Loading...
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