009 ~~+a~ey of
Photo 1: Project Site. (Viewing NE'ly From Santa Anita Ave.)
Photo 2: Project Site. (Viewing Ely From Santa Anita Ave.)
Photo 3: Project Site. (Viewing SE'ly From Santa Anita Ave.)
Photo 4: Existing Single Family Houses. (Viewing NW'ly From Santa Anita Ave.)
Photo 5: Existing Single Family Houses. (Viewing Westerly From Santa Anita Ave.)
Photo 6: Existing Single Family House. (Viewing SW'ly From Santa Anita Ave.)
A6u.t Sl.g- 5nud
r 1901
MEMORANDUM
Development Services Department
DATE: June 30, 2009
TO: Thomas Li, Assistant Planner
FROM: Kevin Merrill, Senior Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Engineering Conditions of Approval
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue - TPM 09-01 - PM 70963
In response to your memorandum, the Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed
application. Please refer to the City of Arcadia Standard Conditions of Approval for
general conditions that must be complied with (as applicable to this project). The
conditions below are in addition to the Standard Conditions and are specific to this PM
70963 Map:
1. The developer shall preserve the existing mature oak tree in the existing parkway
along Santa Anita Avenue as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map 70963 and
incorporate it into the new development landscaping.
2. According to record drawings the subject property has an existing sewer lateral
connecting to the sewer main line in Santa Anita Ave. The Developer shall contact
Public Works Services Department to verify if the existing sewer lateral can service
the proposed lot (Lot 1). Lot 2 shall obtain sewer service from the existing sewer
main in Santa Anita Terrace.
3. Indicate on the Parcel Map a 5' wide public utilities easement along the north
property line of Lot 1 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map 70963.
4. The developer will be required to pay the following fees prior to occupancy:
Map Fee $100.00
Final Approval Fee (2 lot @ $25.00 ea.) 50.00
TOTAL $150.00
5. Post a $200 deposit for Mylar copy of the recorded map prior to occupancy.
Conditions of Approval
PM 70963
June 30, 2009
Page 2
6. Submit a separate demolition and erosion control plan prepared by a registered civil
engineer subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the parcel
map.
7. Indicate on the Parcel Map along the east property line of Lot 1 a non-vehicular
access easement to the City of Arcadia. Driveway approach(es) for Lot 1 shall be
located on Santa Anita Avenue and Lot 2 shall obtain access off of Santa Anita
Terrace
8. Indicate on the Parcel Map a 5' wide public utilities easement and road easement
dedicated to the City of Arcadia as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map 70963.
These easements will be irrevocable dedications to the City of Arcadia.
1(JrPi SUE MORENO
71C>P!' (626) 350-5944
OWNERSHIP / OCCUPANTS LIST
RADIUS MAPS - LAND USE - PLANS
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
LAMBERT AVE.EL MONTE, CA 91732 -FAX(626)350-1532
PROJECT INFORMATION
1512-1514 S. SANTA ANNTA AVE.
ARCADIA, CA.
08-382
D
SCALE 1" = 200'
e
25
30
3i
s1
33
5
J
31
32
33
34
35
36
h 6 I
ep
O
/35
NAOMI
I
AVE. $ R.i
'S' F
.p
00
0
0
0
0
O
O
m 02
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
/rs
b
/S
D
23
23
30
31
32
33
I
32
33
34
35
36
37
y 78 2 0
m
eo
/3S ~O
.1~
E
PAMELA
O
O
O
O
O
9
a
7
6
5
6d
5
1667
4
75
3
O
2
75
S
4 8
3
1 o
2
Ip~r~ ^
I
7
7Jrs 76
V67
~ B
~ ea
SANTA ANITA
a
R•
77 arsJ
O
i
.9 3
10
71
79
10
61
II ~
.
>0
5
I
I
1 I
.
.
I
I„ h Kj 2L0r°
I 18 ' 7s
I I" ~ $ Ge:
I
lcezrAc. -aYg66or
y
h
W
~
ti
M
\
o
_
249..
0
y
'
q
0.331 A,
N
249.40
cla91
_
z
I
b
I RD s
r
mmmmmwlg~
o /JS
z
02
i%
zao
® o
~
e 2a
i 3
/a0
24
> ,rs
IJO
29
m 30M. m
~I
I 3
I 97x7'.:-
Li
Q
0
h S TERR. I
H
P.
\ I T
,x
32
ll"
Q
~
z
,
fs
i
`
hl -l
S
2b.2
SCHOOL
17
3^.
a~-~
Sad b~°® ~
a 22
a
1°O
3 RD. '-4
a
ar~.r
-----~J-7-----
°
18 0
x
r
17 e
g
"O a~
a
15
16 "
.p
sQ p a
I VITA TERR.
°
7
- - - - - - - - - -
p
Y
~
°
9~
NN
s<
a
r.
m~
78
/.i7 59161 ~
Q
w0
~
A ~
®
/,4x•
I I~~ I n J5
70 `6- Q b O a I$"5TJ 6oW a "p n 1
E i 35 i 37 I uQi 0 yi $ 7 -o a
I I I I
7 I los 26 6a tte 7i "`y /az ~ AM rzu n-
CAMINO REAL
CAMINO REAL $ s a CAMINO L 3
I
~
.wet9
JSBS
1
5
3
3
0 z
4
S
\
~
yy~I
'I
-04
W04
M64
J7S
71
O
O
4
I
2)
~
7
8
4
S
ry 6
I
!/9Y11°
J
7/, /7
,cr
7
T]63
M. r3
JJ.B6 'S0"
WI
NNIE
WAY
` r
~01
, .
zu6
Q
G
s
3
's
2
b
1
AW.
4
12
11
60 1 ' I
s
!
)
I
Q 1
boa
I
(D
0
G
72
11!
e
7
e
s
j
°
e
I
83
=
I
60
b
Jo
/ro
100
100
N
I a
I O
wm
m.
wm
E~
.ex
w
%
N
/Ip
I
I
69•Jr'e
sb
` ~
66
i
I O
Jb
e
I N
900
,6
7 B
6
e F . OG
O I `
1-
T
8 Z
2O 1
g 1
wx9
;v
;
q
8
n wa
~
N
Z
mn
m
M B 260 - 23 - 24
Q
¢
i
8 U
4d
~
3O
m
~
B 2 3$ '9eez sr
- O s `7
9,wt sr ~ 2
96
TRACT NO
?
es
M 6FJr'~ Taco--
w
¢
¢
zoo
,w.n
~ fz „
a. s 0 Q
aa9t S 4
L
Z
O ^
n
z
-
a
' M 8 538
n
-
WINNIEWAY
I
0
o
'
tWSI
4
b K
/6/66
p
3M.A6 -
'
60~ 6l
/O/
-
0
JJJI
ea o 6a/o
g7
e
1 2,
h 2 22
~
O
f,, b
°
C
60 b
„
0
LO
30'
Q
'D
sz)r m
5 eS
6 7
e ~
n
~p )0 IaYJ
~ ,oea, ~
=
P
3
MWm W.
IrJ'
b
O
/ J/a
~
u~ O r
N A p~a6:
a /seoi /o/
~Z8 0,IS b
A Po~ A
14
n ire
,
e
PJ
-N.~
9/06
fees
V
9n 27 n18
n13
l)2
File No. TPM 09-01
CITY OFARCADIA
~~N] f. IN]
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
A Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-01 for a two-lot subdivision.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
Community Development Division / Planning Services
240 West Huntington Drive - Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Thomas Li
Phone - 626-574-5447
Fax - (626) 447-9173
Email - tli@ci.arcadia.ca.us
4. Project Location:
1512 S. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Johnny Ngo
324 W. Camino Real Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91006
6. General Plan Designation:
Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre)
7. Zoning Classification:
R-1 - First One-Family
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -11- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-01
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if
necessary.)
A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot subdivision from a single lot. The existing
improvements on the property will be removed for the subsequent construction of
a new single-family residence on each lot.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family dwellings in an R-1
zone.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic
❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -2- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-01
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
T-O M As L.1
Printed Name For
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -3- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-01
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -4- 6/06
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS - Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited ❑ ❑ ❑
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposal is for condominium purposes and will not have such impacts.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts
to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?
The proposal is for a two-lot single-family subdivision. It will be consistent with the Single-Family Residential
land use designation in the General Plan and with the R-1 First One-Family zoning of the site, and is required
to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations.
This proposal is consistent with the surrounding residential development.
3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
CEQA Checklist
4
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
The proposal is for single-family purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic
conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air
quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but
not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
CEQA Checklist
5
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
sites?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
❑
❑
❑
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
❑
❑
❑
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources.
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
❑
❑
❑
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
❑
❑
❑
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
❑
❑
❑
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑
formal cemeteries?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The proposal will not have any impacts on cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
6
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
v) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ❑
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
7
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined
to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land,
and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for single-
family residential purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. No unique geologic
or physical features have been identified at the site.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
CEQA Checklist
7
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
The proposal is for single-family purposes and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or
expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety
regulations.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
CEQA Checklist
8
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity ❑
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on ❑
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede ❑
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑
k) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? ❑
1) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm ❑
water runoff?
m Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material ❑
storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
n) Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm ❑
on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies?
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
9
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ ❑ ❑
uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality
benefit?
p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑
storm water runoff that can use environmental harm?
q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑
surrounding areas?
The proposal is for single-family purposes, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing
drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in
accordance with the City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan?
The proposal is consistent with the single-family residential designation in the General Plan and with the R-1
zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with
applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area
designated for single-family residential under the General Plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
No mineral resources are known to exist at the site.
11. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
CEQA Checklist
10
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is
completed, it is anticipated that the noise factor would not increase since the site will be replaced with single-
family residential development, which must comply with all noise limitations established by the City.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon population or
housing.
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
13.
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan.
The project will not create any significant impact upon public services.
14.
RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational
services.
15.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
CEQA Checklist
12
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
❑
❑
❑
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
16
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact in reference to
transportation/ circulation services.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
CEQA Checklist
13
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-01
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑
which serves or may serve the project determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and
service systems.
17.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family
residential development under the General Plan. The project will not have any of the above-mentioned
effects or impacts.
CEQA Checklist
14
7/02
. ~ y,e~oK;y~9yd
ry
[nrorporar d
Auyurt i. IL0:1
unity of STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-07, the related Parking
Modification, and Architectural Design Review Application No. ADR 09-02
for a new 1,273 square-foot administrative office building at an existing
church complex located at 1741 S. Baldwin Avenue & 721 W. Lemon
Avenue
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 1,273 square-foot office building at an
existing church complex (Hope International Church). The new building would provide
administrative office space for the church's various ministries and youth groups, as
well as a meeting space for the church's youth bible study on Sundays. The proposed
office building requires a Conditional Use Permit, a Parking Modification of 67 spaces
in lieu of 250 spaces required, and Architectural Design Review. The Development
Services Department is recommending approval of CUP 09-07, the related Parking
Modification, and ADR 09-02, subject to the conditions listed on pages 5 and 6 of this
staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Hope International Church
LOCATION: 1741 S. Baldwin Avenue & 721 W. Lemon Avenue
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit, the related Parking Modification, and
Architectural Design Review for a new 1,273 square-foot office building
at 721 W. Lemon Avenue
SITE AREA: Approximately 67,838 square feet (1.56 acres)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 225 feet along South Baldwin Avenue
Approximately 294 feet along West Lemon Avenue
Approximately 60 feet along Sharon Road
ZONING & EXISTING LAND USE:
The church complex is composed of three separate parcels and a
surface parking lot with 63 spaces.
1735 S. Baldwin Avenue is zoned R-2, Medium Density Multiple-Family
Residential, and is developed with a sanctuary and fellowship hall,
church offices, an education building, and a single-family residence
and two-car garage.
1731 S. Baldwin Avenue is zoned R-1 - 7,500, Second One-Family
Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet; and contains
an open landscaped area, a playground, and a small sports court.
721 W. Lemon Avenue is also zoned R-1 - 7,500 and is developed
with a single-family residence.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre)
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The site is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences, zoned
R-1 - 7,500.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07 and Architectural
Design Review No. ADR 09-02 were mailed on Thursday, July 2, 2009 to the property
owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject
property (see attached radius map). Because staff considers the proposed project
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the
public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The church complex contains two single-family residences which are occupied by
church staff, a sanctuary and fellowship hall, church offices, and an education building.
The site is quite active throughout the week, and hosts numerous church-related
activities such as Sunday worship services in various languages, bible studies, worship
team practices, choir and orchestra rehearsals, and various fellowship activities. In
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 2
addition, Alcoholics Anonymous and Kumon Learning Center utilize the church facilities
during the week. Please refer to the attachment for a complete schedule of activities at
the church site.
The church site has a number of previously approved Conditional Use Permits. Most
recently, CUP 07-11 was granted in October 2007 to allow a tutoring center (Kumon) to
operate at the church site. Various other Conditional Use Permits were granted over the
years to allow church-related educational uses at the site (CUP 80-09, CUP 73-12, and
CUP 65-09). Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-07 was submitted because
the proposed office building is considered an expansion of the church use. Pursuant to
Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9275.1.43, churches are allowed in any residential zone
with an approved Conditional Use Permit.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 1,273 square-foot office building at 721
W. Lemon Avenue. The subject parcel contains a single-family home that belongs to the
church, and a mobile home trailer that the applicant is proposing to remove to make
room for the office building. The new structure would serve as administrative office
space for the church's various ministries. The building will not have set office hours as
the individuals who would utilize the building have irregular, staggered work schedules.
In addition, a bible study group with a maximum of 15 middle and high school age
children would meet in this building every Sunday between 12 noon and 1:00 p.m. The
bible study group currently meets in the education building, but needs to move to the
office building due to limited space in the education building.
The subject building complies with the setback and height regulations of the R-1 zone;
however, due to the structure's unique use and its proximity to residences, staff
recommends limiting the use of the building to offices on Mondays through Saturdays,
and bible study sessions on Sundays. In addition, use of the building should not occur
before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week, to minimize any noise
impacts on nearby residents.
Parking
The site currently has a two-car garage, which is currently used as storage space, and a
63-stall surface parking lot. The applicant is proposing to add five (5) new parking stalls
on the south side of the education building, as shown on the attached site plan.
Unfortunately, the proposed spaces do not meet the minimum dimensions required by
the City's current commercial parking regulations. If redesigned to meet Code, only four
(4) new stalls would be possible.
Based on the square footage and use of all existing and proposed buildings at the site, a
total of 250 parking spaces are required by Code. With the addition of the four (4) new
parking stalls, the site would have a total of 67 spaces. Therefore, the applicant is
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 3
requesting a Parking Modification of 67 spaces in lieu of 250 spaces required, for a total
parking deficiency of 183 spaces. Below is a table illustrating how staff arrived at the
250-space parking requirement:
Table 1
Parking Calculation
Building/use Parking ratio # of spaces required
Sanctuary 1 space per 28" of bench area 168 spaces
Fellowship hall 1 space per 35 sq. ft. 43.8 spaces
Existing offices 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 13.24 spaces
Education building 1 space per instructor + 1 for every 5 students 16 spaces
Two single-family homes 2 spaces per residence 4 spaces
Proposed office building 4 spaces per 1.000 sq. ft. 5 spaces
Total: 250 spaces
Without the new office building and the four (4) new stalls, the site already has a parking
deficiency of 182 spaces. Approval of CUP 09-07 and ADR 09-02 would increase the
parking deficiency by one (1) space - a marginal increase given the existing 182-space
deficiency. Additionally, because the buildings will not be in use simultaneously, the
actual parking demand will be far less than the parking requirement. However, given the
poor condition of the parking lot a 721 W. Lemon Avenue, staff recommends a condition
of approval that the parking lot be resurfaced and restriped.
Architectural design
The proposed office building was designed to match the style of the existing sanctuary
and fellowship hall. The office building's steep gable roof, pointed Gothic windows, white
stucco walls, and gray asphalt shingles are consistent with the other buildings on the site
(refer to the attached colors and materials samples). In addition, staff believes that the
proposed architectural style and finishes are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, which is comprised of single-family homes of varying architectural styles.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
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 Marshal, City
Engineer, and Public Works Services Director.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Development Services Department has determined that the proposed project involves
the construction of an office structure not exceeding 2,500 square feet, which would not
use significant amounts of hazardous substances, and is therefore categorically exempt
from CEQA (Class 3, Section 15303). A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached.
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 4
FINDINGS
Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can
be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly 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, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and
other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 09-07 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-02,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The use of the proposed office building shall be limited to general offices and one
(1) bible study session on Sundays.
2. The operating hours of the proposed office building shall not exceed 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week.
3. A Parking Modification of 67 spaces in lieu of 250 spaces required is granted for
the proposed office building and the existing church buildings. This Parking
Modification does not constitute an approval for a general reduction of the parking
requirements for the subject property, but rather only for the office building that is
herein conditionally approved, and the existing church buildings. Uses other than
this office building may be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and/or Parking
Modification.
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 5
4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a covenant in a form approved by
the City Attorney shall be recorded to develop and hold the entire church complex
as one parcel.
5. The office building shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent
with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 09-07
and ADR 09-02, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Administrator.
6. The parking lot at 721 W. Lemon Avenue shall be treated with slurry seal to cover
all cracks and damages, and restriped with double-striping per City standards.
7. Solid metal gates shall be added to the existing trash enclosure.
8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-
07 and ADR 09-02 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of
any approvals, which could result in the closing of the office building.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Approval of CUP 09-07 and ADR 09-02 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 awareness and acceptance
of these conditions of approval.
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07 and Architectural Design
Review No. ADR 09-02, state the supporting findings, and direct staff to prepare a
resolution incorporating the Commission's decision, specific determinations and
findings, including the CEQA exemption, and the conditions of approval, for adoption at
the next meeting.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move
to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-07 and Architectural Design
Review No. ADR 09-02, state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with
reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the
Commission's decision and specific findings, for adoption at the next meeting.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 14th public hearing, please contact Steven Lee,
Assistant Planner, at (626) 574-5444 or via email at sleeCaD-ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
asama
ommunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial photograph and vicinity map
Radius map
Plans
Colors and materials samples
Schedule of activities
Photographs
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CUP 09-07 & ADR 09-02
1741 S. Baldwin Ave. & 721 W. Lemon Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 7
~GA111Q~N 1741 S Baldwin Avenue
Tl~
CUP 09-07
Develqpm~nt Se g s Depa►tment c° ADR 09-02
En ineerin Division
Prepared by. R.S.Go nlez, July 2009
(1705)
(1711)
N
100 0 -100 200 Feet v
G
R-1 Z
(703) D
(717) 1709) m
33) 1729) 1723) SHARON RD
045)
I) (742)
U~1'IKp
`#S
Development Services Department
Engineering Division c.
~~~4n(/Y nC
Prepared by R.SC-z"4 July 2009
LEMON AVE
(1710)
(1716)
(1730)
(1754)
(1738) -
R-1
(1800)
(1804)
(1808)
L!
__~sTARIA AVE
1741 S Baldwin Avenue
CUP 09-07
ADR 09-02
SUE MORENO
(626) 35%5944
OWNERSHIP I OCCUPANTS LIST
RADIUS MAPS - LAND USE • PLANS
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
LAMBERT AVE.EL MONTE, CA 91792
PROJECT INFORMATION
1741 S. BALDWIN AVE.
ARCADIA, CA.
09-001
6D
SCALE I = 2oa
NOW VO'VIOV08V'3AV NIMOIVB'S Ltg
301330IVd GN30 Z
- HminH01dN011dNa31N13dOH y 3 a ` } w Q
0
N
O J
I Q
oM °
U ~
co M
in0v) N o
w ¢ M N J
u
jzo w wr-
Z cw7 H ~ ° "
J N
w Z~ r- r- T 2
U~Z bb ON
U) pO w w
a a N° OO °
Q O w m N w Q a w
fn Er a ~-Q
Q a'° o apY cnLna
CD 00wx c5 U OON
inpwz z Zp
W w a
0-- o l Y n- Y N p
~ In O Of 00 0 0 4D~ w a x o
Q , w J J J J a a N a w Q
~O W N
O M
Q
Q = Z
w°5
?wa
C2
Of C, z II
N
ab~
X w n
w w w
O 0, z UQ
aw a
-zz
U J 0 O
Y
p
4 Y
0 K n Of
Q O Q Q
z a Q a
Vo 'VIOV~21V
3AV NIM'0lVB S
0
-ten uumw ~ nn~miD -
rn,wmiu
bl
r4 A
I~ I
CIO%
I 9 ,9 I
I - I
I ~d I
I ~ I
g I g I
r I s ~ e I
+ I I I q I
I ~ I
~ I
I I
I w I
I I I _ - • I
I~~ I
Q I
Mn IWID 15IX3 ~ p
I I I I e~ a I
I
I
I ~
I a
$I
I
I b
I
I
1I
a~
W
H o
N ~
~I
al
z
w
LOM6 VO'VIOV08V'3AV NIMOlVB'S ~VLI Z
301330IVd ON30 a
- Ho2i(1HO 1dN011dN2i31N13dOH a o
-
1
Z
so
sN
,.o -,u
I
I
I1
1
Cfl
„t-,9 ~ N
'
a-
Q
Q
O
'
1
i
~
I
I
i
~ .
-
~
77 7
9-,Z „0-'N !,O-
-,q
I
LOM VO'VIOV08V'3AV NIMQIV9'S LVLl
301330 IV2GNM
HOHnHO IVN0UVN213AI 3dOH
s
o, r
~ m m W Z p 4
O
i
0
0
m
Z
-
o
~
w
LA
U,-
-
CII)
-
LL- r--)
wQ
w~
L o
W ~
0
1
I
I
i
'
I'
i
i
LOM VO'VIdVOiIV'3AV NIMGIV9'S Mb
w
301330 lVb3N3J
a
N
- HajnHO IVN0IiVNb31N13dOH
a
e
Z >
g
s
a
a
~
~ a s
~
g
i
O
s-.a
a
.
0
r;
g-
i
FT
~
LLJ
I
~
UL
-
N
9
Q W
(z
Q
LL]
Z O
W
o.
d
fl .
a
dQ
j
Li ~ ~ ~o A
ObbdP 4 a d. 9.
I
j
"q ~QQ~O'
O
O
.
o
- - - - - - - - - -
r -r
r-r-r.r-r
p. e
rr-r~r-r~rrtrt-- r-r-r ~r~-r-+fr-r O.r•.wr1- - - - -
LOMl6VD'VIOVONV'3AV NIMGIVS'S Wb
3013301"3N30
- HounH01dNOIIVNU31N13dOH Ld
z O
g a I
a a ~ ~ ° 1 a
I ;
z
IL
O
U.
i
w
Q0 CD O w
O~ ~ N Q
Li
L-C7
i
1
i 1
i 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I
1
1
1
LLJ
1
I 1
I 1
Q 1
1
I
L~j
1
1
1
1
O
I
c~
I '
i(o
i
i
i
10M VD'VIOV08V'3AV NIMOIV9'S L6L~
301J30 IV2GN30
H0NnH01dN011MIMNI 3dOH
I I I I
I I I I
~F L
I I
T771
I I
w
w
U
w
t-
w O
O z
D a_ O J
o~ O c~ w
J
w
>
w
0
O
w
OI O
Lfl
6'-0"
_i II
I I
F-T
Fli
w
w
U
t-
Cn
L-
CD
0- O
O N
Z
J
W
U
z
0
a m > ~
w w
I I I I
I I I I
o I O
J _ a
x I ua . ' W
Oo
Z I I I
I I
tz
w
J
w ~ o
CD z
6 O N o
v o
I I I I
li I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
w
w
o I I I I
O O
cl:~ w
U I I j
~ J I
~ w
U-) w
w O o
O z l l::D
~o w O _w O
o~ O N w of
C-) O C-D
i I I
LOW6 VO 'VIOV08V `3AV NIMOIVS'S MI
,
O
3013301`d M30
- HounH01dN011b'N OA13dOH
x
i
O
U
I I I I
z z
2° 2-
W .n V n
N = N
N v _
1 013H 9NI113
I I „o-,Zl I
-
N m
IY
-
-
~I
W
j-J
I~
I I I I
- -
I ~ ~ Eil ]
-
i
1 L _I_-_
r'
I
I
_
I
o-Al
w
~
~
U I
w
cn
w
w
w
U
n
w
w C-D
c:D
w o --i -
o~ o w ~
o
o
CC
w
CD z
o
o~
CD o w o
- v o
c~
I
I
I
,
HOPE IIRNATIONAL CHURCH • GENEROFFICE
1741 S. BALDWIN AVE, ARCADIA, CA 91007
MATERIALS AND COLORS SAMPLE BOARD
MATCHING
ROOFING TILE
COLOR MATCHING EXISTING BUI
& WINDOW --WOOD FRAMING/
GLASS MATCHING EXISTING BU
Hope International Church Building use JUN 17 2009
SUNDAY SCHEDULE
Sanctuary & Fellowship Hall
10 AM - 11:30 English Worship 40 - 50 people 2 Bible Studies 10 - 25 people
11:30 AM - 1 PM Chinese Worship 100 - 150 people 2 Bible Studies 10 - 20 people
3- 4:30 PM Indonesian Worship & 4:30 - 7 PM Fellowship 20 - 30 people
5 - 7 PM Spanish Worship 10 - 20 people.
Education Building
10 AM - 1 PM Sunday School and Nursery 50 children 1 - 12 yrs old
(6 classes with 6 teachers)
11:30 AM - 1 PM Youth Group 10 - 15 people ( 2 leaders with junior high kids)
4 - 5 PM Bible Study 10 - 15 people (All ages)
WEEKDAY SCEDULE
Fellowship Hall (choirs use sanctuary)
Permanent English Pastors Office (hours) Mon 9 - 1 Wed 9 - 5 Fri 9 -5 Sat 9 - 2 PM
Permanent Chinese Offices Sunday 9 AM - 2 PM and Wednesday 6 - 10 PM
Secretary Office hours Wed 9 - 12 AM
Tuesday & Friday 3 - 6 PM Kumon School 40 - 50 people ( 4 teachers w/ kids under 13)
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 3 - 6 PM After School program 10 - 20 people ( 2 teachers)
Monday 7 - 10 PM AA group 10 - 15 people (Adults)
Tuesday 7 - 10 PM Orchestra & Choir groups 30 - 40 people (Adults)
Wednesday 6 - 8 PM Worship team practice 10 - 15 people (Adults)
8 - 10 PM Prayer meeting 30 - 40 people (adults)
Thursday 7 - 10 PM Choir & ping pong group 30 people (Adults)
Saturday 2 -5 PM ping pong group 5 - 15 people (adults)
Education Building
Monday - Thursday OASIS office 8AM - 5PM 3 people (Adults)
Tuesday 7-9 PM ESL group 10 - 15 people (adults)
Wednesday 8 - 10 PM youth group 10 -15 people (junior high kids)
Thursday 9 -12 AM bible study 5 - 10 people (adults)
Friday: Youth group, several bible study groups 30 - 40 people (All ages)
Saturday: 5 - 7 PM International Students' Group 10 - 20 people (young adults)
7 - 9 PM Bible Study 10 - 15 people (all ages)
Proposed Office Building Use
JUN 17 2009
English Youth Leader's Office (move from Ed bldg)
Chinese Youth Leader's Office (new)
Children's Ministry Director's Office (new)
OASIS office (move from Ed Bldg)
Indonesian & Spanish Ministry offices. (new)
Bible Study (move from Ed building) 1 leader with 10 -15 kids
Hours . t,, SU#44, 3 1 1 2 4-0 1
V.
O
W
F "i
~i
~ BEN
Fill
~r
2
N
3
0
J
Z
F
Parking lot
Sanctuary
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07 & Architectural Design
Review No. ADR 09-02
2. Project Location - Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
1741 S. Baldwin Avenue (at Lemon Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A. Public Entity:
B. Other (Private): Hope International Church
(1) Contact Name Sid Sybenga
(2) Contact Address 1741 S. Baldwin Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
Staff Determination:
The City, 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:
b. ❑
The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
C. ❑
The project is a Ministerial Project.
d. ❑
The project is an Emergency Project.
e. ❑
The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
f. ®
The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: Class 3 (Section 15303)
g. ❑
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
h. ❑
The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
i. ❑
The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: July 7, 2009 Staff: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A"
Mt«~ 3. IfN
'Alt
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-08 for a 722 square-
foot tutoring center with up to 10 students on the ground floor of an
existing commercial office development at 67 E. Live Oak Avenue.
SUMMARY
Ms. Meiling Lin, submitted Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-08 to
operate a 722 square-foot tutoring center with up to 10 students in suite no. 102 at
67 E. Live Oak Avenue. Because the tutoring center is limited in size and will operate
only on weekday evenings and on weekends, it is Staff's opinion that the proposal is
appropriate for the location and would not adversely impact the neighboring
properties. Therefore, the Development Services Department is recommending
approval of the application, subject to the conditions listed on page 6 and 7 of this
staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ms. Meling Lin, lessee
LOCATION: 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102 - NE corner of E. Live Oak
Avenue & El Capitan Avenue
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit for a 722 square-foot tutoring center with
up to 10 students at any one time. The hours of operation will be
5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.
on weekends.
SITE AREA: 13, 538 sq. ft. (0.31 acres)
FRONTAGES: 92 feet along East Live Oak Avenue
158 feet along El Capitan Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a two-story, 5,445 gross square-foot
general office building. The property was developed in 1992, and is
zoned C-O, Professional Office.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Single-family residential -zoned R-1
South: One-story retail - zoned C-2
East: One-story dental office - zoned C-O
West: One-story dental office - zoned C-O
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-08 were mailed on July
2, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are
within 300 feet of the subject property (see the attached radius map). Because Staff
considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the public hearing notice was not published in the
Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject property is developed with a two-story, 5,445 gross square-foot general
office building with four units and 4,978 square-feet of leasable office space and a
467 square-foot common lobby.
On July 23, 1991, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Architectural
Design Review No. ADR 91-053 & Modification Application No. MP 91-004 for a 10'-0"
front setback from Live Oak Avenue in lieu of the 50'-0" special setback, and for 20
on-site parking spaces in lieu of 22 required for a 5,445 gross square-foot general
office building. The rationale was that the 467 square-foot common lobby should not
require parking.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposal is to operate a tutoring center that would occupy a 722 square-foot
ground floor suite at 67 E. Live Oak Avenue. There will be two classrooms, one for
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 2
group classes of 4-10 students and a second classroom for private one-to-one
tutoring. The applicant states that a maximum of 10 students will be in attendance at
any one time. The operational aspects of the proposed tutoring center are described
in the attached operation plan. The tutoring center staff will consist of one instructor
and one part-time assistant. Classes in math and science will be offered to students
from 7th to 12th grade. The hours of operation will be 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on
weekdays, and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. Private instruction will be
scheduled for one hour time periods, and the group classes for 1'/2 hour time
periods. Both the weekday and weekend schedule will stagger classes so that the
tutoring sessions begin and end twenty minutes apart from each other. According to
the City of Arcadia Municipal Code, a tutoring center is a permitted use in the C-O
zone with an approved conditional use permit.
Parkin
There is a surface parking lot with 20 parking spaces; 15 standard spaces, four
compact spaces, and one handicap space.
Modification Application No. MP 91-004 was conditionally approved by the Planning
Commission on July 23, 1991 to allow 20 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 22
required for a 5,445 gross square-foot general office building. The parking
modification was approved based on the rationale that the lobby would not be used
for occupancy purposes and therefore providing parking for the lobby was
unnecessary. A condition of approval for this modification states that "the common
courtyard area shall be maintained only as a protected access way to the two office
wings and shall not be used for occupancy purposes". There were no other
conditions of approval beyond general maintenance and landscaping requirements.
By code, a tutoring center is required to provide one on-site parking space for each
employee, one space for every three students of driving age, and one space for
every five students not of driving age. Since the applicant is proposing to teach both
students of driving age and students below driving age, the stricter requirement of
one space for every three students is used. If limited to one teacher, one office
assistant, and 10 students, the proposed tutoring center would be required to provide
five parking spaces, which is two more parking spaces than the current requirement
for the permitted general office use of this unit. The parking requirement calculation
for the proposed tutoring center is as follows:
Parking Requirement for the Proposed Tutoring Center
Criteria Parking Ratio Spaces Required
1 space per employee for 2 employees = 2.0
1 space per 3 students for 10 students = 3.3
Total 5.3 =5
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 3
It is Staff's opinion that because the tutoring center will not operate during regular
business hours, there should be ample parking available and drop-offs and pick-ups
can readily occur in the parking lot. The applicant provided the attached "Parking
Analysis Table", which shows that during the operating hours of the tutoring center,
less than half of the 20 parking spaces were occupied.
The applicant also proposes to use the parking lot for the drop-off and pick-up of
students. It is Staff's opinion that given the operating hours and ten student
maximum, the parking lot will be sufficient to accommodate student pick-up and
drop-offs, and if approved, would not impact the neighboring properties or the traffic
flow on Live Oak Avenue and El Capitan Avenue. Furthermore, the proposed class
schedule would restrict the 5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. time period to individual one-to-one
tutoring, further limiting the traffic this use would create during the busy 5:00 p.m.
hour. In addition, the tutoring center will occupy a suite with its own separate
entrance from the rear parking lot, which will limit the potential for students to disturb
the office tenants.
The City of Arcadia Engineering Department has reviewed this application and does
not believe there will be any circulation problems provided that the parking lot is the
only designated location for drop-off and pick-up of students.
Staff received the attached letters of support from each of the tenants currently
located at 67 E. Live Oak Avenue. Each letter states that the hours of the tutoring
center will not conflict with their normal business hours, and that the separate
entrance to this suite will minimize any disturbances in the common lobby area.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, parking and site design are required to be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire
Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
CEQA
Proposed projects that are not approved, are by virtue of being denied, exempt from
any further environmental assessment. If approved, however, and if it is determined
that no physical alterations to the property are necessary, then this project is
categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15322, which exempts projects for
educational or training programs involving no physical changes to the property. A
Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report.
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 4
FINDINGS
Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions
can be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to
the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly 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, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking,
loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the
land and uses in the neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed tutoring center can satisfy each prerequisite
condition.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 09-08, subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall not be more than ten (10) students, one (1) instructor and one (1)
office assistant at any time at the tutoring center.
2. The hours of operation of the tutoring center shall be limited to 5:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
3. The tutoring center shall require all students to enter and leave the premises
using the separate entrance at the rear parking lot. The exterior lobby door is
not to be used by students, and the door leading from Suite 102 to the lobby
shall only be used as an emergency exit and for access to the restroom
facilities.
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 5
4. The tutoring center shall post and distribute notices to all students, parents,
and the staff, instructing them where to park and where to drop-off and pick-
up students in accordance with requirements established by the City. A draft
of the notice shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the
Development Services Director or designee prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit.
5. The use approved by CUP 09-08 is limited to the proposed tutoring center
which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with
the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 09-08.
6. The approval of CUP 09-08 includes a four space parking modification which
is applicable only to the tutoring center approved by CUP 09-08.
7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
09-08 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any
approvals, which could result in the closing of the tutoring center.
8. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy
limits, building safety, parking and site design shall be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator,
Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
9. 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.
10. Approval of CUP 09-08 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 awareness and acceptance of
these conditions of approval.
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-08; state the supporting
findings and environmental determination, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
incorporating the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and
the conditions of approval.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should
move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-08; state the finding(s)
that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff
to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific
findings.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the July 14th public hearing, please contact
Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr at (626) 574-5422.
Approved by:
Jim ama
C munity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo & Vicinity Map with zoning information
300-foot radius map
Operation Plan
Parking Analysis Table
Plans
Photos
Tenant Letters in favor of application
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CUP 09-08
67 E. Live Oak Ave., Suite 102
July 14, 2009
Page 7
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
ftered by R. S. Gonzalez, June 2009
G*I,IVOA
67E Live Oak Avenue
, r CUP 09=08
N
100 0 100 200 Feet
(2531) I I (2530)
(2601) (2600)
(2604)
(2607) (2606)
(2607) (2600) 2606)
(2615) (2614) (2615) 1 i 1
(2614)
R-1 W R-1 Q
(2619) (2620) (2619) 0
(2620) Q W
Q Z
W
(2627) 1
FR-l1 C-0 Q C-0 ``~1
V C'1
J (111)
C-0 (55) W
(2634)
(114)
oAK AV (104) 106)) (116)
LIVE (68) 172) (100) (106) C-2
52 M ((62) (66) (70) (74) (102)
(38) (4~ (6))) ((54) M C-2 N
O (40) (50)
G~dFOky~4
Development Services Department
Engineering Division o°
ftpaW by, R.&GMZEd&; June 2009 amity at
67 E Live Oak Avenue
CUP 09-08
a SUE MORENO
(626)350.5944
OYMIERSfNPI OCCUPANTS LIST
RADIUS MAPS • LAND USE • PLANS
MUMCIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
r2108 MBERT AVE.EL MONNE, CA 91792 -FAX(628WO-I I92
PROJECT INFORMATION
67 E. LIVE OAK AVE.
ARCADIA, CA.
09-077
D
SCALE IN =200'
028
017
D 3 y
SYO ..J -i A~. } N ,
q) 24 w -014 0,10
26
ODR
y
ie
1 to F AVE, Ufa Of AN
t~~R' + -0 y O O 9 Qis
j6 17 a
5 d4p
y zt s.'► a
» «Q 14 19
O
4
13 ,s 8 Q ZO 'w,w.. O
• Im 3 ,2 r
24
w 12 ~
:oo- 22
.
Lor " I
i IV- go i aeitr: ..1 27` ♦ .aa,w• • o L' !
s 11 20 r 41 1 w +rsr'+
I
-
I- A#A
dm
_
A
OAK rs A wo-f-a AVE
IVE OAK
AV E.
a
L E
i a AWN-
OAK
cR,tlpyy
--IN-
so
op
M
I
27 30 27
27
®29
®
27 27 26
O O„ Q _
~
Or
Z
12:
It
5
I
1 Y
100
5 8± 7_ 8
91!101 it 124
i7
.
O t0 7
1
4
•
040
30
V
J
l'J
~:1
.do
1
4
s
1 :A_
+
1
r7fk.
l
O
K N K k
O O O O O
31
32
33
34
1
I.Y
°
.0 16
17
3............
'`t3
14 is 18 17 16
1
22
23
24 28 26
-
27
_ } ;.,t-
2
30 31
r°
yes
7}
82
X
1q s7 13 s/ I
~
L.YNROSE
a
ST
LYN ROSE
x2
541 B
n
)18 11 k 3
w
"
-
Q3 V
59 it S6 ' 57 56 SS 54 1
!3
S2
50~ 4➢ 4a
C 4
!
I
I
J
J
J
v f '@
ld 8.,
I
.
t
7
4 # O6
60 61 62 63 64 65
66
67
66
69
70
71
4
J
1
O J
DANf3W000
OH.
Q y~ ~lS4_ ~ ,
. }S f~ c
< V a(~ r~ ~ ILL('•~ r~ ;
:NOS 104 113 i ~2 101 100
ii.
9➢ ➢r!
➢7
1 dpi ~73
➢8 i ➢y
RE: Linium Consulting
Operation Plan
Proposed use: Tutoring Center for 7th to 12th grade students
Objectives:
The goal of this center is to provide academic consulting and tutoring services for
7th to 12th grade students. Students learn most effectively when they are taught
privately or in a small group setting. It is the center's goal to provide one-to-one or
small group face-to-face instruction to students in the area of mathematics and
sciences. So they can master the subject matter and excel academically.
Operating hours:
Monday to Thursday: 5:00 to 9:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: 12:00 to 6:00 pm
Classes offered:
Private lesson: one hour per section
Small group instruction: 1.5 hours per section
Work Schedules for personnel:
One instructor: all operating hours
One assistant teacher/ helper: all operating hours Monday to Thursday
and either Saturday or Sunday
Operation Plan
Types of classes offered:
1. Private Lesson
Number of students: one student
Age of students: 12 to 17 years old
Subjects: 7th to 12th Math and Science subjects
2. Math Class-1
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 12 to 14 years old
Subjects: PreAlgebra; Algebra I
3. Math Class -2
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 14 to 16 years old
Subjects: Geometry; Algebra Il; Trigonometry
4. Math Class -3
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 15 to 17 years old
Subjects: Statistics; Calculus
5. Science Class -1
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 12 to 13 years old
Subjects: Introduction to Science
6. Science Class - 2
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 14 to 17 years old
Subjects: High school Biology
7. Science Class - 3
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 14 to 17 years old
Subjects: High school Chemistry
8. Science Class - 4
Number of students: preferred 6 students (max 10 students)
Age of students: 14 to 17 years old
Subjects: High school Physics
N
"d
U
U
C~
"d
U
O
O
N
C~
N
E'-~
U
CIA
N
CIS
03
~
C
w
~
C
~
p-+
~ U
Cl1 U
C13
'd
U
~
N
C4
a
M
i
03
U
U M
i
m
m
cn U
~
O
~
N
~ U
U N
V1 U
C4
CTS
r,
O O
N O
O O
O M
O O
M O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O M
O O
M O
e~
C~
X
0
0
0
r--+
N
r-+
O
O
r--+
cd
r--+
N
N
M
N
N
~
~
0
0
c~
c~
M
M
N
O
O
~
U
~
~
N
N
O
H
~
v~
U
00
V")
N
p
'uU
U
d
~
c
00
V)
M
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
M
d'
`O
r:-
00
Illu CONSULTANTS INC. 67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006
TEL: 626.574.5700 FAX: 626.574.5511 E-MAIL: HRC.AE@SBCGLOBAL.NET
G~ t~C L~ Lo CA~'1oN
40 0
CONSULTANTS INC. 67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006
_ Iso.32 - -
- - - of T c 71. -
*102 Proposed tutoring of `ol
Center
r a~.z Il
I. ~ Tfi4SH I -
- I- T- -l encl.
101
GLTE°3 Tr a--E ° I - • - ELB ELECTRONICS,
Y M ,I
f 51 d I INC.
u 0
General Office
Import/Export )o I
u
M _ I~
elec. _ _ FLa MTl
fFL' -
9~
t+. I Eft. .,f.
i -
-
hcP
F..-. ~ ~ NE'✓J GD ac:
$GOF.ING -SHALL "A7G11 103 12`x12. QUAPAY TILE LOD6Y '
Mutual Beat Corp FLA.
105 sew
°r! N General Office
f ' . Insurance -
19 *Zt
b,
~
-N~"SeTCacK t`ITIt•I-I
Ah
K, a I PLA
NEW 4° Wt4c. WALK
PER GI7Y 5705.
14 -rC1,1; OF-LL- hYP
TEL: 626.574.5700 FAX: 626,574.5511 E-MAIL: HRC.AEQSBCGLOBAL.NET
Floor plan for Unit 102 Proposed tutoring center
#14 main entrance to the center
Students will enter and leave the
Center from this entrance
to the parking lot
#2 4 entrance to restroom and
emergency exit only
Room #1
Waiting / study room
Tables and chairs for 4 students
Room #2
Instructor office
Room #3
Private tutoring
Room #4
Group lesson
Tables and chairs for 8 students
I~- #1
r~
Y-
{
j~ R
_ I
-).Dry erase board
4Tables & chairs
ll;wm CONSULTANTS INC. 67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006
VIEW FROM LIVE OAK AVE.
~iLE~F: Lrv'yT1L6(?YP.~ STIY.C.D WALL.(TYP~~~\\
M15510N STYLE OVER las FELT
aooF !t Liw G -
.Q
-
ELL
f
O
M Pis, ow
"no r~ . c i G 3 IN
ACvM: na,axe
- - ('fYP•) i
FKV POSE- NORTH ELEVATION
d+ VIEW- FROM PARKING LOT
TEL: 626.574.5700 FAX: 626.574.5511 E-MAIL: HRC.AE®SBCGLOBAL.NET
SOUTH ELEVATION
CONSULTANTS INC. 67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006
f.ooF uNe
0
2 N0 flf..
' •0 .n
oY
1T fut.
WEST ELEVATION
VIEW FROM EL CAPITAN AVE.
rr
EAST ELEVATION ~oppS*p AREA
TEL: 626.574.5700 FAX: 626.574.5511 E-MAIL: HRC.AE@SBCGLOBAL.NET
Front Elevation - Subject Property (67 E. Live Oak Ave.)
Rear Elevation - Subject Property
West Elevation - Subject Hroperty
East Elevation - Subject Nroperty
Lobby
Separate Entrance to Suite 102
Rear Parking Lot
North of Subject Property (2620 El Capitan Ave.)
South of Subject Property (64 and 74 E. Live Oak Ave.)
East of Subject Property (111 E. Live uaK Ave.
West of Subject Property (55 E. Live Oak Ave.)
CH
PRnPERTIES
FRANK T. CHU
April 28, 2009
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
To Whom It May Concern:
THOMAS R. HAUSE
As the owner of the CH Properties located on 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite #201, 1 am
writing this letter to assist Meiling Lin in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit for 67 E.
Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102.
The operation of an education center at this location will not disrupt the immediate and
surrounding tenants in the property, The normal operating hours of the tenants in the
building are from 8AM to 5PM whereas the hours of the education center are usually
after school hours starting around 5pm. In addition, the center has its own dedicated
entrance from the parking lot; therefore, the students will not cause any disturbance in
the lobby area.
if you have any questions, please call my office at 626.674.5700.
Sincerely,
Thomas Hause
67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006 (818) 574-0718, FAX (818) 574-5511
ELB EECTRONICS, INC.
67 E. Live Oak Ave. #101, Arcadia CA 91007
Tel: (626) 446-5617 Fax: (626) 446-5628
April 28, 2009
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
To Whom It May Concern:
As the owner of the ELB Electronics, Inc. located on 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite
#101, 1 am writing this letter to assist Meiling Lin in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit
for 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102.
The operation of an education center at this location will not disrupt the immediate and
surrounding tenants in the property. The normal operating hours of the tenants in the
building are from 8AM to 5PM whereas the hours of the education center are usually
after school hours starting around 5pm. In addition, the center has its own dedicated
entrance from the parking lot; therefore, the students will not cause any disturbance in
the lobby area.
If you have any questions, please call my office at (626)446-5617.
Sincerely,
engyi Qu
President
a96euelN leaaua0
p!ned
`Alaaaou!g
8Z85,9t7t,,9Z9 }e aoigo Aw Ileo aseald `suollsenb Aue aney nog( jI
-eaae Aggol ayj ui eoueganls!p Aue asneo jou
Ilp s}uepnls ay} `aaojajayj `jol bu!Naed ayj woa} eouealue pa}eolpap umo sI! sey
aa}uao ayj `uo!}!ppe ul -wdg punoie 6ui:pels sanoy looyos aa}4e Allensn aae aaluao
uoi}eonpa ay} jo sanoy ayl seaaaynn INdg 01 Wy8 woaj aae 6ulpl!nq ayj ui slueua1
ay} }o sanoy 6ulleaado leuaaou ayl -A:pedoid ayj ui s}ueua} 6ulpunoaans pue
ale!pawwi ay} }dnis!p jou Il!M uo!leool slyl }e aa}ueo uolleonpe ue jo uo!}eaado ayl
-ZO ~ a}!ng `anuany ~ e0 an!J .8 L9 JOI I!wJad ash leuo!l!puoo a 6ululelgo
ui u!-l 6u!l!91N Islsse of aallal s!yl 6ull!jm we I `50 'S EO apS `anuany
~e0 9AIJ .E] L9 uo pajeool sao!naag eoueansul Isa8 len3nlN ayj jo aaumo ayj sy
uiaouoo AeIN 11 woyM of
990W yO `e! peoay
~ ZO09 X08 ' O'd
anua uol6u!lunH lsaM Ot7Z
elpeojy jo Al!0
600Z `8Z I!adv
rr }
60O Z
CONSULTANTS INC. 67 E. LIVE OAK AVE., SUITE 201, ARCADIA, CA 91006
April 28, 2009
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
To Whom It May Concern:
As the owner of the HRC Consultants, Inc. located on 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite
#201, 1 am writing this letter to assist Meiling Lin in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit
for 67 E. Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102.
The operation of an education center at this location will not disrupt the immediate and
surrounding tenants in the property. The normal operating hours of the tenants in the
building are from 8AM to 5PM whereas the hours of the education center are usually
after school hours starting around 5pm. In addition, the center has its own dedicated
entrance from the parking lot; therefore, the students will not cause any disturbance in
the lobby area.
If you have any questions, please call my office at 626.574.5700.
Sincerely,
Frank Chu
President
TEL: 626.574.5700 FAX: 626.574.5511 E-MAIL: HRC.AE@SBCGLOBAL.NET
C.WF0 y,
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
°00441[1 aSK°~°°
(Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-09 to operate a 722 square-foot tutoring center at 67 E. Live
Oak Ave., Suite 102.
2. Project Location - Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7W topographical map identified by quadrangle name):
67 E. Live Oak Ave. (between El Capitan Avenue and Myrtus Avenue)
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
❑ A. City of Arcadia
® B. Other (Private)
(1) Name: Meiling Lin
(2) Address: 67 E. Live Oak Ave. Suite 102
Arcadia CA 91006
(3) Phone: 16261446-4598
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 an Emergency Project.
d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ® The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 22
Section No.: 15322
f• ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption:
Section No.:
9• ❑ 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:
Date: June 3 2009 Staff: Tim Schwehr Assistant Planner
v~ y
Inrorp r A
An¢utt S, 1907
u8jty a'M STAFFD-PPO-PT
IX-C Development Services Department
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: James Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-04 (71099) for a
proposed two (2) lot, single-family residential subdivision at 1431 S.
Santa Anita Avenue
SUMMARY
Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-04 (Parcel Map No. 71099) was
submitted by property owner, Dexter Pamela, LLC, for a two (2) lot, single-family
residential subdivision at 1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue. Although one of the proposed
lots is deficient in lot width, it would still be wider than the other existing lots along
Pamela Road, and the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Therefore, the Development Services Department is recommending approval of the
tentative parcel map application, subject to conditions as listed in this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dexter Pamela, LLC (Property Owner)
LOCATION: 1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
REQUEST: A proposed tentative parcel map for a two (2) lot, single-family
residential subdivision
LOT AREA: 19,306 square feet (0.44 of an acre)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 125 feet along S. Santa Anita Avenue
Approximately 155 feet along W. Pamela Road
EXISTING LAND USES & ZONING:
The site is developed with a 1,207 square-foot single-family residence
constructed in 1946, zoned R-1 - 7,500
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family
dwellings, zoned R-1.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre)
Public Hearing Notification
Public hearing notices of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-04 were mailed on June
18, 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 June 22, 2009.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 19,375 square-foot property on
the southwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Pamela Road into two lots, and to
remove the existing improvements for the subsequent construction of a new single-
family residence on each lot. Lot 1 will be an 8,766 square-foot interior lot with
approximate dimensions of 70' by 125', and lot 2 will be a 10,540 square-foot corner
lot with an 85' wide street frontage on Pamela Road and a depth of 125' with a street
side along Santa Anita Avenue.
The proposed subdivision meets all applicable subdivision regulations, with the
exception of the proposed 70' lot width of Lot 1 in lieu of the 75' minimum required.
Although it is deficient per Code, it will be wider than the existing 60' wide lots on this
block of Pamela Road (see attached vicinity map). Therefore, it is staffs opinion that
the 70-foot lot width is acceptable.
There is a 100' special setback measured from the center line of Santa Anita
Avenue, which translates to a 50' setback from the easterly property line of Lot 2.
With a lot width of 85', compliance with this setback would leave Lot 2 with an
approximately 26'-6" wide building envelop. The City Engineer reviewed the subject
subdivision and indicated that a 25' setback would be an acceptable Modification
request. The developer will apply for this Modification when architectural plans have
been prepared.
TPM 09-04
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 2
The subject property has approximately 19,375 square feet or 0.44 acre of 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 subdivision and zoning regulations require a minimum lot size
of 7,500 square feet. The proposal satisfies these criteria.
Based on its consistency with the General Plan and surrounding properties, staff
recommends approval of the subject tentative parcel map application, based on the
conditions in this staff report.
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 Marshal, and Public Works Services Director.
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
Development Services Department has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed
project. Said Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of
historical or aesthetic significance. Therefore, the attached Negative Declaration
was prepared for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-04 (71099), subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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 plan may require the altering of the design of the
proposed subdivision and the potential building footprints.
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. 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
TPM 09-04
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 3
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.
4. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the
Building Official, City Engineer, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and
Public Works Services Director.
5. Approval of TPM 09-04 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.
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 Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including buttnot 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.
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION
A roval
The Planning Commission should move to approve Tentative Parcel Map Application
No. TPM 09-04 (71099), based on the following findings:
A.1. Find that 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 the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the
attached Initial Study are appropriate; that this project will not have a significant
TPM 09-04
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 4
effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there
is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends; and therefore,
approve and direct staff to file the Negative Declaration.
A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director to approve and
execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this project.
A.4. Approve this 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 intends to deny this application, 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. Find that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act.
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.
D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
D.7. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to
cause serious public health problems.
D.8. Find that the requested subdivision injuriously affects the neighborhood
wherein said lot is located.
D.9. 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. In this connection, the legislative
body 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 subdivision shall apply only to
TPM 09-04
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 5
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby
granted to determine that the public at large has acquiired easemens legislative
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has an
comments regarding this matter, prior to the July 14 Y questions or
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447Y public hearing, please contact
Approved by:
J es Kasama
ommunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 09-04 (71099)
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information
Photos of Subject Properties
300-Foot Radius Map
Photos
Environmental Document
TPM 09-04
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue
July 14, 2009 - Page 6
FROM
Is.
(FRI)MAV 10 2000 13: 381ST. 13: 36/No. 7640848386 p 1
it ,.,a,,~~. 66SC-£9Z-9Z9 ~XYd BBS£-C9Z-9Z9 131 90016 V3 'dlab'08d
W018 V0 'vroVDW
a'a YliNn'aroaaNwawo stew '3nN3AV dllNV ViNVS 'S IM
'ONI `S31V130SW 103 g
NolSlniaenS log-z
0
Pak
~z
1 dR
~A
A A I A I
3nN3A`d VIINV VINVS ONnoe s
~:Q-Z uos 1T-"-t - -
I g.
I
I
a I~
I~
CL
pR
ky
d 1,4 ~iRR
111#1:41
a ~ Ila
. list
I
s
~ ~Jll
7
I
T
rF
ar
.nF
R-1
01431 S Santa Anita Ave
Arcadia
R-~ Zone
IRA], I
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by., R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009
F,
R-1
Subject
1431 S Santa Anita Avenue
TPM 09-04
A VE
N
100 0 1 200 Feet
:(1401)
(1411)
R-1
(1406)
(1412)
(1430)
W
Q
Q
2
Q
Q
Z
Q
R-1
~ J1
(1504)
(30' (20) SANTA ANITA TER W
~
(18) (10) (4) Q
Q
Z
R-1 Q
Q
0
Development Services Department A..........4
Engineering Division
Prepared by R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009 ~~''4h~cy os
(1512)
(1560)
1431 S Santa Anita Avenue
TPM 09.04
(35) (1425)
(29) (25) (19) (15)
PAMELA RD
TT ntr~m rte.........
PHOTO 1: NW OF PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING aver v ON SANTA A NIT A A VE)
0f"CTO ` SG1l OF PROJECT S/TE, (ylcy IN(,7 WLY /7A1 G;41fl7L\ likll-rA All-
W OTC) 3 , NE of GROTE c7 SirE. (VICYVIN4 r=%Y ON SAwrq A91TA AY,5.)
PHaTo 4. E- OF PkJF-c7 Sirr-. (VlEWIN6 F-'LY" cN ShNT~4 AA/IrN 06).
P P M - 0 S SE C F P R a T E c T SITZ5. (VIFYV/AI4 r k r o).l S,AiTA AviTA evr-)
Care SUE MORENO
(626) 350-5944
OWNERSHIP I OCCUPANTS LIST
RADIUS MAPS • LAND USE • PLANS
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
PROJECT INFORMATION
1431 S. SANTA ANITA AVE.
ARCADIA, CA.
File No. TPM 09-04
CITY OFARCADIA
A.M"'.. 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
A Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-04 for a two-lot subdivision.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
Community Development Division / Planning Services
240 West Huntington Drive - Post Office Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066-6021
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Thomas Li
Phone - 626-574-5447
Fax - (626) 447-9173
Email - tli@ci.arcadia.ca.us
4. Project Location:
1431 S. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Dexter Pamela, LLC
11819 Goldring Road, #C,
Arcadia, CA 91006
6. General Plan Designation:
Single-Family Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre)
7. Zoning Classification:
R-1 - First One-Family
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -1- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-04
8. Description of Project:
(Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if
necessary.)
A Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot subdivision from a single lot. The existing
improvements on the property will be removed for the subsequent construction of
a new single-family residence on each lot.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The surrounding properties are developed with single-family dwellings in an R-1
zone.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology/ Soils
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -2- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-04
❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Z-' - 2S- c~ y
Signature
T4-ft~M s Li
Printed Name
Date
For
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -3- 6/06
File No. TPM 09-04
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries
when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J") Part 1 -4- 6/06
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Significant
No
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Impact
Incorporation
1. AESTHETICS -Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
❑
❑
❑
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
❑
❑
❑
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposal is for condominium purposes and will not have such impacts.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts
to agriculture resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California
Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑
Act contract?
C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?
The proposal is for a two-lot single-family subdivision. It will be consistent with the Single-Family Residential
land use designation in the General Plan and with the R-1 First One-Family zoning of the site, and is required
to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental regulations.
This proposal is consistent with the surrounding residential development.
3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
CEQA Checklist
4
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an ❑ ❑ ❑
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
The proposal is for single-family purposes and will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter climatic
conditions, or result in objectionable odors. The development of the site will be in accordance with local air
quality regulations as administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ❑ ❑
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but
not limited to , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
CEQA Checklist
5
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
sites?
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved
local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The proposal will not have any impacts on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑
formal cemeteries?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The proposal will not have any impacts on cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
6
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
v) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would ❑ ❑ ❑
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ❑
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic ❑ ❑ ❑
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
While this entire region is subject to the effects of seismic activity, the subject location has not been determined
to be especially susceptible to any of the above geological or soil problems. The site is essentially flat land,
and is not within an area subject to inundation, subsidence, or expansion of soils. The proposal is for single-
family residential purposes and will not necessitate extensive excavation, grading or filling. No unique geologic
or physical features have been identified at the site.
7. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
CEQA Checklist
7
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a sigificant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
The proposal is for single-family purposes and does not involve hazardous substances, nor will it create or
expose people to health hazards. The proposal will be in compliance with emergency access and fire safety
regulations.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
CEQA Checklist
8
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
❑ ❑ ❑
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
❑ ❑ ❑
of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
❑ ❑ ❑
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on
❑ ❑ ❑
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede
❑ ❑ ❑
or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
❑ ❑ ❑
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑
k)
Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff?
❑ ❑ ❑
1)
Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm
❑ ❑ ❑
water runoff?
m
Potential for discharge of storm water from areas from material
❑ ❑ ❑
storage, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery
areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
n)
Potential for discharge of storm water to cause significant harm
❑ ❑ ❑
on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies?
CEQA Checklist
9
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
o) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial ❑ ❑ ❑
uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality
benefit?
p) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ ❑
storm water runoff that can use environmental harm?
q) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑
surrounding areas?
The proposal is for single-family purposes, and will only change the existing absorption rate and the existing
drainage pattern of the subject site. The project is designed to direct the new surface runoff onto the street in
accordance with the City's Code requirements, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan?
The proposal is consistent with the single-family residential designation in the General Plan and with the R-1
zoning of the site, and is required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with
applicable environmental regulations. The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area
designated for single-family residential under the General Plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
No mineral resources are known to exist at the site.
11. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ® ❑
CEQA Checklist
10
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where ❑ ❑ ❑
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
There will be a short term increase in noise levels due to construction on the site. Once the construction is
completed, it is anticipated that the noise factor would not increase since the site will be replaced with single-
family residential development, which must comply with all noise limitations established by the City.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ❑ ❑ ❑
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon population or
housing.
CEQA Checklist
11
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
13
PUBLIC SERVICES.- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
No
Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon public services.
14.
RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or ❑ ❑ ❑
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon recreational
services.
15.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ ❑ ❑
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
CEQA Checklist
12
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With
Impact Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
❑
❑
❑
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
❑
❑
❑
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
16.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact in reference to
transportation/ circulation services.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall
consider whether the project is subject to the water supply
assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section
664737 (SB221).
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑
CEQA Checklist
13
7/02
File No.: TPM 09-04
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
Incorporation
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑
which serves or may serve the project determined that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statues and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑
related to solid waste?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family residential
development under the General Plan. The project will not create any significant impact upon utilities and
service systems.
17
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ❑
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
The proposal is for single-family purposes within a populated area designated for single-family
residential development under the General Plan. The project will not have any of the above-mentioned
effects or impacts.
CEQA Checklist
14
7/02
rr~
r~.o~Po..rre
x~ew.r a, ryoa
STAFF REPORT
July 14, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
Development Services Department
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-13 and the related Parking
Modification for a 1,224 square-foot restaurant with seating for 53 patrons at
an existing shopping center at 1228 S. Golden West Avenue
SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing 1,224 square-
foot retail unit into a restaurant with seating for 53 patrons at an existing shopping
center (President Square). This Conditional Use Permit request also includes a Parking
Modification for 383 parking spaces in lieu of 391 spaces required. The Development
Services Department is recommending approval of CUP 09-13 and the related Parking
Modification, subject to the conditions listed on pages 5 and 6 of this staff report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Caroline Yang (Prospective Tenant)
LOCATION: 1228 S. Golden West Avenue (President Square shopping center)
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit and the related Parking Modification to
convert an existing 1,224 square-foot retail unit into a restaurant with
seating for 53 patrons
SITE AREA: Approximately 243,936 square feet (5.6 acres)
FRONTAGES: Approximately 632 feet along South Golden West Avenue
Approximately 378 feet along West Duarte Road
Approximately 378 feet along Naomi Avenue
ZONING & EXISTING LAND USE:
The subject unit is located within the President Square shopping center,
which includes a 383-space surface parking lot, a 99 Ranch Market, a
large food court, several restaurants, and a mix of retail and office uses.
The entire site is zoned C-1 & D, Limited Commercial Zone with a
Design Overlay.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Commercial
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Multiple-family dwellings zoned R-3
South: Multiple-family dwellings zoned R-3
East: An apartment complex and the Arcadia Hub shopping center,
both zoned C-2
West: An automobile service station zoned C-2 and multiple-family
dwellings zoned R-3
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-13 were mailed on
Thursday, July 2, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties
that are within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). Because staff
considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the public hearing notice was not published in the
Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The subject unit is located in a commercial retail center originally constructed in 1966. In
1989, the shopping center re-opened as President Square after an extensive remodel.
President Square shopping center contains approximately 62,235 square feet of gross
floor area and a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses, including a 99 Ranch Market
and food court. Over the years, numerous Conditional Use Permits have been granted for
various restaurant uses at the center (the food court, Full House Seafood, Money Pot
Shabu Shabu, and Ten Ren's Tea Time), resulting in a slight parking deficiency for the
site. The subject unit was previously occupied by a video rental business.
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 2
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to operate a "Chinese hot pot" restaurant in a 1,224 square-
foot retail unit. Originally, the applicant had proposed seating for 53 customers, but later
the applicant wished to add a second restroom and the number of seats was reduced to
48, as shown on the attached floor plan. The Building Official and Fire Marshal have
reviewed the preliminary floor plan and found the layout and occupant load to be
acceptable.
The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven
(7) days a week. The hours are similar to the other restaurants - in the center and
throughout the City. The applicant also intends to apply for a liquor license through the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. A liquor license for on-site consumption at a
restaurant does not require approval by the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Arcadia
Municipal Code Section 9275.1.53.5, restaurants are permitted in the C-1 zone with an
approved Conditional Use Permit.
Parkinq
The main issue of concern for a restaurant at the subject site is parking. President
Square is a highly active retail center with a surface parking lot containing 383 shared
parking spaces. Below is a table illustrating how many parking spaces are required based
on the existing uses and the proposed restaurant:
Table 1
Parking Calculation Based on Existing and Proposed Uses
Use
Square footage
Parking ratio
# of spaces required
99 Ranch Market
29,674 SF
5/1,000 SF
148.37 spaces
Other Retail
11,165 SF
5/1,000 SF
55.83 spaces
Full House Seafood Restaurant
6,274 SF
10/1,000 SF
62.74 spaces
Food Court
7,321 SF
10/1,000 SF
73.21 spaces
Other Restaurant (including hot pot restaurant)
3,273 SF
10/1,000 SF
32.73 spaces
Bank/Office
4,428 SF
4/1,00 SF
17.71 spaces
Total: 391 spaces
With a total of 383 on-site parking stalls, the subject property currently has a parking
deficiency of two (2) spaces. Approval of CUP 09-13 would increase the parking
deficiency by six (6) spaces, for a total deficiency of eight (8) parking spaces. The reason
for this increase is that the subject unit was previously occupied by a retail. business,
which requires five (5) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Restaurants, however, require ten (10) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 3
Given the size of the shopping center, a parking deficiency of eight (8) spaces is not a
serious deficiency. In comparison, the nearby Arcadia Center, located at 627-655 W.
Duarte Road, has a parking deficiency of 104 spaces (with 213 spaces provided on-site).
The Arcadia Hub shopping center, which has a total of 1,151 parking spaces, is deficient
by 1,184 parking spaces with the approval of the LA Fitness.
Recognizing that each site is unique, however, staff requested a parking survey in order
to analyze the day-to-day parking situation at the site. The applicant diligently monitored
the site from May 25, 2009 through June 7, 2009, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10
p.m. During the survey period, the applicant recorded the number of vacant parking
spaces in the center at one hour intervals, and also noted the number of vehicles
entering and leaving the parking lot at 15-minute intervals. The results of the survey are
attached to this staff report.
The survey found that there was a shortage of parking during lunch and the early
afternoon hours, especially on the weekends. This is likely the result of the numerous
eateries at the center, including the popular dim sum restaurant Full House Seafood, as
well as the high volume of supermarket shoppers. On Saturday, May 30th at 12 noon, for
example, only 12 of the 383 parking spaces at the center were vacant. Similarly, on
Sunday, May 31St at 1:00 p.m., only 11 spaces were unoccupied. The parking shortage
was markedly less severe during the dinner hours, and there appeared to be an
abundance of parking during the morning and late evening hours.
The second part of the applicant's parking survey found that while there is a shortage of
parking during the early afternoon hours, there is also a high turnover in parking due to
the large number of shoppers at the 99 Ranch Market. For example, between 1:45 p.m.
and 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 7th, 79 vehicles entered the site and 81 left the site. This
means that while parking spaces are scarce during the afternoon hours, they are also
vacated at a rapid rate. As a result, patrons of the center are usually able to locate a
parking space without having to wait an extended period of time or park on the street.
Staff is familiar with the site and found the survey results to be consistent with staffs
observations. Given the relatively small parking deficiency of eight (8) spaces and the fact
that the subject center experiences a high vehicle turnover, it is staffs opinion that
approval of the Parking Modification would not result in a parking shortage at the center.
Furthermore, staff believes all the prerequisite findings for granting a Conditional Use
Permit can be made.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
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 Marshal, City Engineer,
and Public Works Services Director.
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 4
CEQA
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Development Services Department has determined that the proposed project is a minor
alteration of an existing facility, and is therefore categorically exempt from CEQA (Class
1, Section 15301). A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached.
FINDINGS
Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use
Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions can
be satisfied:
1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly 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, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and
other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the
neighborhood.
4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to
carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
Application No. CUP 09-13, subject to the following conditions:
1. The business hours of the restaurant shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
seven (7) days a week.
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 5
2. The seating area for the restaurant shall not exceed 48 seats, or the maximum
occupancy load as determined by the Building Official and Fire Marshal, whichever is
less.
3. A Parking Modification of 383 spaces in lieu of 391 spaces required is granted for the
proposed restaurant and existing uses at the shopping center. This Parking
Modification does not constitute an approval for general reduction of the parking
requirements for the subject property, but rather only for the restaurant that is herein
conditionally approved, and the existing uses at the center. Uses other than this
restaurant may be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and/or Parking
Modification.
4. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with
the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 09-13, subject
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator.
5. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-
13 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals,
which could result in the closing of the office building.
6. 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
Marshal, City Engineer, and Public Works Services Director.
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 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. Approval of CUP 09-13 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 awareness and acceptance of these conditions of
approval.
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-13, state the supporting findings,
and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision, specific
determinations and findings, including the CEQA exemption, and the conditions of
approval, for adoption at the next meeting.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move
to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-13, state the finding(s) that the
proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a
resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings, for adoption at
the next meeting.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the July 14th public hearing, please contact Steven Lee,
Assistant Planner, at (626) 574-5444 or via email at slee -ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
m asama
mmunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial photograph and vicinity map
Radius map
Plans
Parking survey
Photos
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CUP 09-13
1228 S. Golden West Ave.
July 14, 2009
Page 7
Development Services Depaitment
Engineering Division
Prepared by R. S. GonzabA My 2009
IFO 1228 S Golden West Avenue
CUP 09.13
(819)
(833) (825)
(841) (839)
N (853)
100 0 100 200 Feet
UARTE D (834)
D
(838-852)
G)
O
v
2 m
(1215) Z
(1221)
(1119)
R-3 21) --1
D (1220) C-2
rn
(1223)
(1227)
C-1
R-3
ONO)
(1238)
(1236)
(1234)
(1232)
(1230) (8194115 (811
(1228)
ADM AVE
(810
N )
(824) (818) (816)
Or. 11041y~1 1228 S Golden West Avenue
r
Development Services Department CUP 09-13
Engineering Division c
a
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, July 2009 X04°OI[y of Ne
_ OWNERSHIP MAP 300' ;.ARCADIA
a
1y° 1 N99'ta10•E I AVE
70
70
T
177
ACT Q
'OR 3 N NO N CD 7D
Site: 1228 S Golden West Ave
N I 273
T 0
L
Arcadia 21 " CIJ
117
a 2 C ~O 1 . 11$ - 116 OR Z lu 1181
APN: 5383-035-01'° 7D "ZSHEET,p co s 26 7 z V)
29 I 30
GTR NO 53690 b. U 1 rn I
SHEET 2 m I
i
MB 1279-20-21 m I
0 If2 14D
_ /s0 70 70 i.. log _ ,ID 70 140 70 V 70
aLSay . Do 106 ^ N <p N V CD 70
CO ^ •1 - ^ O 10.06 U
h /2 L M NN co
H Q
V) - -
Z
n a9lze SF O F- W 1 p, d O F 15192SF r-
~tsi rs~r .s, arcs 3. m SH 3~ r Z w o W.N C> w Z w e 32 ^ ^ z SHEET6 ,
n.9n '
1
n w 129 Q m ° P2B H
Z E15 4&5 m 131 r a W l CC)
°w I ^ I o 133 W 37089 sF POR. 1 1 o PO.t ^ F• 1 a m 1 „ Q1
w. Po/. O 0 U F- y o 16977 SF .°a L)
u
iHEEI S SHEET 2 e -j ~ l~I' q
SHEETS BB CO 0a
~ m 29 m
14 W/r P2,
M B(] m g 7o.z9 V „0.63
70 7029 12.05
'VgM1 f
110.57 U 7°.29 .4
I Q-ryy L-
!o = ~Ib 50 I ADS -I RD
-lsosm DUARTE
I
w m - •es'P ms
b RD.` r - 25421
ar sa n'► eLCa/ elsee -ri',. ••`°5~ I I
Bs ^ SANTA ANITA LID COI TR P M 189 - - 4 P M
I I . L._--us w
1y
29070/ . I w T I 1 u n
l e SHEET 2 s 2 I s o" ze f n I zs C m ze
N A OI K I N 7.901 qc Hlr' I ? 1054C O r l0O c~f J!
W Y0J
~t t ac ti
w^', M 36J
W 6 SHEET s rIIJ e
w ~ r Y
r 0, ~ I I
POO• a
us 3 1
Po, SHEET g
979 SITE I I aDb m!
e s I ~ ,76 R
/
se ue YdL /1PO' J14 11
_J L_ n
MEETS 3 8 4 • I
ti S ~r0-' Orei/uiyrr Ease. I ~ ~ ~ / I / o
31' >asa 94 8
%
i sOAe•a4>00•'r-- 9/ _ LJ g /I 3 iq N 41
^
ASP • } aan• nraa..~~ x ; ~c • q: 3 nc ~ar4~
f K{ iR as 7n~ .93 ~4 Z
$ • as tssw ft. lLJ
*t~ P9 SHEET 9 as.rl9-/S d 1
~K; * 3 y!tit.n/ . o a. ti 3° t t, M B 6 I- 137
A:': so
yykpl,,. I e } _ `I /16 .770'17
eo j78
14(( 1 I la
L,K y ,4.eIl2L.l~ 74 4' /9I^ scs ti NAOMI W _ -
eo a
C V m C 6: Ln K1 mS/YV4 w J 89 /00 _ 12 L. 05 63
f0 J6 60 e6 I se p, LOT 6,- MEET 7
2~ 8 1J ~ ' _
e = 3 Ia'/I 9!~//NI 4,G7DYfq J>o' 13.:
✓r SHEET 4
-V BLK. A
$ se ` ~N •n I O I 63 ~ e I + G
h so _$L-K = G-1
~i 1B. e6 ce
,D. D aroo•• I 25 t- NeT•/o c.1 1s4 % ~
5 LOT 6. I .
/.~l1. M1..f•ry /
sb-~ PI.~I G r [33.0 lyj b ,SHEET>: 3 PO R. ~°o C
'v J is J- Zi t//o•1a SHEET 3
Irv O NB170 f. 116 "w ql I` r,er Irv w
?6 la y~^, 3/ J•l~~ ^ SHEET' 2
2 /.b se o -
sB 1" = 200'
22 23 a so seso ^.JON•//%Of• Q Q I SHEET z -r----
1 22 7 g7,,,..
W. If
J/ 09 h L'
v 23 ti ® I 9 °
IIIC d/•92 32.96 ~t Ye.s9 y I •^.f1 A0g
:be S/.73 R• 225 R• 123E - T"-- 0>.fC 16.
AV E. O
ns ~ ~ h „ ® 1 nl
1 /0n /:c.aL
u2.i6 7o7.sa
A A4 M A PPTNG CFR VIC~FJ 02-383 5/0'
f
a
D '
./1 Y
V
e
14
y
~ G
a a
° Mfg
u
ly lr -:*l a
r•t'•SL.ZG ~ ~
i
. a...._ .LYi
~ \ \ ♦ v1.1 v 1.
4.6
t-J
4.6
i I f l l I t l f 1
a
H
~i
O
l~
M
O
O
t~
l~
M
a
N
N
O
O
h
N
as
N
n
U
o
d
°
o
~
a
a~
3
❑
Q
5
a
a
F-
~
Z
~
a
~
A
C7
C7
a
F°
0
O
z
N
qt
'o
w
O
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
~
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
~
z
S
~
~
~
~
o
ff
~
3
A
c
o
~
~
~
~
~
H
N
~
~
w
H
a
a
N
O
w
c7
x
~
d
as
z
0
N
0
N
0
N
O
N
U
M
U
oo
N
C
N
C
O
N
M
t\
00
a
~
o
o
~
N
M
o
C/1
~C
00
N
~D
h
Q
0
0
Q
~
td
1
U
z
o
U
o
H
v
F
w
w
d
w
U
0
z
d
~
A
W
0
0
0
0
0
00
M
O
eh
~D
~1'
a0
d'
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
et
~
~D
t`
00
O~
3
H
w
3
a
w
0
0
•U
A
W
f +
LUOI6 dJ `VIGV3'd v
'aAV LS3M NTRI-109 'S 9£ZI
IDWS 11VISI'd MI 1.N`'NfIVISMd MAN # ! ! i ~1
A DJ
k El'
~~•_I~ 1~ i REAR PARKING LOT
ofil
3 oz
{ 00 3
I ~N ©o) 3'-2F
9
CI
_5. { ~`R
-
RLSIAUKAN 'SQlI
1,200 SQ. FT. {
SEATING: IS
SFATING AR1 A:
71 J SO. F C.
47,-~i.
1
('<3i tiTF.K T ~ 3#
E= J
on n
v Q
u
-
E
{
1 er
QOC) -
i~
nnD f
7
L_
ions
f
n
{nn~
~
(i0ou
l FRONT ENiRA Cs
E 3
DOUBLE ',WtN(;
1)CK)R
z_s
~ H
G ~
EA41't,C3YtE L(3('KGXS
SFi@1.F RACKS
U
~
1 d3 FLOORDRAIN
O II NMI SI\K
0 i{'OMPAk'! MENT SINK
0 TEA V3011 PR
09 (JAm LK
I( F(-K)D PREP SINK
Slut
(D) 1ABLE P:r L)IMIW'ASHING MAC
HIINL UNDER
`mi'l R,+Eijirtx,'% iOR
CJ WALKAN FRFE7_FR.
06 WAIk!NClyy!I-.~t
i.1LiLE 1~E.1Nil
c
i~
- - - - - - - - - -
r.~
COVERED A'ALKWAY
8 2009
►~1
it
bD
OI1
O
0
a
D
o~
a
a
O~
O
N
tn
N
b
O
"C3
b
~r
bA
C
O
b
0
"p
b
a~
C1
O
w ~
Ix
~ q
N
V
0 L
V ~
a a
(VIA M
~ O
O ~
v iOr
~ a
4n a ej
co
0 y
'g ° a
~ a .
A w
V~ y y ~
00
o
c
a
a;
ti
00
r+
O~
r
N
O
~O
~c
tn
r
c/a
oo
kn
N
M
N
in
r
r
oo
0r
tn
C
r
r
W
N
N
M
V)
01
r
N
O~
O
00
o
o
~O
V1
r
~
M
M
~
a0
r
v~
d1
aA
~O
N
O
ti
r
~
O
M
r
M
r
r
N
M
VJ
.
i
.
-i
O
a
~
V
7
Ifs
G1i
00
V~
M
~
~O
rr
.a
01
N
N
~
~
N
r
M
M
.r
r
O~
~
N
r
ON
oa
O
~
y
G\
O
~D
M
N
N
r
r
M
~
r
7
~
r
O~
N
O~
O~
r
N
M
~O
r
ti
~
!p
~D
r+
M
N
~
M
N
~
M
00
d'
M
r
O
N
CT
r
O~
M
O
O~
O
O~
r
~O
r
ti
~
r
N
M
~
N
O
M
M
~
ao
N
N
N
as
os
0
0
~
C
r
ob
01,
k
a
a
tn
O
N
M
a
~
~
O~
M
N
M
~
.-i
M
.r
.
-i
N
Q\
>
a
a
r
N
a
_
O
L
O~
r
ch
m
O\
M
r
M
M
N
Gr,
00
~O
V1
h
r
O~
O~
O~
O~
oo
00
N
N
as
~D
O
r
O
r
Oo
M
r
N
M
r
M
00
N
M
O
O
rr
O
O
~O
rl
V)
C~
N
d
en
a
s
y
.-i
M
to
.-i
ch
..i
0\
t
e14
r
r
N
O
O~
..r
M
N
O
"
Vl
.-i
M
00
N
r1
O~
00
.r
.
..r
rl
N
N
N
t
r
r
M
n
~D
M
~D
M
O
N
M
N
.ti
O
~D
N
a
r
~A
r
r
M
N
O
N
O\
r
~O
00
00
00
O~
.r
00
N
a
s
d
ol
d
a
a„
a
a,
a.
a,
a
w
a
a
a
O
N
M
d
Vi
~D
r
oo
G1
O
> d L
N
~I
~I
C~
0
a
C
a
D
O
y
a
03
V
a
GC
b
a
N C a~n
~ w L
Iva a O.~
~ a
O 00
C ~ M
00
~ to ~
O
u C a C
w M.ly
O rl V
d to ~
y c $ a
M O
y O O
N ri ti F°
Vj
00
~
~
t--
\
o,
~
opo
~
W)
o`DO
oo
~
W)
o0
~o
00
O
0o
W)
h
u
a
°
~
oa`o
oho
~
O0
~
h
u
h
to
to
oho
oho
r
c
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
`
00
N
N
`
~
~
~
to
ry
V~
N
N
N
M
M
1:T
IT
V1
M
w
oo
ao
000
ON1
0kn0
0~0
Vj
~D
h
h
` 00
00
W)
00
00 00
h
00
\
00
a
r-
00
n
t-
00
h
h
N
to
N
t-
O
[
h
to
to
~
~
~O
N
~
~
h
h
►7
~G
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
V'
It
en
h
00
h
N
a~
o
o,
O
O`
C,
oo
o,
N
h
t-:
h
f.
h
h
~p
~p
~p
M
h
a
~D
h
~O
h
b
kn
to
h
~
O~
aN
h
m
N
h
M
\
O
M
to
tn
to
O~
kn
M
00
O
M
N
h
to
to
h
M
M
to
v~
to
~D
~D
a
~O
~O
•r
.-i
00
O~
O
kn
h
W)
%D
~D
W)
00
to
~
\D
N
c
00
to
~D
~D
O
h
~
(r
a
~
~D
~
~o
~
~o
~
In
~
~o
~
M
to
~
to
kn
~
O
h
h
to
N
h
~
h
h
OHO
~O
kn
h
In
tn
~'9
~
M
~
h
~
N
~
a1
~
~D
~
~
~
Q\
c►3
~D
to
00
h
00
.ter
M
[
N
l
O
~
..ti
h
N
N
tn
!r
00
h
h
~D
~D
h
00
00
h
V)
to
rl
h
~O
w
-t
%0
as
W)
M
W)
CIS
4n
I'D
In
tn
. y
'.0
tn
o0
tn
W)
a,
tn
y
a
Q\
M
~D
~D
vi
~o
M
v
Q\
O
kn
N
h
h
1)
tn
\
01
M
M
ti
h
Q`
h
M
a`
00
t`
O
O
-
O
M
tn
~G
M
00
00
l~
h
a1
D\
00
to
to
-
-
-
-
-
to
~
b
tn
to
~
V7
~
k
V
V
to
N
a
vOi
M
vMi
h
vMi
'd'
d'
N
h
h
ttnn
to
h
~
N
M
M
N
N
N
O
of
~
~
M
M
M
~
~D
o,
o
n
Oh
~o
o
r
n
n
a
0
kn
00
1.0
h
h
M
d
t n
d
n
V 1
h
h
e4
M
h
~O
h
b
to
a1
%D
h
7
ti
~
N
~D
h
N
~
M
a~
M
M
~
N
~
h
et
00
N
~
N
~
N
O~
M
~n
M
O
N
O
~
to
M
O~
~
O~
a
000
a~
000
M
O
~p
Oh
m
It
ooo
~D
co
rn
a
oo
N
N
h
r
to
to
oo
~O
00
h
O~
M
.4
h
N
M
h
M
a~
N
er
~
~
M
rr
~
M
00
N
N
N
O~
r+
O~
CT
00
O
O
O
00
Q\
O
~
O
h
t~
h
Q\
0
O
v)
h
d\
O
~
~o
W)
W)
An
00
~
~
ao
a
o0
00
~o
h
oo
h
't
h
h
h
0
oo
%
~o
%0
~o
%D
00
a\
h
h
I'D
V-
ON
to
to
h
O
N
M
a`
h
M
h
N
O
00
taD
C
0D
G
to
O
M
kn
v
O
O
k
O
M
to
er
Cl
o
C~0
>
C
W
0
.a
W)i
Cl
r
to
et
G
O
CAS
C
W
0
.a
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
et'
y
d
y
o0
00
00
O\
y
N
y
O
h
O
V1
O
h
O
V)
O
V')
O
h
da
da
Gt
~
^
M
d;
6t
~
d
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
>
d
>
d
a
d
60
00
oc
oo
d
7
d
p Q o.
d
u
aY
a
an
a
a
a
u
d
U
AC1
d
on
O
"C
a
b
a
u
d
0
Property Photos
1228 South Colden West Ave Arcadia CA 91007
The front look on 1228 South Colden West Ave Arcadia CA 91007
Inside of property, picture take form both front and back.
South ( Left) side of property
West ( Front ) side of property
Parking structure photos.
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-13
2. Project Location - Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
1228 S. Golden West Avenue (btw. Duarte Rd. and Naomi Ave.)
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A. Public Entity:
B. Other (Private):
(1) Contact Name Caroline Yang
(2) Contact Address 2652 Cogswell Rd. #A
El Monte, CA 91732
Staff Determination:
The City, 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:
b. ❑
The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
C. ❑
The project is a Ministerial Project.
d. ❑
The project is an Emergency Project.
e. ❑
The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
f. ®
The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: Class 1 (Section 15301)
g. ❑
The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
h. ❑
The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
i. ❑
The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
[Name of Lead Agency:
Date: July 7, 2009 Staff: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 1796
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. CUP 09-12 FOR A VEHICLE RECOVERY AND
STORAGE BUSINESS COMPRISED OF A 20,301 SQUARE-FOOT
AUTOMOBILE STORAGE WAREHOUSE AND A 16,100 SQUARE-
FOOT GATED OUTDOOR AUTOMOBILE STORAGE YARD AT 5449
PECK ROAD.
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2009, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by
Charles V. Palazzolo (dba C.A.R.S.) for a vehicle recovery and storage business
comprised of a 20,301 square-foot automobile storage warehouse and a 16,100 square-
foot gated outdoor automobile storage yard; Development Services Department Case No.
CUP 09-12, at property commonly known as 5449 Peck Road; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23,
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 June 23, 2009 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-12 will not be
detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements
in such zone or vicinity.
2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
3. Any external alterations, including new fencing and gates, shall be subject to
design review approval by the Community Development Administrator or
designee.
4. The use approved by CUP 09-12 is limited to the vehicle recovery and storage
business, which shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent
with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 09-12.
5. A Parking Modification for 22 spaces in lieu of 73 spaces is granted for this
vehicle recovery and storage business. This Parking Modification does not
constitute an approval for a general reduction of the parking requirements for the
subject property, but rather only for the vehicle recovery and storage business that
is herein conditionally approved. Uses other than this vehicle recovery and
storage business may be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and/or Parking
Modification.
6. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-
12 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals,
which could result in the closing of the business.
7. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction
of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal,
and Public Works Services Director.
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
3 1796
RESOLUTION NO. 1797
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. CUP 09-10 TO OPERATE A TUTORING CENTER
WITH A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT (8) STUDENTS IN A 2,000 SQUARE-
FOOT COMMERCIAL UNIT AT 34 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, an application was filed by Robert Granger of Golden
State Education Associates, Inc., for a tutoring center with a maximum of 8 students in a 2,000
square-foot commercial unit; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 09-10, at 34
E. Huntington Drive; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 23, 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 HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the report dated June 23, 2009 are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
A. That the granting of this Conditional Use Permit would be detrimental to the
public health and welfare and injurious to the property and improvements in such zone or
vicinity because there is inadequate on-site circulation to facilitate the dropping-off and
picking-up of children.
B. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a
Conditional Use Permit is authorized.
C. That the site for the proposed use is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate
the proposed use; the site does not provide for a sufficient pick-up and drop-off area.
1797
MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COAU IISSION
Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
* d Arcadia City Council Chambers
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, June 23, 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, Parrille and Beranek
ABSENT: None
OTHERS ATTENDING
City Engineer Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama
Associate Planner Tom Li
Assistant Planner Steven Lee
Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr
Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone
PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION
Chairman Beranek asked for nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Baderian nominated Commissioner Parrille and Commissioner Hsu seconded
the nomination.
There being no other nominations, Chairman Beranek called for a vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES: None
Chairman Parrille assumed the Chairman's position.
Chairman Parrille asked for nominations for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Beranek nominated Commissioner Hsu and Commissioner Baderian seconded
the nomination.
There being no other nominations, Chairman Parrille called for a vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to read the
Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions. The motion
passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kasama said that a letter of opposition to item no. 2 and a pamphlet on Los Angeles
County maintenance work along the spreading grounds near Santa Anita Avenue and
Highland Oaks Drive were distributed to each Commissioner.
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. MODIFICATION NO. MP 09-01 AND SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. SFADR 09-28
1735 Holly Avenue
SANYO International, Inc. (Designer)
A new, two-story, 5,038 square-foot, "French Country" style residence that requires the
following applications.
1. A Modification for a 66'-3" front yard setback as measured to the centerline of Holly
Avenue in lieu of the 70'-0" special setback; and
2. Single-family Architectural Design Review
Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report.
Chairman Parrille called for questions from the Commissioners.
There were none.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Hank Jong, of EGL Associates, Inc., represented the architect for the project, and offered to
answer any questions the Commissioners might have. There were none.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 2
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the
public hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve
Modification No. MP 09-01 and Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 09-
28 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Parrille called for a vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
Chairman Parrille stated that the applications are approved, and that there is a five working-
day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 2009.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-10
34 E. Huntington Drive
Golden State Education Associates, Inc. - Robert Granger (Lessee)
A Conditional Use Permit for a tutoring center with a maximum of eight (8) students in an
existing 2,250 square-foot commercial space.
Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report.
Chairman Parrille called for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Beranek asked if the requirement for 50% retail use is satisfied by the hair salon
in the other half of the building. Mr. Li said that regulation applies to First Avenue only and
not Huntington Drive.
Commissioner Baderian pointed out that the parking arrangement, although legal, is non-
conforming and expressed concern about continuing a parking arrangement that does not
conform to current regulations.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Rob Granger, franchisee for Chyten Educational services, Inc., expressed his belief in
Chyten as a wonderful organization that provides a valuable and useful service to the
community. He added that he appreciates the concern related to the parking situation and
promised to make sure that staff and students understand all restrictions. He said that overall
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 3
he feels that this is the perfect location for this business. Mr. Granger said that he will comply
with all conditions imposed on the business and that he feels it will have a low impact on the
surrounding businesses.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Granger if he was in agreement with all ten conditions of
approval and Mr. Granger said that he was.
Commissioner Baderian asked how the drop-off of students would be monitored. Mr. Granger
said it would be monitored visually by an employee stationed in the lobby at all times.
Commissioner Hsu noted that the configuration of the office would invite people to enter from
Huntington Drive and Mr. Granger pointed out that there is a walkway from the public parking
lot across the street. Commissioner Hsu noted that the requirement to park across the street
only applies to the staff.
Mr. Dan Byers, Chyten franchise representative, said that this is Chyten's first California
franchise. He noted that since tutoring sessions are on a scheduled basis there wouldn't be a
rush of students at any one time. He also assured the Commissioners that from the initial stage
of recruiting the students, their parents would be informed of all parking restrictions.
Commissioner Beranek asked about plans to modify the rear of the building. Mr. Byers
explained that the applicant has plans for remodeling the facade and the rear parking area.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to close the public
hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Baderian said that although the project looks like a great program for the
community he cannot support a project that does not meet current parking requirements.
Commissioner Beranek said he agrees with Commissioner Baderian.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek to deny Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-10
because the proposal does not satisfy finding no. 3; that the site is adequate, etc.
Commissioner Baderian seconded the motion.
There being no fiuther discussion, Chairman Parrille called for a vote.
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 4
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
Chairman Parrille said that a Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission's action will be
presented for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.
There will be a five working-day appeal period after adoption of the Resolution.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-12
5449 Peck Road
Charles V. Palazzolo, dba C.A.R.S
A Conditional Use Permit for an auto storage warehouse and yard on a 48,000 square-foot
industrially zoned lot.
Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr presented the staff report.
Chairman Parrille called for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Baderian questioned condition no. 5 of the recommendation that permitted a
parking modification of 22 spaces instead of the required 73 spaces. He asked if the
additional parking in the front of the building would provide enough parking to make up the
deficiency.
Mr. Schwehr explained that ten additional parking spaces would be available for employees
on the gated yard area and that based on the analysis, 73 spaces was excessive considering the
limited number of visitors expected at the business.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Chuck Palazzolo, the applicant, said that this location would be used as their corporate
office and 22 parking spaces should suffice. Further, they currently expect only about fifteen
cars per day to be dropped-off at this facility, which will operate 24 hours, seven days a week.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Palazzolo if he had read the conditions of approval and if
he would agree to comply. Mr. Palazzolo said that he understood the conditions and would
comply with them.
Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to close the public
hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 5
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-12, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Parrille called for a vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES: None
Chairman Parrille stated that a Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission's action will be
presented for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.
There will be a five working-day appeal period after adoption of the Resolution.
CONSENT ITEMS
4. PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION
Finding that the proposed Capital Improvement Program for 2008-2009 is consistent with the
General Plan.
Me. Kasama informed the Commissioners that City Engineer, Mr. Phil Wray, was in attendance
and available to answer any questions.
Chairman Parrielle asked if there were any questions or discussion from the Commissioners.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to find the
Capital Improvement Program for 2009-2010 is consistent with the General Plan.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Parrille called for a vote.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille
NOES: None
Chairman Parrille asked if the remaining Consent items could be acted on as one. There was no
objection.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 1794
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 09-05 for a 2,477 square-foot tutoring center with up to 30 students on the
ground floor of an existing commercial and residential mixed-use development 715 S. First Ave
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 6
6. RESOLUTION NO. 1795
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 09-06 for an auto garage for the maintenance and storage of collectible
Vehicles in an existing 6,200 square-foot warehouse at 141 Santa Clara Street
4. MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2009
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to adopt
Resolution Nos. 1794 and 1795 and approve the minutes of June 9, 2009, as presented.
Without objection Resolution Nos. 1794 and 1795 were adopted and the minutes of June 9,
2009, were approved as presented.
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
There were none.
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS
Chairman Parrille said there was no Modification Committee meeting today.
FURTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF
Mr. Kasama reviewed upcoming agenda items.
ADJOURNED 7:40 p.m.
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
PC MINUTES
6-23-09
Page 7