The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4-22-25 Agenda PacketCITY OF ARCADIA Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 7:00 p.m. 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 Planning Services 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. (626) 574-5423 48 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Language Access Services Policy, limited-English proficient speakers who require translation services in order to participate in a meeting may request the use of a volunteer or professional translator by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 574-5455 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. 626-574-5455 72 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Marilynne Wilander, Chair Domenico Tallerico, Vice Chair David Arvizu, Commissioner Angela Hui, Commissioner Vincent Tsoi, Commissioner SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) Each speaker is limited to five (5) minutes per person, unless waived by the Planning Commission. Under the Brown Act, the Commission or Board Members are prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at a public hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer at the discretion of the Commission) speakers shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person. The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments, at the discretion of the Commission. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge in court or in an administrative proceeding any action taken by the City Council regarding any public hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1 1. Resolution No. 2166 –Approving Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-01 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a front yard setback modification for a new two-story residence at 1405 S 8th Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2166 Applicant: Eric Tsang There is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 5, 2025. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. 1. Minutes of the March 11, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, May 13, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. 2 Welcome to the Arcadia Planning Commission Meeting! The Planning Commission encourages public participation and invites you to share your views on City business. MEETINGS: Regular Meetings of the Planning Commission are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A full Planning Commission agenda packet with all backup information is available at City Hall, the Arcadia Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov. Copies of individual Agenda Reports are available via email upon request (Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov). Documents distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission after the posting of this agenda will be available for review at the Planning Services Office in City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Your participation is welcomed and invited at all Planning Commission meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those in the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission. The City requests that persons addressing the Planning Commission refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane, or disruptive remarks. When the Chair asks for those who wish to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please provide a copy of any written materials used in your address to the Planning Commission as well as a copy of any printed materials you wish to be distributed to the Planning Commission. MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA should be presented during the time designated as “PUBLIC COMMENTS.” In general, each speaker will be given (5) minutes to address the Planning Commission; however, the Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers time to address the Planning Commission. By State law, the Planning Commission may not discuss or vote on items not on the agenda. The matter will automatically be referred to staff for appropriate action or response, or will be placed on the agenda of a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS are items scheduled for which public input is either required or desired. Separate and apart from an applicant or appellant (who may speak longer at the discretion of the Planning Commission), speakers shall be limited to (5) minutes per person. The Chair, at his/her discretion, may shorten the speaking time limit to allow all speakers to address the Planning Commission. The applicant or appellant may also be afforded an additional opportunity for rebuttal comments. AGENDA ITEMS: The Agenda contains the regular order of business of the Planning Commission. Items on the Agenda have generally been reviewed and investigated by the City Staff in advance of the meeting so that the Planning Commission can be fully informed about a matter before making its decision. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a member of the Planning Commission, Staff, or the public so requests. In this event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered and acted on separately. DECORUM: While members of the public are free to level criticism of City policies and the action(s) or proposed action(s) of the Planning Commission or its members, members of the public may not engage in behavior that is disruptive to the orderly conduct of the proceedings, including, but not limited to, conduct that prevents other members of the audience from being heard when it is their opportunity to speak, or which prevents members of the audience from hearing or seeing the proceedings. Members of the public may not threaten any person with physical harm or act in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as an imminent threat of physical harm. All persons attending the meeting are expected to adhere to the City’s policy barring harassment based upon a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, or age. The Chief of Police, or such member or members of the Police Department, may serve as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Planning Commission meeting. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding official for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the meeting. Any person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting may be placed under arrest and such person may be prosecuted under the provisions of Penal Code Section 403 or applicable Arcadia Municipal Code section. 3 (Arcadia Public Library) (www.ArcadiaCA.gov) (Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov) (City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California) “” (5) (5) “” “” 403 4 DATE: April 22, 2025 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM:Lisa L. Flores, Deputy Development Services Director By: Melissa Chipres, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2166 – APPROVING SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 24-26 AND PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-01 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK MODIFICATION FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 1405 S 8th AVENUE Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2166 SUMMARY The Applicant, Eric Tsang, on behalf of the property owner, Joe Ho, is requesting approval of Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-01 to construct a new 4,362 square foot, two-story Contemporary style home with a front yard setback modification. The proposed modification is for a front yard setback of 35’-7” instead of the required front yard setback of 59’-8”. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2166 (refer to Attachment No. 1), find that the project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 20,435 square foot interior lot, currently improved with a 958 square foot, one-story residence with a detached two-car garage that was built in 1932 (see Figure 1). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential – refer to Attachment No. 2 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property. The property is 5 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1 – Existing Residence surrounded by other R-1 zoned properties to the north, south, and east and Camino Grove Elementary to the west. A Certificate of Demolition (COD) for the subject property was approved on November 15, 2024, – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the Historical Evaluation. Based on the evaluation prepared by an Architectural Historian, the property does not meet any of the minimum requirements for recognition as a historical resource nor is it eligible for listing on the California Register or as a local landmark. The existing home is not a unique example of a particular architectural style and is not representative of or associated with any important historical events or people. The structures have not yet been demolished due to the City’s replacement policy for residential projects, which requires approval of a new project prior to demolition of the structures on site. PROPOSAL The Applicant is proposing to construct a new 4,362 square foot, Contemporary style, two-story residence on the property (see Figure 2) with a front yard setback modification. The modification is to allow a 35’-7” front yard setback instead of 59’-8”. In the R-1 zone, the Development Code requires a front yard setback of either 25’-0” or the average of the two adjacent front yard setbacks, whichever is greater. The two adjacent front yard setbacks are 32’-9” and 86’-7”, therefore the average is 59’-8” for the subject property, which is far greater than the average of a typical neighborhood south of Huntington Drive. Any modification to the front yard setback for new homes is subject to Planning Commission review. 6 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 3 of 10 The proposed home will consist of 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms, an attached 671 square foot three-car garage, and a 78 square foot front porch and a permitted by-right detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at the rear of the property – refer to Attachment No. 3 for Architectural Plans. The total floor area ratio (FAR) of the residence will be 5,627 square feet, whereas 6,630 square feet is allowed. The site will have a total lot coverage of 24.8% (5,075 square feet), whereas 35% (7,152 square feet) is allowed. Aside from the front yard setback, the proposed project will comply with all of the other development standards and will not impact any protected trees. ANALYSIS The required front yard setback of the subject property is heavily being affected by the unusually deep setback (86’-7”) of the adjacent property next door at 1411 S 8th Avenue. This setback is much larger than the standard or the average in the neighborhood. According to the diagram (Figure 3), the property at 1411 S. 8 th Avenue is the only home in the area with a greater setback than 36’-0”, making it an outlier in the context of the Figure 3 – Setback Diagram Figure 2 – Front Elevation Rendering 7 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 4 of 10 surrounding properties. If the subject property was required to meet the standard 59’-8” front yard setback, the proposed home would be pushed far back on the lot. This proposed setback is more consistent with the average setbacks in the area, providing a more balanced approach while still complying with the general neighborhood character. Design Review While the proposed contemporary architectural style differs from the more traditional Spanish, Mediterranean, and other classic designs predominant in the surrounding neighborhood, it has been intentionally crafted to complement and integrate seamlessly with the established character of the area. The introduction of a contemporary dwelling respects both the current neighborhood and future growth of the area. The design has been developed with a clear understanding of the neighborhood’s architectural context. Key considerations have been made in terms of scale, massing, materials, and proportions, ensuring that the new construction fits naturally within the established neighborhood. The building’s height, setback, and overall footprint have been carefully designed to align and complement adjacent structures. The choice of materials also reflects a commitment to compatibility. While contemporary architecture often incorporates modern elements like steel, glass, and concrete, the proposed design utilizes materials that complement traditional finishes, such as stone accents, neutral tones, and wood elements. This combination allows the home to blend into the neighborhood without overpowering its surroundings. The overall massing and volume of the building have been designed to mirror the scale of neighboring homes, avoiding contrasts in size that could create a harsh visual effect. The façade has been articulated to reduce any feeling of bulk, using strategic setbacks, vertical and horizontal breaks, and landscaped features that soften the impact of the modern design while ensuring that the home remains a functional and appealing space. FINDINGS According to Arcadia Development Code Section 9107.05.050, it states that an Administrative Modification may be approved if at least one of the following findings can be made: 1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Promote uniformity of development The proposed modification will promote uniformity of development by allowing the new home to have a front yard setback of 35’-7” instead of the required front yard setback of 86’-7”. The proposed modification of the front yard setback to 35’-7” promotes such uniformity by aligning the new home’s setback with the majority of properties in the immediate vicinity. Specifically, most properties along S. 8th Avenue, between Camino 8 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 5 of 10 Grove Avenue and Pamela Circle, have front yard setbacks of 36’-0” or less, with the exception of the adjacent property at 1411 S. 8th Avenue, which has an unusually deep setback of 86’-7”. This adjacent property represents an outlier in the neighborhood, and requiring the subject property to meet the 59’-8” setback standard would place the home disproportionately far back on the lot, resulting in a significantly smaller rear yard and limiting privacy for the residents. By reducing the front yard setback to 35’-7”, the proposed modification reflects the prevailing pattern of setbacks in the area, creating a more consistent streetscape while minimizing the impact on neighboring properties. Furthermore, this adjustment does not result in any negative effects on neighboring homes and supports a more appropriate scale and design for the property within the context of the existing neighborhood. Therefore, the requested modification would promote uniformity of development, as it ensures that the new home integrates more harmoniously with its surroundings and aligns with the established character of the neighborhood. Site Plan and Design Review The following findings are required for the approval of a Site Plan and Design Review pursuant to Development Code Section 9107.19.050.F. 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulations in the Development Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed two-story single-family home meets all relevant development standards for the Single-Family (R-1) zone. The design integrates all the minimum requirements, including a three-car garage for parking, as well as compliance with the landscaping and site design standards. The project has been carefully reviewed to ensure it meets the Development Code and the City’s Single-Family Residential Guidelines. As a result, the project satisfies the intent of the applicable development standards. 2. The proposed development is compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed single-family home is thoughtfully designed to blend with the surrounding neighborhood and aligns with the City’s Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines. The Contemporary architectural style of the proposed home complements the diverse range of architectural styles in the area, which includes Mediterranean, Spanish, Traditional, and other architectural styles. While the neighborhood predominantly features Spanish, traditional, and Mediterranean architectural styles, the introduction of a contemporary design for the proposed single- family dwelling represents a thoughtful and respectful evolution of the area’s aesthetic composition. The proposed contemporary design has been carefully crafted to 9 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 6 of 10 complement the existing surroundings, incorporating elements that respect the scale, massing, and materiality of neighboring homes. Furthermore, the project’s design emphasizes quality craftsmanship, sustainability, and functionality, aligning with modern needs and lifestyles while maintaining harmony of the existing neighborhood. The design features emphasize strong horizontal and vertical planes, along with all other defining features of Contemporary architecture to ensure it is harmonious with the existing built environment. Therefore, the proposed development will not only meet the standards set forth in the Single-Family Residential Guidelines, but also enhance the visual cohesion of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed reduction in the required front yard setback will not adversely affect the adequacy or efficiency of the site layout. The project has been designed to provide safe and convenient access from the public right-of-way, with clearly defined driveways and pedestrian paths that ensure efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the site. The proposed garage is appropriately located and sized to meet code requirements. Additionally, the landscaping plan maintains a high standard of visual quality and includes sufficient planting to soften the building frontage and enhance the public streetscape, even with the reduced setback. As a result, the proposed development provides an overall site layout that remains functional and visually cohesive, and the reduced setback does not compromise the project’s ability to meet the intent of zoning and design standards. 4. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040(C.5). Facts to Support This Finding: All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. Additionally, the proposed development will be in compliance with the General Plan, Development Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, and all other applicable City regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3 and Class 5 categorical exemptions, as it involves the new construction of a single-family residence and a minor alteration to land use limitations, in accordance with Sections 15303(a) and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 5 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. 10 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 7 of 10 PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS A public hearing notice for this item was posted at the City Clerk’s Office, City Council Chambers, at the Arcadia Library, and on the City’s website on April 10, 2025. It was also mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of the completion of this report, no comments were received regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve SFADR 24-26, and PC AM 25- 01, find that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt Resolution No. 2166, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant/Property Owner in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01. 2. A comprehensive landscaping plan, prepared in compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), shall be submitted to Building Services for plan check. The plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and is subject to the review and approval by Planning. 3. The existing perimeter fence/wall shall be replaced with a new six-foot (6’-0”) high wall, measured from the lowest adjacent grade, and set back a minimum of two inches (2”) inside the property line. The new wall shall be finished with stucco to match the exterior of the primary residence and include a decorative trim cap. Final design and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division during the plan check process. No new fence or wall is permitted within the front yard area, under this approval. Any changes shall be subject to a separate review and approval. 4. The new pool equipment shall comply with the minimum side yard setback of 9’- 3”, and it shall be screened per the requirements under Development Code Section 9103.01.080. 5. The plans submitted for Building plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code 11 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 8 of 10 f. California Fire Code g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code i. Arcadia Municipal Code 6. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Deputy Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the 12 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 9 of 10 Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. 7. Approval of SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has approved the appeal. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move to approve Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-01, state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2166 that incorporates the requisite environmental and subdivision findings, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission is to deny this project, the Commission should state the specific findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific reasons for denial, and move to deny Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25- 01, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates 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 April 22, 2025, hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Melissa Chipres, at (626) 574-5447, or by email at mchipres@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: 13 SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 1408 S. 8th Ave April 22, 2025 Page 10 of 10 Lisa L. Flores Deputy Development Services Director Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2166 Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo and Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property Attachment No. 3: Architectural Plans Attachment No. 4: Historical evaluation Attachment No. 5: Preliminary Environmental Assessment 14 Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Resolution No. 2166 15 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2166 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 24-26 AND PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-01 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK MODIFICATION OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 1405 S. 8TH AVENUE WHEREAS, applications for Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Planning Commission Administrative Modification PC AM No. 25-01 were filed, by Eric Tsang on behalf of the property owner, Joe Ho, requesting approval to construct a new 4,362 square foot, two-story home with an attached 671 square foot three-car garage and a 78 square foot front porch with a modification for a front yard setback of 35’-7” in lieu of the required front yard setback of 59’-8” (collectively, “Project”); and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025, Planning Services completed an environmental assessment for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the Project qualifies as a Class 3 and Class 5 Categorical Exemptions under CEQA pursuant to sections 15303(a) and 15305 from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pertaining to the new construction of a single-family house and a minor alteration to the land use limitations per the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said application, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. 16 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the staff report dated April 22, 2025, are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that based upon the entire record, pursuant to Section 9107.05.050 of the Arcadia Development Code, at least one of the following findings can be made. 1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Promote uniformity of development This Commission further finds that the Project is consistent with the City’s Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, pursuant to Section 9107.19.050 of the Arcadia Development Code. FACT: The proposed modification will promote uniformity of development by allowing the new home to have a front yard setback of 35’-7” instead of the required front yard setback of 59’-8”. The proposed modification of the front yard setback to 35’-7” promotes such uniformity by aligning the new home’s setback with the majority of properties in the immediate vicinity. Specifically, most properties along S. 8th Avenue, between Camino Grove Avenue and Pamela Circle, have front yard setbacks of 36’-0” or less, with the exception of the adjacent property at 1411 S. 8th Avenue, which has an unusually deep setback of 86’-7”. This adjacent property represents an outlier in the neighborhood, and requiring the subject property to meet the 59’-8” setback standard 17 3 would place the home disproportionately far back on the lot, resulting in a significantly smaller rear yard and limiting privacy for the residents. By reducing the front yard setback to 35’-7”, the proposed modification reflects the prevailing pattern of setbacks in the area, creating a more consistent streetscape while minimizing the impact on neighboring properties. Furthermore, this adjustment does not result in any negative effects on neighboring homes and supports a more appropriate scale and design for the property within the context of the existing neighborhood. Therefore, the requested modification would promote uniformity of development, as it ensures that the new home integrates more harmoniously with its surroundings and aligns with the established character of the neighborhood. Architectural Design Review The following findings are required for the approval of a Site Plan and Design Review pursuant to Development Code Section 9107.19.050.F. 1. The proposed development is in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulations in the Development Code. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed two-story single-family home meets all relevant development standards for the Single-Family (R-1) zone. The design integrates all the minimum requirements, including a three-car garage for parking, as well as compliance with the landscaping and site design standards. The project has been carefully reviewed to ensure it meets the Development Code and the City’s Single-Family Residential Guidelines. As a result, the project satisfies the intent of the applicable development standards. 18 4 2. The proposed development is compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments. Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed single-family home is thoughtfully designed to blend with the surrounding neighborhood and aligns with the City’s Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines. The Contemporary architectural style of the proposed home complements the diverse range of architectural styles in the area, which includes Mediterranean, Spanish, Traditional, and other architectural styles. While the neighborhood predominantly features Spanish, traditional, and Mediterranean architectural styles, the introduction of a contemporary design for the proposed single-family dwelling represents a thoughtful and respectful evolution of the area’s aesthetic composition. The proposed contemporary design has been carefully crafted to complement the existing surroundings, incorporating elements that respect the scale, massing, and materiality of neighboring homes. Furthermore, the project’s design emphasizes quality craftsmanship, sustainability, and functionality, aligning with modern needs and lifestyles while maintaining harmony of the existing neighborhood. The design features emphasize strong horizontal and vertical planes, along with all other defining features of Contemporary architecture to ensure it is harmonious with the existing built environment. Therefore, the proposed development will not only meet the standards set forth in the Single-Family Residential Guidelines, but also enhance the visual cohesion of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping. 19 5 Facts to Support This Finding: The proposed reduction in the required front yard setback will not adversely affect the adequacy or efficiency of the site layout. The project has been designed to provide safe and convenient access from the public right-of-way, with clearly defined driveways and pedestrian paths that ensure efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the site. The proposed garage is appropriately located and sized to meet code requirements. Additionally, the landscaping plan maintains a high standard of visual quality and includes sufficient planting to soften the building frontage and enhance the public streetscape, even with the reduced setback. As a result, the proposed development provides an overall site layout that remains functional and visually cohesive, and the reduced setback does not compromise the project’s ability to meet the intent of zoning and design standards. 4. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040(C.5). Facts to Support This Finding: All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees. Additionally, the proposed development will be in compliance with the General Plan, Development Code, the City’s Design Guidelines, and all other applicable City regulations. SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission determines that the Project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a) and 15305 of the California 20 6 Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, and approves Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 24-26 and Administrative Modification No. PC AM 25-01 for the construction of a new 4,362 square foot, two-story home with an attached 671 square foot three-car garage and a 78 square foot front porch with a modification for a front yard setback of 35’-7” in lieu of the required front yard setback of 59’-8” at 1405 S 8th Ave, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 22nd day of April, 2025. ______________________ Marilynne Wilander Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: ______________________ Lisa L. Flores Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Michael J. Maurer City Attorney 21 7 Page Intentionally Left Blank 22 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2166 Conditions of Approval 1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Applicant/Property Owner in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01. 2. A comprehensive landscaping plan, prepared in compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), shall be submitted to Building Services for plan check. The plan must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and is subject to the review and approval by Planning. 3. The existing perimeter fence/wall shall be replaced with a new six-foot (6’-0”) high wall, measured from the lowest adjacent grade, and set back a minimum of two inches (2”) inside the property line. The new wall shall be finished with stucco to match the exterior of the primary residence and include a decorative trim cap. Final design and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division during the plan check process. No new fence or wall is permitted within the front yard area, under this approval. Any changes shall be subject to a separate review and approval. 4. The new pool equipment shall comply with the minimum side yard setback of 9’- 3”, and it shall be screened per the requirements under Development Code Section 9103.01.080. 5. The plans submitted for Building plan check shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable: a. California Building Code b. California Electrical Code c. California Mechanical Code d. California Plumbing Code e. California Energy Code f. California Fire Code g. California Green Building Standards Code h. California Existing Building Code i. Arcadia Municipal Code 6. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Deputy Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 23 9 Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agents, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contractors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will cooperate in the defense of the matter. The Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fallen below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i) a final, non- appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not. 7. Approval of SFADR 24-26 and PC AM 25-01 shall not be in effect unless the Property Owner/Applicant has executed and filed the Acceptance Form with the City on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission has approved the project. The Acceptance Form to the Development Services Department is to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. ---- 24 Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Site 25 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): R-1 (7,500) Number of Units: LDR Property Characteristics 1932 958 1 Property Owner Site Address:1405 S 8TH AVE Parcel Number: 5780-012-012 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A N/A N/A Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Report generated 03-Apr-2025 Page 1 of 1 26 Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Architectural Plans 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Historical evaluation 37 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 7 Resource Name or #:1405 S. 8th Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: El Monte, CA Date: 1994 T1N; R 11W; S.B.B.M. c. Address: 1405 S. 8th Avenue City: Arcadia Zip: 91006 d. UTM: Zone: 11; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) AIN: 5780-012-012 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This one-and-a-half story Tudor Revival style residence is situated on the west side of S. 8th Avenue in a residential neighborhood with a mix of modern and historic-period (50 years of age or older) homes. The residence is irregular in plan and rests on a raised foundation. It has a steeply pitched, cross-gable roof sheathed with composition shingles and has narrow eaves, exposed rafter tails, and a stuccoed chimney. The exterior walls are covered with stucco and half-timbering. The asymmetrical, east-facing façade is largely obscured from view by vegetation and sunshades. Based on Google street view photographs from 2012 (see page 3) and the current field survey, the façade has a shed roofed addition, a covered entry porch that shelters what appear to be wood-framed windows (the door is not visible), a projecting central bay with two canales and half timbering in the gable peak, a modern (installed after 2012) window in the gable peak, what appears to be a wood-framed ribbon window with narrow double-hung end vents (2012 photo), and a what appears to be a modern single-hung window flanked by one shutter (2012 photo). The north elevation adjacent to the driveway is partially visible and has half-timbering and a few windows. Based on aerial photographs, there is a very large building behind the residence that appears to be composed of several additions and may be attached to the rear (west elevation) of the house. The property appears to be in fair condition, but the residence has sustained at alterations (window in the gable peak and additions). *P3b. Resource Attributes: (Original uses) HP2-Single-family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Façade, view west (8/20/24) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1932 (Building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Joe and Diane Ho 1405 S. 8th Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Casey Tibbet, M.A. LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92507 *P9. Date Recorded: August 20, 2024 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level CEQA compliance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") None. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) See Continuation Sheet 38 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 7 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1405 S. 8th Avenue B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Single-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival (altered) *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 1932 – Permit issued to owner Bertha C. Wright. Builder listed as Charles L. Arthur. 1934 – Note on back of permit says “cesspool (Williams)” 1960 – Permit issued to owner Harold Hanes for sewer. 1973 – Permit issued to owner Richard L. Boske for electrical work. 1974 – Permit issued to owner Richard L. Boske for sewer repair. 1976 – Permits issued to owner Richard L. Boske illegible permit for new construction, electrical permit for power outlet in new building. 1979 - Historic aerial photographs show a large building behind the primary residence (Historicaerials.com var.). 1992 – Historic aerial photographs clearly show the addition to the south end of the residence (Historicaerials.com var.). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: None found b. Builder: Charles L. Arthur *B10. Significance: Theme: Area: Period of Significance: Property Type: Applicable Criteria: NA (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) This altered 1932 Tudor Revival residence does not meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or designation under the City of Arcadia’s ordinance. It is not a “historical resource” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Historic Context: Originally owned by the San Gabriel Mission and then a part of Rancho Santa Anita, the land that includes present-day Arcadia was also owned by Scottish immigrant Hugo Reid (Architectural Resources Group 2016). Reid was the first to make a modern impact on the land, raising cattle and building the first structure. After a succession of owners, in 1875 Elias J. “Lucky” Baldwin purchased 8,000 acres of the rancho along with much of the surrounding area (Ibid.). He established the Baldwin Ranch in the area that now contains the Los Angeles County Arboretum in what would become Arcadia (Ibid.). Residential development from 1875 to 1909 is one of the first important themes in the City’s history (Architectural Resources Group 2016). See Continuation Sheet B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Ancestry.com Var. A variety of records were accessed online in August 2024 at: http://home.ancestry.com/. These include city directories, voter registration records, and United States Census Data. Arcadia Historical Society 2021 Arcadia History. Our History. Accessed online in September 2021 at: https://arcadiahistoricalsociety.org/arcadia-history/ Architectural Resources Group 2016 “City of Arcadia Citywide Historic Context Statement.” Accessed online at: https://www.arcadiaca.gov/government/city- departments/development-services/historic-preservation See Continuation Sheet B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Casey Tibbet, M.A., LSA Associates, Inc., 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, CA 92507 *Date of Evaluation: September 2024 (This space reserved for official comments.) (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) Refer to Location Map 39 DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 3 of 7 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1405 S. 8 th Avenue *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc.*Date:September 2024 X Continuation Update P5a. Photo (continued from page 1) 1405 S. 8th Avenue, view west (Google street view 2012). Shed roof addition is clearly visible at the south end of the façade. There is no window in the gable peak. *B10. Significance: (continued from page 2) In 1883, Baldwin subdivided 3,000 acres into the Santa Anita Tract (Architectural Resources Group 2016). The townsite included “town lots, villa sites, and larger 30-acre farm parcels (Architectural Resources Group 2016:27). Despite the construction of the Los Angeles & San Gabriel Valley Railroad (LA&SGVR) and one of its depots in the new townsite, sales were slow and “Baldwin deeded the remaining acreage of the Santa Anita Tract to his ranch manager Hiram Unruh” who had much greater success selling the lots (Ibid.). By 1887, the townsite was known as Arcadia and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (ATSF) had gained control of the LA&SGVR, bringing more traffic through the area (Ibid.). The densest development occurred in the core of the town near the intersection of the ATSF and Southern Pacific railroads (Architectural Resources Group 2016:33). Residential development in this part of town was on small lots, while development further south was on multi-acre parcels (Ibid.). As late as 1903, when a census was taken to ascertain the population of the proposed City of Arcadia, the area only had 642 residents, and many lived and worked on the Baldwin Ranch or were temporary residents working for the railroads (Ibid.). Regardless, with a booming economy increasingly based on entertainment, horse racing, hospitality, and gambling, Arcadia was incorporated in 1903, with Baldwin as its first mayor (Arcadia Historical Society 2021). In 1907, Baldwin established the first Santa Anita Park, a horse racetrack that was “billed as the most modern and beautiful in the nation” and quickly became the biggest attraction to the new city (Architectural Resources Group 2016:31). However, the track’s success was short-lived, as California banned horse racing in 1909 resulting in the closure of Santa Anita Park (Ibid.). Moving into the 1910s, Arcadia’s growth remained slow and steady (Architectural Resources Group 2016). However, the city began shifting away from “its sporting days to more respectable pursuits, as it outlawed liquor licensing in 1912 and embarked on a series of civic improvements” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:44). By 1915, electric streetlights had been installed in some areas and streets were graded and oiled (Ibid.). Residential development in the 1910s saw the subdivision of larger parcels into smaller ones (2.5 to 5 acres) that attracted a wider variety of buyers who were interested in a more suburban lifestyle with room for some agricultural pursuits (Architectural Resources Group 2016:49). Most of the 1910s subdivisions followed a grid pattern with graded and sometimes paved roads without curbs or sidewalks (Architectural Resources Group 2016). In 1917, Anita Baldwin sold the old 185-acre Santa Anita Park property to the County who deeded it to the federal government for use as a balloon training school (Architectural Resources Group 2016). Known as Ross Field, the facility included storehouses, barracks to house approximately 3,500 men, and enormous hangars for the hydrogen balloons, as well as many other buildings (Ibid.). This property later became Arcadia County Park. After World War I, the region thrived and the 1920s were a transformative period in Arcadia’s development (Ibid.). Residential subdivision accelerated with tracts designed in grid patterns like those of the 1910s, but with smaller lots (Architectural Resources Group 2016:36). Single-family residential construction dominated the period and this “firmly established the city as a community of single-family homes” setting the stage for the faster growth that was to come (Ibid.:49). Most of these new homes were modest in size and the earliest were constructed in the Craftsman style, with Period Revival styles becoming dominant in the mid-1920s and into the 1930s (Ibid.). Unlike earlier periods, home buyers were suburbanites who wanted a home with a little land for a small orchard or a few chickens and maybe a horse or cow (Architectural Resource Group 2016). This development pattern, which followed a rectilinear grid with graded and in some cases paved roads, became common in the southern part of town (Ibid.). (See Continuation Sheet) 40 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 4 of 7 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1405 S. 8th Avenue *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: September 2024 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 3) A typical example of this was the 300-acre tract bounded by 1st and 10th Avenues, Duarte Road, and today’s Camino Real Avenue (Ibid.). This tract was originally subdivided into two-and-a-half to five acre lots in 1910 and was subdivided into smaller lots in the postwar period. The subject property is within this area and, based on aerial photographs, consisted of a deeper lot with a small orchard into the early 1950s (Historicaerials.com var.). According to the city’s historic context statement (2016), buildings from this period are increasingly rare with Craftsman, Tudor Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival styles being the most common. The 1929 to 1941 period was characterized nationally by massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, but Arcadia was one of the few places that did not experience a near cessation of construction (Architectural Resources Group 2016:65). The major factors for this were Anita Baldwin selling off the remaining approximately 1,300 acres of the Baldwin Ranch; establishment of military facilities and the related increase in demand for commercial businesses; and construction of a county park, which was a large Works Progress Administration (WPA) project (Ibid.). “In 1933, California re-legalized horse race betting, and Anita Baldwin seized her opportunity to revive her father’s racetrack dream” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:55). She sold 214 acres to a group of investors who hired Gordon Kaufman to design the grandstand, Turf Club, and clubhouse and landscape designer Tommy Tomson to design the park’s lush landscaping (Ibid.). “Santa Anita Park opened on Christmas day, 1934, and quickly became Arcadia’s signature landmark” (Ibid.). Other Baldwin acreage was parceled out into several residential subdivisions that jumpstarted construction between 1936 and 1941 (Ibid.). Also in the late 1930s, Havenhurst, a development of modest homes on what was once rocky land east of Santa Anita Wash, was “the first project of mass production of houses in Arcadia” (Architectural Resources Group 2016:70). The Baldwin developments and Havenhurst were all located in the northern half of the city. With the end of World War II (WWII) and the return of thousands of veterans, Arcadia and the greater Los Angeles area saw an enormous increase in the development of affordable housing. Much of this development took the architectural vocabulary of the pre-war years and combined it into simplified styles suitable for mass developments and small-scale apartments (City of Los Angeles 2011). Development during the 1945-1970 period transformed the city from semi-rural to suburban, earning it the nickname a “Community of Homes” (Architectural Resources Group 2016). People Associated with this Residence. The residence was built in 1932 by Charles L. Arthur for owner Bertha C. Wright (City of Arcadia var.). Research indicates Charles L. Arthur was a contractor based in South Pasadena (Ancestry.com var.). His father, W. T. Arthur was reportedly a prominent builder in Chicago for 25 years prior to relocating to South Pasadena in 1924 (South Pasadena Foothill Review 1933). It appears that as early as 1920, Charles had his own carpenter business in Chicago and later became a real estate and insurance broker (Ancestry.com var.). A search of Los Angeles County news articles revealed that he came to California in 1924, built several homes, and was active in local organizations. In 1936 he ran for City Council in South Pasadena and in 1942 was the city health officer and chairman of the health and welfare committee (South Pasadena Foothill Review 1936; Pasadena Post 1942). No indication was found that he was a prominent or important home builder. Bertha C. Wright was listed as the original owner of the property (City of Arcadia var.). In 1928, 1932, and 1936, she was listed at 1415 8th Avenue, but in 1934 and 1937 she was at 1405 S. 8th Avenue (Ancestry.com var.). She retired from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office in 1937 (Pasadena Post 1937). By 1939, William James Syre was listed at 1405 S. 8th Avenue (Ancestry.com var.). Mr. Syre was born in England, married to Charlotte L. Syre, and worked as an accountant (Ibid.). He died in the house at age 72 in 1953 (Daily News-Post 1953). Although permits list Harold Hanes as the owner in 1960, from as early as 1959 to at least 1965, city directories list Jess A. Riley, a stock room manager for Penney’s, and his wife Doris I. at 1405 S. 8th (Ancestry.com var.). In 1969, city directories list the “Cox Residence” at this address (Ibid.). A 1970 permit lists Richard L. Boske as the owner (City of Arcadia var.). A Richard L. Baske was found in Arcadia in the late 1960s, but not at this address. No other information about the owners/occupants during the historic period was found. Tudor Revival Style. Character-defining features of the style include a high-pitched gable roof on the front elevation, stucco siding, rolled eaves, decorative half-timbering and/or patterned brickwork surrounding entryways, windows and on chimneys, prominently placed chimneys, and wood-frame, double-hung windows or diamond-paned casement windows. Significance Evaluation. In compliance with CEQA, this property is being evaluated under the California Register criteria and the City of Arcadia criteria for Landmarks (Chapter 1, Section 9103.17.060 of the City’s Municipal Code). The California Register criteria and 1-4 of the local criteria are identical, however, in addition to meeting one of the first four criteria, the local criteria also requires that the property either be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register (criterion 5) or be an iconic property (criterion 6). Because of this additional requirement, the local criteria are more restrictive than the California Register criteria. Therefore, it is possible for a resource to meet the California Register criteria, but not the local criteria. See Continuation Sheet 41 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 5 of 7 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1405 S. 8th Avenue *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: September 2024 X Continuation Update *B10. Significance: (continued from page 4) Criterion 1 - Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. This property is associated with early subdivision and growth in Arcadia from 1910 to 1935. According to the citywide historic context statement (2016), buildings constructed during this period may be significant for their association with the period’s pattern of development if they retain most of the features that illustrate their original style and appearance in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, and fenestration pattern (Architectural Resources Group 2016:52). The façade addition has changed the massing and proportion of the original residence, and the fenestration pattern has been altered by the installation of the window under the gable peak. The residence is not significant under this criterion. Criterion 2 - Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Based on the research discussed above, the residence does not appear to be associated with persons important in history. It is not significant under this criterion. Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. This residence embodies characteristics of the Tudor Revival style including the steeply pitched roof, decorative half-timbering, and stucco siding. However, it has sustained façade alterations and compared to other similar residences in the city, does not rise to a level beyond the ordinary. No evidence was found that it is the work of a master architect or builder, and it does not posses high artistic values. It is not significant under this criterion Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. This residence was built in 1932 using common materials and construction practices. It does not have the potential to yield information important to the history or prehistory of the local area, California, or the nation. It is not significant under this criterion. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the local ordinance requires that one of the following criteria be met. Local Criterion 5 – Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources. The online National Register database (current through 2012) and the National Register weekly lists from 2013 through the present, were searched, but no listings for this property were found (National Park Service n.d.a and n.d.b). In addition, the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) was reviewed to determine whether this property is listed in or is eligible for listing in either the National Register or California Register (California Office of Historic Preservation 2021). It is not significant under this criterion. Local Criterion 6 – Is an iconic property. According to the City’s ordinance, iconic means a property that “exhibits the City’s unique character, history, or identity and/or has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Arcadia” (9103.17.160 Definitions). This residence has sustained alterations and does is not a good example of the City’s unique character, history, or identity. Online searches of historic images of Arcadia did not reveal any photos of this property. It is not significant under this criterion. *B12. References: (continued from page 2) California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2022 Built Environment Resource Directory for Los Angeles County. Accessed online in August 2024 at: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 City of Arcadia Var. Building permits for 1405 S. 8th Avenue. Accessed online in August 2024 at: https://laserfiche.arcadiaca.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=537578&cr=1 City of Los Angeles 2011 Jefferson Park HPOZ Preservation Plan, City of Los Angeles. On file at the City of Los Angeles. Daily News-Post 1953 Death Claims Arcadian, 72. November 21, page 14. Historicaerials.com Var. Various aerial photographs reviewed in August 2024 at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer See Continuation Sheet 42 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI # Trinomial Page 6 of 7 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1405 S. 8th Avenue *Recorded by LSA Associates, Inc. *Date: September 2024 X Continuation Update *B12. References: (continued from page ) Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor n.d. Property information accessed online in August 2024 at: https://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/m/ National Park Service n.d.a National Register Database and Research. Accessed online in August 2024 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-list.htm n.d.b Weekly Lists Previous Years. Accessed online in August 2024 at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/weekly-lists- previous-years.htm Pasadena Post 1937 Graduation of Retiring County Employes Dec. 23. December 16, page 7. 1942 Reports Show Progress Of Defense Work. September 4, page 5. South Pasadena Foothill Review 1933 Former Club Leader Dies Suddenly In South Pasadena. November 24, page 1. 1936 Chales Arthur Seeks Two-Year Council Term. March 13, page 1. 43 44 Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Preliminary Environmental Assessment 45 Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT 1.Name or description of project:SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 24-26 AND PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION NO. PC AM 25-01 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): 1405 S 8th Ave – The subject site is located between E Camino Grove Ave and Pamela Cir. 3.Entity or person undertaking project: A. B.Other (Private) (1)Name Eric Tsang on behalf of Joe Ho (2)Address 1405 S 8th Ave. Arcadia, Ca. 91007 4.Staff Determination: The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the Lead Agency'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: Class 3 and Class 5 Categorical Exemptions under CEQA pursuant to sections 15303(a) and 15305. New construction of a single-family house and a minor alteration to the land 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: March 4, 2025 Staff: Melissa Chipres, Senior Planner 46 ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2025 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. CALL TO ORDER Chair Wilander called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, Arvizu, Hui (arrived at 7:47 p.m.), and Tsoi ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Deputy Development Services Director Lisa Flores stated that we received a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) regarding Item No. 1 and that proposed changes to the accessory structure regulations were made in response to their concerns. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) There were none. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 1 was continued from the February 25, 2025, public hearing. 1. Resolution No. 2159 – Recommending that City Council approve Text Amendment No. TA 24- 01 (Ordinance No. 2401) amending various sections of the Arcadia Development Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units, regulations to the Residential (RF) Overlay, and other minor amendments and text cleanups CEQA: Exempt Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2159 and forward a Recommendation to City Council Applicant:City of Arcadia – Development Services MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Wilander introduced the item, and Ms. Flores reminded the Planning Commission that this item was pulled from the Consent Calendar at the last meeting for further discussion. After much discussion, the Commission decided to reconsider the entire text amendment at tonight’s meeting. For the record this item was continued pursuant to Government Code Section 54955.1 Additionally, Ms. Flores mentioned that she had submitted proposed changes to the Planning Commission regarding the regulations under “accessory structures,” in response to the letter received from CalHDF. The confusion stemmed from a misinterpretation between two separate regulations—specifically, the existing rules about detached accessory structures were being conflated with those related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The proposed changes do not alter the original intent of the regulations but aim to eliminate any ambiguity, particularly regarding the maximum limit of two structures, which applies only to detached accessory structures, not ADUs. 47 2 3/11/2025 Commissioner Arvizu pointed out Item B of the proposed changes on page 36 of the agenda packet and asked if the General Plan cannot be applied to the zoning regulations of ADUs. Ms. Flores said yes because they are allowed by-right. Commissioner Arvizu asked if Resolution No. 2159 negates his points regarding the text amendment contradicting the General Plan. Ms. Flores said yes. Vice Chair Tallerico asked if this is with exception for health and safety. Ms. Flores said yes. Commissioner Arvizu asked how the City defines “public view” when referring to ADUs. Ms. Flores stated that it means visible from the City right-of-way. Commissioner Arvizu asked how that was applied to a corner lot. Ms. Flores explained that the ADU can be concealed with landscaping and/or built in an area at the rear of the property where it is not visible from the street. Commissioner Arvizu referred to a current ADU that is being constructed on a corner lot in the Highlands area and stated that it is visible from the street. He asked how it was approved. Ms. Flores stated she is not familiar with the project and will look into it. Commissioner Arvizu asked how the ADU would be concealed if landscape screening was no longer required. Ms. Flores clarified that the property owner can still propose hedges and/or trees for privacy as long as the plants do not interfere with access to the rescue windows per the Fire Department. Commissioner Tsoi asked what the required setback of an ADU is for the street side of a corner lot. Planning Services Manager Fiona Graham stated that per State law, the setback is (4) four feet for the side and rear. However, the State does not distinguish between an interior side setback or street-side setback. Vice Chair Tallerico stated that the visibility of ADUs could be irrelevant, as long as it does not impact health or safety. Ms. Flores confirmed this, noting that the City still retains authority over certain aspects of ADUs, which can be regulated through objective design standards. Commissioner Tsoi commented that their role as Commissioners is to shape the physical environment and pointed out that accessory structures are permitted and the only difference between an ADU and accessory structures is a kitchen. 48 3 3/11/2025 The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers present for Item No. 1. Vice Chair Tallerico made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Arvizu seconded the motion. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Vice Chair Tallerico shared his experience at the Planning Commissioners Academy, including discussions with Commissioners from other municipalities. He stated that complying with State law would be in the City’s best interest, and that denying the text amendment could place both the City and staff in a weaker position. Commissioner Arvizu concurred with the Vice Chair regarding State law. He does not agree with the State’s regulations regarding ADUs but understands the alternative would be worse for the City. He stated that he is not in favor of the changes to the ADU Ordinance because it is not the right thing for Arcadia. Chair Wilander stated that denying approval could lead to complications and therefore expressed support for recommending approval. Commissioner Arvizu asked what his options are for voting. Assistant City Attorney Kellan Martz explained that he could only vote yay, nay or abstain. He added that his comments could still be shared with the City Council. MOTION It was moved by Vice Chair Tallerico, seconded by Commissioner Tsoi to adopt Resolution No. 2159, recommending that the City Council approve Text Amendment No. TA 24-01 (Ordinance No. 2401) amending various sections of the Arcadia Development Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units, regulations to the Residential Flex (RF) Overlay, and other minor amendments and text cleanups in which the findings were made and is CEQA exempt. Commissioner Arvizu made a substitute motion, seconded by Vice Chair Tallerico, to also submit a letter to the City Council outlining the Planning Commission’s concerns about the changes to the ADU Ordinance as required by State law. Mr. Martz informed the Commissioner that a letter cannot be included, as not all Commissioners share the same concern. However, he noted that a statement can be made for the record, which will be shared with the City Council. Vice Chair Tallerico withdrew his second. Since there were no other second, the motion failed. ROLL CALL FOR THE FIRST MOTION 49 4 3/11/2025 AYES: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, and Tsoi NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hui ABSTAINED: Commissioner Arvizu 2. Resolution No. 2165 – Recommending that City Council approve Text Amendment No. TA 25- 01 adding a new section 9103.16 to Article IX, Chapter 1 (Development Code) of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and associated in-lieu Development fee Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2165 and forward a Recommendation to City Council Applicant: City of Arcadia – Development Services MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Wilander introduced the item, and Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg presented the staff report. Commissioner Hui arrived at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Tsoi asked if projects more than 20 units can pay an in-lieu fee or if it is required to provide affordable housing units. Mr. Kruckeberg clarified that the in-lieu fee only applies to leasing developments. Commissioner Tsoi asked how the in-lieu fee scale was determined. Kathe Head introduced herself as the author of the financial study and explained how the in-lieu fees were developed differently for ownership and leasing. Commissioner Tsoi asked at what point in the process will the in-lieu fee need to be paid. Mr. Kruckeberg stated that while the structure can vary, it has yet to be determined when the in- lieu fees will be required to be paid. Commissioner Arvizu asked if the City has a plan for the funds from the in-lieu fees. Mr. Kruckeberg explained that a trust fund will be established to subsidize affordable housing, and the method for utilizing the funds will require City Council approval. Commissioner Arvizu asked whether the City has an estimate of how much funding might be collected, based on the experience of other municipalities with similar Inclusionary Housing ordinances. He also inquired who will determine how the funds are used. Mr. Kruckeberg stated that a recommendation can be made, and the City Council will ultimately make the decision. Commissioner Arvizu asked how much of a project will be subsidized. 50 5 3/11/2025 Mr. Kruckeberg and Ms. Head explained that it will depend on several factors, such as the amount of money in the trust fund and the actions taken by the City Council. Vice Chair Tallerico asked Ms. Head to clarify what is likely to happen with the developments that are fewer than 10 units. Ms. Head stated that the most likely scenario is that developments will build one less than the amount subject to the affordable housing requirement and sell for market rate. Vice Chair Tallerico asked whether it is likely that developers will increase the prices of the market- rate units to offset the cost of the required affordable housing units. Ms. Head stated that developers may choose to build below the minimum requirement to avoid triggering the affordable housing requirements. Vice Chair Tallerico asked what the housing median income is for Arcadia. Ms. Head explained that, for purposes of affordable housing, Arcadia’s median income is considered the same as that of Los Angeles County, and that median income varies depending on household size. Commissioner Hui asked how the in-lieu fee is calculated for rentals and whether developers could later decide to convert the development into for-sale units to avoid paying the in-lieu fee. Ms. Head said that in lieu-fees are applied depending on the completed project. Ms. Flores explained that once the project is subdivided and the final map is approved, the units are committed to being for-sale. Vice Chair Tallerico asked how the low-income level can be higher than the median income level. Ms. Head explained that the California Housing and Community Department determines the median income level, but due to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) statutes, income levels are adjusted and therefore exceed the median income level. Vice Chair Tallerico asked who determines the median income level. Ms. Head said HUD determines the median income level. Commissioner Hui asked how much money the City would need to collect in the trust-fund in order to build subsidized housing units. Mr. Kruckeberg said there is currently no goal in place, and it all depends on how much money is collected. The public hearing was opened. Arcadia resident, Mike Veerman, introduced himself and spoke in favor of inclusionary housing. He said that as a person of faith, he believes the right thing to do is care for the most vulnerable members of the community and that includes ensuring there is affordable housing. He added that 51 6 3/11/2025 “low-income” encompasses a wide range of people in a diversity of careers all who would benefit from affordable housing. Commissioner Arvizu made a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tsoi seconded the motion. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Chair Wilander concurred with Mr. Veerman, stating that many cities have already implemented Inclusionary Housing, and it is nothing new. She expressed her support for the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Vice Chair Tallerico stated that he does not have an issue with the Resolution but believes that market forces are more effective than bureaucratic policies. He added that it is important to maintain local control over issues such as housing. Commissioner Tsoi expressed his support for the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and commended staff for drafting a well-written document. He stated that this is a positive step toward addressing affordable housing. Commissioner Arvizu thanked staff for their hard work on preparing the proposal. He acknowledged that housing is a significant issue and highlighted the lack of affordable housing in Arcadia. He added that this project represents a positive step in the right direction. Commissioner Hui stated she disagrees, believing that Inclusionary Housing is not the solution to the lack of affordable housing. While she acknowledged that this is a well written ordinance, she expressed that she would not approve it. Chair Wilander thanked staff for their efforts in preparing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Tsoi, seconded by Vice Chair Tallerico to adopt Resolution No. 2165, recommending that the City Council approve Text Amendment No. TA 25-01 adding a new section 9103.16 to Article IX, Chapter 1 (Development Code) of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance associated in-lieu Development fee in which the findings were made and is CEQA exempt. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Wilander, Vice Chair Tallerico, Commissioners Arvizu and Tsoi NOES: Commissioner Hui ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the February 25, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 52 7 3/11/2025 Recommendation: Approve Vice Chair Tallerico motioned to approve the minutes and seconded by Commissioner Tsoi. ROLL CALL AYES: Vice Chair Tallerico, Commissioners Arvizu, Hui, and Tsoi NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Member Wang had nothing to report. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS Commissioner Hui extended an invitation to a concert hosted by the Arcadia Performing Arts Foundation on April 5. MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Assistant City Attorney Martz thanked staff for their efforts in preparing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Flores informed the Commission of the following: Both text amendments will be before the City Council on April 1. The March 25 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. The Appeal of Arcadia Town Center Appeal will be heard before the City Council on March 18. The Volunteers Recognition Dinner will be held on April 3 at the Le Meridien Hotel. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m., to Tuesday, March 25, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Chair Wilander, Planning Commission 53 8 3/11/2025 ATTEST: Lisa L. Flores Secretary, Planning Commission 54