HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-9-09PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
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.
1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE REVIEW PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES
Citywide
The Planning Commission will consider the proposed land use designations and review land use alternatives for the
General Plan Study areas in order to make a recommendation to the City Council.
2. MODIFICATION NO. MC 09 -02 and SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 09 -05 Referred by Modification Committee
1227 South Tenth Avenue
Sergio Gonzalez (Architect representing property owner, Helen Yung Wan)
The applicant is requesting the following modifications and architectural design review for a detached accessory living
quarter /guest house:
1. A full kitchen where one is not allowed;
2. A livable floor area of 998 square feet in lieu of 600 square feet maximum allowed; and
3. Two (2) bedrooms, a laundry room, and two (2) bathrooms in lieu of one (1) bedroom and one (1) bathroom allowed.
RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval
There is a five working day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2009.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -05 Continued from April 28, 2009
715 South First Avenue
UEC Enterprises, Inc., dba Yale Education Institute (Lessee)
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,150 square-foot tutoring center with up to 30 students on the
ground floor of an existing commercial/residential mixed -use building. The hours of operation will be 10:00 a.m. to 7 :00
p.m., seven days a week.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial
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
6 -9 -09
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
Ben Reiling (Property Owner)
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to legalize an existing auto garage for the maintenance and storage
of collectible vehicles in an existing 6,200 square -foot warehouse, and to legalize a non permitted 600 square foot
canopy.
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 ITEM
5. MINUTES OF MAY 12, 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
6 -9 -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 Hearing Procedure
1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
2. The Planning report is presented by staff.
3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning report may be 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 acts on the proposal and either approves, approves with conditions or modifications,
denies the application, or continues it to a certain 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. (There is a five working
day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution).
12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five working day
appeal period.
13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan
Amendments, the 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 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
6 -9 -09
June 9, 2009
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development.Services Director
Lisa Flores, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
SUBJECT: General Plan Update Review of the Proposed Land Use Concepts
Like all cities in California, the City of Arcadia relies on its General Plan to provide
guidance with respect to land use, development and related policy matters. The
General Plan addresses the physical development and redevelopment of the City and a
variety of topics that ultimately affect the quality of life in Arcadia, including traffic
circulation, community design, open space, conservation, parks and recreation,
housing, public safety, noise, and economic development.
The City's existing General Plan was last updated in 1996 and the Housing Element
updated in 2001. Given that thirteen years have passed since the Plan was last
updated, it is critical that the plan be updated in a timely manner to ensure it is in
compliance with the State's requirements and reflects the values and priorities of the
community.
The City retained the consulting services of Hogle- Ireland, Inc., and executed an
agreement last year to complete the project within a two -year period. Additionally, a
General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was established which consists of thirteen
(13) members that are comprised of representatives of one City Commission, key
stakeholders, and residents of the community. The focus of the GPAC is to provide the
varied perspectives of the community. The group has met monthly and played a critical
role in assisting Staff and the consultant with the development of the Plan's goals,
objectives and policies. The GPAC also developed the Plan's Guiding Principles
(Attachment No. 1), which are the foundation of the document.
A number of outreach efforts have been made to the community to retain feedback and
gain insight on existing and proposed development projects, redevelopment efforts,
traffic, housing, and conservation. Specifically, Staff along with the consultant held a
community workshop during the Police Department's Open House and Safety Fair,
June 9, 2009
General Plan Update
Page 1
which was attended by 150 residents. The feedback received at that workshop has
been extremely valuable as has input received at a second workshop regarding the
Downtown. The Downtown Workshop, which was held at the Arcadia Women's Club,
helped define a desired "look and feel" for the downtown area and identified the
outstanding concerns of the community. In addition the Staff and the Consultant have
presented to or participated in events at the Chamber of Commerce such as Asian
Business Night, Government Affairs Forum, and the Business Expo at Westfield.
The General Plan must address many issues which are related to and influence land
use decisions. Specifically, in addition to land use, State law requires that the General
Plan address circulation, housing, the conservation of natural resources, the
preservation of open space, the noise environment, and public safety.
DISCUSSION
The focus of the last several GPAC meetings has been land use. The GPAC, Staff, and
the consultants developed ten "focus areas" for land use and worked to establish a
vision for the future development of these areas.
The preliminary land use concept was presented to the City Council /Planning
Commission in a joint study session on February 24, 2009. The City Council /Planning
Commission agreed that the land use concept was appropriate, but felt that the
recommendations for mixed use development were too aggressive overall and could
result in too much change.
In response to the direction established by the City Council /Planning Commission, the
General Plan team and GPAC has proposed revisions to limit the mixed use
designations in the Downtown and Live Oak Corridor, and revised the land use
alternatives for four areas: 1) Foothill Boulevard; 2) Downtown; 3) Duarte Road /First
Avenue; and 4) Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road. In summary, the proposed changes are:
1. Limit Mixed -Use designations to Downtown, First Avenue and Live Oak.
2. High Density Residential Land Use Designation Increase the
maximum density from 24 to 30 units per acre. The change is
consistent with the densities already in place in many high density
areas and is intended to serve as an incentive for owners of high
density properties to reuse their land. It will also provide a focused
opportunity for additional housing.
3. Change the Commercial /Light Industrial designation in the Downtown
area to Commercial designation. The new designation is intended to
preserve some of the light industrial uses in the downtown area and to
encourage small scale office and neighborhood serving commercial
uses.
June 9, 2009
General Plan Update
Page 2
On May 12, 2009, Staff presented the overall plan process and the proposed land use
changes to the Planning Commission in a study session format. At that meeting, the
Planning Commission agreed with the revisions made to the land use concept following
the joint City Council /Planning Commission study session. The Commission felt that the
concept is appropriate and in -line with the goals and objectives of the City's long term
vision.
The GPAC met on May 21, 2009 to refine and finalize the recommendations. The
General Plan Potential Areas of Change Map is included as Attachment 2 and shows
the areas where these changes would occur. Attachment 3 provides the GPAC
recommendations for the proposed land use changes.
Build -out Tables
The build -out table estimates that all properties subject to a General Plan change will
develop at 80% of allowed density and intensity. The analysis and tables in Attachment
4 summarize the land use distribution, expected level of development anticipated within
each study area and city wide, and the resulting residential and nonresidential
outcomes that would be expected as a result of full implementation of the land use
concept.
The build -out capacity was estimated at 80% because it is a realistic "worst case"
scenario since many areas of the City are developed at 65 -75% of the maximum
allowed today. Estimating the build -out capacity at 100% is unrealistic because most
properties cannot be developed to the maximum permitted intensities and densities due
to the existing development standards required such as parking, setbacks, and lot
coverage.
The proposed land use concept would create a capacity of 2,945 additional dwelling
units and an estimated 8,110 additional residents. This estimate is in line with SCAG
population estimates for Arcadia. Approximately 78% of these new units would be
located within existing high density residential (R -3) areas throughout the City. This
change to the R -3 areas will not be a significant change in appearance or character
since a density of 30 units per acre is already in place in many of the existing high
density areas.
Economic Feasibility Analysis
As part of the General Plan program, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted
by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to evaluate the financial feasibility of
development prototypes at key locations within the City. The three prototype
development projects were located in two of the study areas, Downtown and Live Oak
Avenue corridor. The analysis examined the financial feasibility of development
projects under current land use policy and development standards, and a scenario that
reflected proposed increases to the intensity (height, coverage, residential density)
proposed in the General Plan. Factors considered in the analysis included floor area
ratio (FAR), lot coverage and height, residential density, parking and development
June 9, 2009
General Plan Update
Page 3
standards, development costs, revenue (income from rents and unit sales), and
estimated investment returns. The intent of the analysis is to examine whether the
current development standards are adequate to encourage development in the City and
if the proposed land use policies would improve or somehow affect the financial
feasibility of new development.
The hypothetical development projects include:
1. Site #1 (Downtown study area); office building located along Santa Anita
Avenue.
2. Site #2 (Downtown study area); mixed use development located in close
proximity to the future Gold Line Station.
3. Site #3 (Live Oak Avenue study area); mixed use and commercial
development along Live Oak Avenue.
Each of the sites chosen was evaluated under its existing allowed intensity and density
(Scenario 1), the proposed General Plan intensity and density (Scenario '2), and the
proposed General Plan intensity and density with specific site design components
(Scenario 3).
The accompanying analysis and summary tables in Attachment 5 provide a detailed
financial analysis of the three sites in the context of the various scenarios. The analysis
includes both direct and indirect development costs, and financing and closing costs for
both commercial and residential components of each development site. These costs
are compared against expected revenues and profits to determine what the resulting
land value would be. The higher the expected land value, the more feasible the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Review recommendations from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the
Staff /Consultant team, and forward a recommendation to the City Council on the land
use concept.
Approved By:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
ason Kruckeberg
Development Services Direct()
Guiding Principles
Potential Areas of Change Map
Proposed Land Use Changes
Build -out Analysis
Economic Feasibility Analysis
June 9, 2009
General Plan Update
Page 4
Attachment No. 1
What Are Guiding Principles?
Guiding Principles
Arcadia General Plan
Draft Guiding Principles
As refined by the general Plan advisory committee
September 25, 2008
"A state without some means of change is
without the means of its conservation."
Edmund Burke
Guiding Principles provide the foundation for the goals, policies, and implementation 'actions to be
included in the updated Arcadia General Plan. These Principles reflect community values they
provide a statement a Vision of future conditions in Arcadia. Each Principle provides clear direction
to policy makers, City staff, residents, and the business community regarding decisions and actions
that affect how the City functions and how development occurs. One Principle is not more important
than another; they all work together. Decisions and actions related to land use, circulation, housing,
public safety, open space, conservation, and community noise issues will be checked against these
Guiding Principles to ensure that such decisions and actions respond to the community Vision. While
no proposal can be expected to embody all of the principles, one that does not embrace these
Principles shall not be approved.
Balanced Growth and Development
The General Plan establishes a balance and mix of land uses that promote economic growth and
maintain a high quality of life for Arcadia residents. Our development decisions reflect Smart Growth
principles and strategies that move us toward enhanced mobility, more efficient use of resources and
infrastructure, and healthier lifestyles.
Connectivity
Arcadia has a balanced, integrated, multi -modal circulation system which includes streets, sidewalks,
bikeways, and trails that is efficient and safe, and that connects neighborhoods to jobs, shopping,
services, parks, and open space areas.
Neighborhood Character
Arcadia's single family and multi family residential neighborhoods have given the City its identity as a
"Community of -lomes." The City protects and preserves the character and quality of its
neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable
principles.
Schools
Our schools are a valuable community asset. The quality of the schools draws people to our City. We
remain committed to working with the school district to achieve mutually beneficial goals.
Cultural Diversity
We embrace and celebrate the cultural diversity of Arcadia. Our lives are enriched by the many
cultures that contribute their arts, food, values, and customs to our community. We promote activities
and programs that strengthen these community bonds.
Environmental Sustainability
We are committed to environmental sustainability, which means meeting the needs of the present
while conserving the ability of future generations to do the same. We take actions that work toward
achieving regional environmental quality goals, including those related to climate change. Arcadia
leads the way to a healthy environment by providing local government support, encouraging
partnerships, and fostering innovation in sustainable principles.
City Services
The high quality services the City provides are a source of civic pride and bring us together as a
community. We adjust service needs in response to demographic changes, and we take actions to
provide funding to support these services.
Changing Housing Needs
The City encourages the retention, rehabilitation, and development of diverse housing that meets
people's needs in all stages of their lives.
Economic Health
A healthy economy requires a diversified employment and fiscal base. Our priority is to create a
resilient and thriving local economy, accessible to local residents and responsive to local needs, with a
balance of regional- serving businesses that attract additional regional income. We are business
friendly.
Preservation of Special Assets
Arcadia's quality of life is enhanced by special places and features such as Santa Anita Park, the
County Arboretum and Park, a vibrant Downtown, the urban forest, attractive streetscapes, diverse
parks, historic buildings and places, and nearby views of the mountains. These assets are preserved
and enhanced so they continue to contribute to our City's character.
Attachment No. 2
Loam
Temple City
Oli tit
EI Monte
Lower Azusa Rd
Pasadena
Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre
Greve Av
Monrovia
Cobrade Bed
Foothill Blvd
Irwindale
LAND USE STUDY AREAS
1. Los Angeles County Debris Basin
2. Foothill Boulevard
3. Baldwin Avenue Multi- Family Neighborhood
4. Santa Anita Park
5. Downtown Arcadia
6. Duarte Road/First Avenue
7. Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road
8. Las Tunas Drive
9. Live Oak Avenue
10. Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area
PREFERRED LAND USE
Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac)
Vary Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac)
Low Density Residential (4-6 dulac)
Medium Density Residential (6-12 du /ac)
ligh Density Residential (12 -30 du/ac)
Commercial (0.5 FAR)
Regional Commercial (0.5 FAR)
Mixed Use 1 (22-30 dulac 1.0 FAR)
Arcadia General Plan Update
Mixed Use 2 (2230 du/ac 1.0 FAR)
Downtown Mixed Use (3050 du/ac 1.0 FAR)***
Fbrse Racing
Conrnercial/Light Industrial (0.6 FAR)
Public/lnstitutional
Open Space- Outdoor Recreation
Open Space- Resources Protection
Rail Right- of-Way
Huntington Drive Overlay (1.0 FAR)
Santa Anita Avenue O verlay (2.0 FAR)
Mixed Use Note:
Mixed Use FAR is for non residential uses.
Mixed Use I al lows for stand -alone residential uses.
Mixed Use 2 requires the inclusion of a commerical component
for all projects. Stand alone residential uses are not allowed.
Downtown Mixed Use allows for mixed use and stand -alone
residential or commercla l uses.
NOTE This is a draft document. The land use ideas and alternatives
presented in the documentrepresentsame d the maiy ideas that
have come fromthe community and through the General Plan Advisory
Comnitee. They are not pannedto be implemented atthis f me; these
alternatives are designed to provoke discussion and the generation
d Ceas for the future deeebpimnt of Arcadia.
STUDY AREAS
May 21, 2009
Attachment No. 3
Revisions to GPAC Land Use Alternatives'
At GPAC meetings #4 (January 29, 2009) and #5 (February 5, 2009) the GPAC
recommended land use alternatives for 10 study areas. On February 24, 2009, these
alternatives were presented to the City Council (CC) and Planning Commission (PC) in a
joint study session. During the meeting, City leaders expressed their reluctance to move
forward with the extent of mixed use proposed by the General Plan team and GPAC. For
two areas, Downtown and the Live Oak Corridor, the CC and PC did agree that these areas
would benefit from land use policies that encourage revitalization and development. This
more targeted approach to mixed -use still meets the GPAC's vision for future development.
In response to the direction established by the CC and PC, the General Plan team has
proposed revisions to the land use alternatives for four areas: Foothill Boulevard, Downtown,
Duarte Road /First Avenue, and Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road. In summary, the General Plan
team proposes to limit the mixed use designations to Downtown, First Avenue, and Live Oak
Avenue. On May 12, 2009, the revised alternatives were presented to the Planning
Commission. The Commission agreed with the revisions made to the land use concept since
it was originally presented to them. The Commission felt that the concept is appropriate and
in -line with the goals and objectives of the City's long term vision. Corresponding maps are
included at the end of this document that shows the proposed alternatives.
Changes to the Proposed Land Use Designations
ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
REVISED GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
June 2, 2009
High Density Residential Designation
The residential land use designations have been modified to maintain the same number of
residential designations (consistent with the currently adopted General Plan). Instead of the
additional residential designation originally proposed (at the highest density range) the
proposed land use plan will include the High Density Residential designation (similar to the
NOTE: This is a draft document. The land use ideas and alternatives presented in this document represent some of the
many ideas that have come from the community and through the General Plan Advisory Committee. They are not planned
to be implemented at this time; these alternatives are designed to provoke discussion and the generation of ideas for the
future development of Arcadia.
Multiple Family Residential 24 designation in the current general plan) which includes a
higher maximum density of 30 units per acre (as opposed to 24 units per acre). The
designation is being proposed only on properties that are already designated for high
density residential uses. This change is consistent with densities already in place in many
high density areas and is intended to serve as an incentive for owners of higher density
properties to recycle their land. It will also provide a focused opportunity for additional
housing while preserving established single family neighborhoods.
Downtown Commercial
The Commercial designation is proposed in place of the Commercial /Light Industrial
designation in the Downtown area only (roughly from Saint Joseph and Santa Clara Streets
up to the north side of La Porte Street). The new designation is intended to preserve some of
the healthy light industrial uses in the downtown area while encouraging small scale office
and neighborhood serving commercial uses.
Changes to the Land Use Study Areas
Downtown Arcadia Study
After further analysis in determining where and at what intensities mixed -use development
will be most effective, several changes were made to the Downtown proposed land use plan.
Staff and the consultant decided to reduce the areas designated as Downtown Mixed Use
(now roughly spanning from the south side of Wheeler Avenue up to Santa Clara Street) to
better focus the most intense, mixed use developments around the future Gold Line light rail
station. This strategy is intended to focus future development in the areas closest to the
proposed rail station and to create a vibrant and walkable neighborhood. A 1.0 Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) is proposed for the Downtown Mixed Use area. General Commercial uses are
proposed for the properties east of the Mixed Use area. Along Santa Anita Avenue, a height
overlay (2.0 FAR) is proposed to allow for a higher and more intense development along the
Santa Anita corridor (the area west of Santa Anita Avenue and west of Rolyn Place). Higher
intensity is also proposed along Huntington Drive (east of Santa Anita) through a 1.0 FAR.
Most of the remaining land north of the Downtown Mixed Use areas (roughly from Saint
Joseph and Santa Clara Streets up to the north side of La Porte Street) is proposed to be
planned for Commercial. This new designation is intended to preserve some of the healthy
Tight industrial uses in the area while encouraging small scale office and neighborhood
serving commercial uses.
The area along First Street (from south of Huntington Drive to Diamond Street) is
designated for Mixed Use 2 which allows mixed uses (residential and commercial) and stand
alone commercial uses. Stand alone residential uses are not allowed. The FAR for this area
will be 1.0.
Live Oak Avenue
The Live Oak Avenue corridor alternative has been modified to concentrate mixed use on
the south side of Live Oak between Santa Anita and Lenore Avenues and in key locations on
the north side of the corridor (NW and NE corners of Live Oak and Santa Anita Avenues).
The proposed mixed use areas along the corridor were identified due to the feasibility of
future mixed use development on those sites (due to location, lot sizes, or common ownership
patterns that may facilitate lot consolidation).
Acknowledging well established and use patterns, at the west end of the corridor (south side
of corridor between Welland and El Monte Avenues) key properties on are designated for
Commercial /Light Industrial while on the east end of the corridor properties (north side of
corridor between 4th and 6 Avenues) existing high density developments will continue to be
designated as Nigh Density Residential.
The remaining corridor will be designated commercial uses recognizing the importance of
maintaining commercial offerings along this corridor to serve surrounding neighborhoods.
Issues related to aesthetics, parking, and revitalization of the corridor as a whole will still be
addressed through policies in the General Plan.
Los Angeles County Debris Basin
Based on- discussions at the CC and PC study session, it is unlikely that the proposed land
use designation of Open Space Recreation will be accepted by City leaders. The General
Plan team believes it is important to designate this property open space, whether it includes
a recreation component or not. The GPAC's vision for recreational uses in the long -term
future can be addressed by creating policies that would guide City decision makers in the
event that the County was to cease using the property for flood control functions. The
proposal is to change the land use designation to Open Space Resource Protection.
Foothill Boulevard
The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation on
properties along Foothill Boulevard and instead apply the General Commercial designation
on those properties (similar to current General Pan land use policy). For the remainder of the
commercial uses on the corridor, a General Commercial designation will be applied (no
Neighborhood Commercial is proposed). Issues related to revitalization of the corridor can
be addressed through policies in the General Plan.
In the revised alternative, residential uses abutting the original proposed mixed use
properties on the north side of Foothill Boulevard will remain residential (Low Density
Residential).
Baldwin Avenue Multi Family Neighborhood
No change to the original land use alternative is proposed.
Santa Anita Park
No change to the original land use alternative is proposed.
Duarte Road /First Avenue
The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation from
properties along Duarte Road. Instead, a General Commercial designation is proposed
(similar to existing General Plan land use policy). First Avenue is proposed to remain Mixed
Use 1. Issues related to aesthetics and revitalization of the corridor as a whole will still be
addressed through policies in the General Plan.
Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road
The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation from the
properties along Baldwin Avenue, south of Naomi Avenue. Instead, a General Commercial
designation is proposed to match the properties along the Baldwin Avenue corridor. The
General Plan team acknowledges that the Baldwin corridor is fully built out but that the
General Plan can include direction on the future of the corridor regarding aesthetics,
maintenance, parking, and marketing.
In the residential areas, the proposed increase in density to key areas of the residential
neighborhoods has been changed. Instead of the additional residential designation originally
proposed- (at the highest density range) the proposed land use plan will include the High
Density Residential designation (similar to the Multiple Family Residential 24 designation in
the current general plan) which includes a higher maximum density of 30 units per acre (as
opposed to 24 units per acre). In this study area this translates into no land use changes for
the residential areas.
Las Tunas Drive
No change to the original land use alternative is proposed.
Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area
No change to the original land use alternative is proposed.
LL
z
H
to)
0 W
1—
N
z Q J
W
a Q
J N
a
z
W
O W
4
V
4 0.142 /1
W
dLin,
/11
111111111/Hair
r� Iq li
.�a11111IT! p
II ZS NU
,111
..11
r# wag
1PN 11
►41 10♦�
♦1rr
1 1/11 111:
got
11 111111
BONI
iij 11114
.1111
11111111
1/111111
111 1111
1111111
1111111
IIIIMIMMI
*-_111
n
-0o-
tc
Ito
I NI
Ali
Ilk M N
��111
r me lll
1111111111111111
1111111111111111111111.
4111111 9 MOP smummi
ess 1111 /.1g
■1.
111111'
t�:.ii1INAr
Nip
_111111.
11
Wr ■MIME■■■.. ■;rl,_ 1
=C
o X1111111 1 0 �•4+ 1��
mow i a t 1.111111 'ma
IA .011 11,6/11111111111
Iu. nag
dLiik
1/ 11 1 11. 1: 44 i �qI
iiii 1 1 111 1111 11 111114,
P► i��. l 1"1141111 1;
446, 011111/
1■4 1111 X 11pr. o,
IiU k f i i 111 11 .t
Pte♦ II .IIIID��
ti
401/ 1g .1► f I 011 111: �i iii r ���il /1 ■111
viO 111 5 4p■■■ 1111 11
a 1 WI N i i
a1111111i
I NE
ii
u1
11111111
11111
11//1111
1111111
111111111111111
tewAsg
1 1111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111.
111
.M INEma AtIm raw r
pi" surIr WIN st� 111111. ■.■MMM..
;r 11 I II IIIIJ11I
,r �I
-JEW 111.1111111 "1p►iiia,u.ai 1
.1. 1��� -1a
■111111 111111 mo null
0
7 7 O
N 7 Q
N
rn
c
0
d'
1
i
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
us
k UmmUllOmMilo warmuinuin
clanalimmucelmegyanommini
MINIM
41141. ,niummmumuu
widifig
powilwrz UMW I Mimi
L
g" bra i
orimum
amins.
dmompr
ViirAlmimm
/AM
11M1
111111' mum
maw
raMILTA
NOS
MM.
uir
1•11
EIIIIIII1
Nokp.rna
1 ,0
im a.
Em
•Nimm
Now=
Mimi=
NOIN■11
■IER
AINNI
;aim 111:12
IN"
N
NAl
VIM
11
1111
1111
11111111N
■Fir
ms
mow masa
SS
MB INN
1111 m
II i rA J!
1 .0
wit Lod
1
hill
r
W UffillimUummis
■_ANiliummumlimmi
r
wablowsummum
__,Ilialimpr EMI MIME
11,0 MI
I i A
alkali"
fil
Er
.15,11Mion si,.
walimunsv.:
blion2'
i
1111110
VAIL 11111111
1111111 1111
11111111111111
I I I 1 I
r-
Ell ES 91111111,
11111111/
=mom
MEM
m=l, 1■112
IA X am .61 e
Fr
1
Nan
INE
MEI
art.
in=
EMI
MEI
Imm
ME
uir
mx.
M
mg. MEW.
=BM ■No, 1■mg
ne
EEE
1 1 E MI=
11111111
11
a au
COS Xlif■
1140MC XS=
1
111
lluIU
Ag
aiI m• mm au
1111
1111
samIngrom
mob alma
INNE;
I 1
1111111
NNW /11
d 41
A .nnumnmmurE-
L 1011111111111111111110i
IL KA mumummumm
wimainklumuuunum
11M111j1Mu
1.10
011
trel
1.1 NM !I
aiiirrimm
i 4iPHIUIUP
4.
ammo r
MI INFIIIIII71111!
LIIIM: ..MIM
1= .....1 im..... imm ....m.
M M MI= g.....
ow ow
m. OM ImaM ..10 MINIM
■Es MOM 11==se
MIN ma MN M
en=
am" 010
2 MIN
EN. 01.1 Mil mog mow N= MI
r.= .3
MI= 1•■• MINIM =Men
MI moi wft• MI MN mi.. NE
XIIIM• Xxxx...
NMI NM MX MIX MEI M.. MN
=1 W. la Ill
MOM
■I 1■ 1=x .1.01
TIE 1.'6"
IM MI MI
sow
INI
=slug"
=1111.,
1 4 1. Wer j.
use
E1011111
511111111/
11
1
A
:,._,,Iilli
=Nib mit=
Mu IV:
iA
1
1111
0
0
ea
z
Q
J
a
a
C
W
Z
W
0
z
X
W
Z
C
W
a
C
C
W
LL
W
a
3
P 4111111H111111,1111 111111111111
IMP
y
moo
mow 1111111
AV NIMOIYB
o
any
4.1
41,■
oa
mum
r
W
0
i k1Iiiiui,,
vav,w
MIN
ON NI ltyof
111111
AY NIMOIYB
0 EE c
LL N U C p 2' I
p 5 co. Q U LL O
O O 2 O O
ot$ u� m 0 0 7::- m
o v 0 W
7
"aj l'' g, do
2 F v m
p
_X Q
0
N s 1 8 8 V 0¢
0 C 01 N l0 (0 C r
g� d 2'0
6j E V C C Q l
i 8 28 20oa� \n
1111111
o N V
7 7 `0
V A N 7
LL
lift: C f; M Q' O
c°1 to 0
w o W
01:!:36 c
v_
y E
W 0 e N f
a 3 8 0 E o
y 3 s rn E'o,
&kg=3
i 1111
2
ffi
3
of U
c
N y,
•0
To
E
0
E a)
0
m y c l i E
W V L V L
N
4
d
LL
V U U m
m m d
3 3 o.
r oA ffm
°4-O 92
Yl H
mE
0.' Q' Q' a' o
E E
E m m li LT. 40 v
LL LL LL o d 0 0
02 0 a 0. a E
o) E cn
I
I
0-
0
0
0
0
To
0
y
cr
N
a
N
N
1
w
O
V
N
0
0
N
0
1
Lio
cg
0
1 Mf =a:O:
"all '
111111111111:7 nr
_El 111111
ounu
=1".
111_=
Lir.
II Z S 164
111
I III*
MK& ed
:AMMO
v
4
II
11
11 111
1111111
-,1 U. IiiIi11 ■111111111 MINIM 111i11 111
1: ;u 1 1-
FA
111111° um
r
i�
1
nn►,�i� i�
A C;
umuunn HAA
111111111111111IL
liUuIifiiiuu►
m
iiiiiiIIII•Iiliii
Illl�lliil�il a
111111
111
111 111 1111111111
;WEN lira
I.v I
E
it 111
unn
∎ems 1
IlArrinam r:
r
Q1,.
X
1 1. i.,
1 i l ly 1
1 11►/
.1.116
mitailommi
11
li= _x l E l MN
ell MOH
i� oil
1
u■.Iul mma
r
BE
1111
1 111111 11 1
1 1111 1 1111
!ll ,i MU*
LI 11Allllg
Ir, A11St 11111 A1111tIrp r t
1111111H1111111/
IIii FAIN El 1
Nun
:11 1I 111 111111 1
-Ell
I=
11111 11111_ ill .1
111111 x 111
11111
N
_1Ii VOME1111
r
111 II :ImlieG: Il
1
u
z
Cg
111
LL
1F
1
m i 1
AVONZ
g
AVOW
I
1 1_
AVOW
If
11
ME
IMM
INN
1
van
ILLI:fit1 I I
MOM 111111 MEM 1191
III ME
V 1
=MUM
1 J I I
0
el
8
a
0
mime
mom
MI WM
Mg N-
I 1 „J mo: mom
C: III
I i
IMMUNE 1Mg=
∎EMI
11111111!
1.1 11 I
so am,
ell S
to
Antg
2:: r /1\ ►11
W 111 `11 �\Ol
owns mr2. MU at% 'cm 0 sus au%
CHAIN
gym was
moms- momm owl= t S■
—M
I III: mom:
NM= .i
I I .0
E
I SA
NIII!
r 11.
..._.L..
G111I
X 11
�l1 /111111
i 1111 �:J1\ 'r
1100 mow° C,'i
-C ►71 i C►1�'
auhl
A
INIA lows
MMINUM
msNIMI
Nom
mims
Iron
mi
Wm
subsume
rwimun
11;
VII
u m
Q N
r
O
u
1—
I
010.• Se
3
IOW 111 t 1
goossio
A433)4311010
i
O
x
a
E
u_
0
u_ /0 u_ a a LL m c
O 6 co y u.. N 1; 'J M
O S E s 0 ov E
oti N 1.
v N
l0 N x N
O N G S.
N 8 7 0 t N m U
�a o
x Ol o O d' N a e
N I 1 J -5
2 P; e f l q 2" _K t
7 O !Z' d C N 0. V) 0 Of a m •o m
v c& E Y c c 5 c m j °d
3 E a a) c c '2, v
2828 2 8 n s �d
11111 10 r
m
13,1—al K
N
Vp N t O 2: O
7 M
N 0 f 47§:= 0 N LI
N C 'g id
O C N
C A d
v C N E C
N Q' :Q ce 3 IaL Q 1 x'
To N N La N
N
Q O
W a T c ,C O v
0
m 3 2 o N 10 U
O N E d E C
N 3 0 E c
3
3
T
O
C L
H 'r
2 a
s -s
O w
-o
c
E r)
c U r a cc
m1 Li E
aty =U
2=g
iiiIi
I
0
0
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
STUDY AREA LIVE OAK AVENUE
CONGO
OODR FFAV
A
f
a
RODELCP
c
s
VW
il
a•—
a•—
MO
Ola
MN
MEN
Ni
MN
LN OAK AV
10 woo
1G.
Ira
mem
maim
mom
P.p
CWM
MO
ow
row
rim
r woo
e
i=
wel
woe
esel
ri
m
ANDRAA
ROOELL PL
11111
Nem
Ism
9
AI NEs
or
ONO
n
mum
WOW �rtitniiiin IM
;s 111111111111111111111111110111111 r s p0'D9- 1111 ►111111111► ►r' Irr1111111
Ir
IVA WO,
i0�11� ►100111111►
NIP
11
wow
q
1-
sew
�r
vello
1111
111111
PALM R
F
r
■t 11111111050114 u
.12111111 121121111M1 l•
■ii.iaa1■ OODR• 1
NM ■IIIII11 ■11■ 11111111=
NMI -A 1.1■11,�1
IIIIIR ■1 111111
1111111111 LAS TUNAS DR
P
woo
f� w oo
owe. swat
NI ■ry
Nom wog
woo
sumo
woo
MEM
NEM
MIME
tttt�
r
mew
r_s
loo -21
rem
see
Ii
Legend
Single Family Residential (2 du /ac)
Single Family Residential (4 du /ac)
Single Family Residential (6 du /ac)
O Multiple Family Residential (12 du /ac)
MEI Multiple Family Residential (24du /ac)
Mixed Use Commercial/Multiple Family Residential
Commercial
REVISED GPAC PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
LONGLET'W'
OODRUF A
LAS UNAS DR
SANDR A
WOODR FFA
8
RODECCP
11111
■111
1■■1l
11111 \1 ■11l1♦ ■♦■11
■■u■11I
Itdado
X1.0
:::11►1111•►1 ►►1111111 ►1� 11
`1.
1
IOW
MINIM
IMMO
ME_
NEM
NIP
um _It
rem
Pow
El lli
Ci
p I,
1w■ 1 r
O,P,q -4
SIM
ij
tI
S
�1
woe
I
I Iwo
IP
OP WO
11. 0011
o pis
POI
s
1111!
111111
III i
11. 1
11111111C :i�■ i
unraim i km ■111���1■ 11 11 11.
Ora
sago
MI ME
r
u
i
mom
■EM
INN
►11111 ►11
S OW .NS
s101011..._ J= �i1► _.,..:LEI
sr
worm
M ••11 M
al i
I;i
eWl
We
Legend
Residential Estate (up to 2 du /ac)
Very Low Density Residential (2-4 du /ac)
Low Density Residential (4 -6 du /ac)
MIN Medium Density Residential (6-12 du /ac)
MIN High Density Residential (12 -30 du /ac)
Commercial (0.5 FAR)
EMI Regional Commercial (0.5 FAR)
Mixed Use 1 (22 -30 du /ac 1.0 FAR)*
Mixed Use Note:
Mixed Use FAR is for non residential uses.
Mixed Use I allows for stand -alone residential uses.
MIN Horse Racing
Industrial
Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial
Public Facility
Wash
Southem CA Regional Rail Authority
e ms Mixed Use 2 (22 -30 du /ac 1.0 FAR)
MIN Downtown M ixed Use (30-50 du /ac 1.0 FAR)"`
N M Horse Racing
N EM Commercial /Light Industrial (0.6 FAR)
Public/Institutional
gamma Open Space Outdoor Recreation
MOM Open Space Resources Protection
Rail Right -of -Way
Huntington Drive Overlay (1.0 FAR)
7///, Santa Anita Avenue Overlay (2.0 FAR)
Mixed Use 2 requires the inclusion of a commerical component
for all projects. Stand alone residential uses are not allowed.
Downtown Mixed Use allows for mixed use and stand -alone
residential or commercial uses.
DRAFT
May 21, 2009
P
z
a
a
u.
It
z
a
4
z
0
z
1-
Q
la
Attachment No. 4
Implications of Proposed Land Use Policy
ARCADIA GENERAL
PLAN
IMPLICATIONS OF LAND USE POLICY'
April 23, 2009
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the land use distribution, expected level of development
anticipated within each study area and citywide, and the resulting residential and
nonresidential outcomes that would be expected as a result of full implementation of
land use policy. Table 2 shows the difference in development levels when comparing
the proposed General Plan land use plan to: a) existing, on- the ground land uses, and
b) the currently adopted General Plan land use policy. Implementation of the
proposed General Plan Land Use Plan (as of April 23, 2009) is assumed to be 80
percent of the maximum potential. This assumption accounts for the fact that many
areas of Arcadia will not change over the next 20 years, and areas such cis single
family neighborhoods have not been developed to the maximum potential allowed
under General Plan land use policy.
Based on the proposed land use changes and the 80 percent build -out assumption,
calculations indicate a capacity for approximately 2,945 additional dwelling units,
8,110 new residents (assuming the average household size described below), and
about 3.4 million additional square feet of non residential development. These
estimated land use statistics for the proposed General Plan are consistent with
population and household forecasts established by SCAG in 2008. While these
figures indicate an increase in capacity, the actual level of development the City
experiences during the life of the General Plan will depend upon market demand and
economic conditions. As such, development levels may be lower or higher than these
estimates.
Assumptions used to estimate expected level of development and a brief summary of
the economic analysis is included at the end of this document.
1 NOTE: This is a draft document. The land use ideas and alternatives presented in this document represent some
of the many ideas that have come from the community and through the General Plan Advisory Committee. They
are not planned to be implemented at this time these alternatives are designed to provoke discussion and the
generation of ideas for the future development of Arcadia.
1
0
co
csi
co
0
4
N
0
0
A
N
N
M
a)
0,
U
0,
P
O
trk
0
N
N
2
N
0
Q
1"
d
O
O
0
0
0,
co
n
N
0
0 m
O
m
N
M P e
O oa
L° P
.n 0
O
88
P
M
h ,O C
N
gl N O
n Ncocm
Q O
vi
10
0
s
N
0)
N
0
s
H
1
1
h N M
v
Summary of Changes Affecting Build -out Estimates
Los Angeles County Debris Basin Study Area
No changes are proposed for this study area.
Foothill Boulevard Study Area
The reduction in dwelling units (between existing and proposed land use policies) is
due to re- designating residential uses to reflect actual uses today. For example,
under currently adopted land use policy, the Country Oaks Circle neighborhood is a
single family neighborhood designated Multiple Family Residential 24. Re-
designation is proposed to a lower density to reflect actual uses and development
densities (Medium Density Residential). The increase in dwelling units between the
proposed land use policy and actual on- the ground land uses is mostly due to a large
church property that is designated High Density Residential and a property that is
designated High Density Residential but is currently developed with a commercial
use. In these instances, the proposed kind use plan shows unit capacity while in
actuality (on- the ground), no units currently exist.
Baldwin Avenue Multi Family Neighborhood Study Area
The change in this area is due to the change in maximum density from 24 to 30 units
per acre. The uses are not changing, but the new density indicates a slight increase in
capacity should individual property owners choose in the future to redevelop their
properties.
Santa Anita Park Study Area
No changes are proposed for this study area.
Downtown Arcadia Study Area
The increase in units is due to the new Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) designation,
which allows much higher densities (from 30 to 50 units per acre). The increase in
square footage is attributable to the higher FARs allowed in Downtown (from 1.0
along Huntington Drive and in the Downtown core and 2.0 along Santa Anita
Avenue).
Duarte Road /First Avenue Study Area
The slight increase in dwelling units between existing and proposed land use policies
is due to the increase in maximum density for the mixed use designation (from 24 to
30 units per acre). The increase in square footage between existing and proposed
land use policies can be attributed to the increase in FAR applied to the MU
designation (from 0.4 to 1.0). The increase in dwelling units between the proposed
land use policy and on- the ground uses is due to the fact that land with residential
potential (designated for mixed use) is currently developed with commercial uses (no
existing dwelling units). The increase in square footage between the proposed land
use policy and on- the ground uses is due to the commercial designation applied to
vacant parcels and some residential uses along Duarte Road. While these properties
2
are not currently developed with commercial uses, General Plan land use policy
indicates the potential for commercial uses.
Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road Study Area
The increase in dwelling units overall is due to the change in maximum density from
24 to 30 units per acre for the High Density Residential designation (INDR). The uses
envisioned by the General Plan are not changing, but the higher density indicates an
increase in capacity should individual property owners choose to redevelop their
properties.
Las Tunas Drive Study Area
The slight increase in square footage between proposed and actual on- the ground
uses is attributable to one parcel currently developed as a parking lot (and having no
commercial development). There is no change anticipated between existing and
proposed General Plan land use.
Live Oak Avenue Study Area
The increase in dwelling units is due to the expansion of the mixed use designation
along the corridor and to the change from mixed use to High Density Residential for
the block of high- density residential uses (apartments) on the north side of Live Oak
Avenue between 4th and 6th Avenue. The increase in square footage is due to the
higher FAR proposed for Mixed Use 2 (1.0).
Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area Study Area
The increase in square footage overall is attributable to the increase in FAR for the
Commercial /Light Industrial (C /LI) designation (from 0.45 for the existing Industrial
designation to 0.6 for the C /LI designation).
City (exclusive of Study Areas)
The increase in units can be attributed to raising the maximum permitted density high
density residential uses from 24 to 30 units per acre. The increase in non residential
square footage can be attributed to an increase in intensity (FAR) for the mixed use
and C /LI designations.
3
Sphere Of Influence
The change in units is due to some minor re- assignment of right -of -way (i.e. streets)
and some small refinements to the land use plan.
Land Use Assumptions
Over time, as properties transition from one use to another or property owners
choose to rebuild, land uses and intensities are anticipated to gradually shift to align
with proposed General Plan land use policy. Given the almost built -out character of
Arcadia, significant development activities may not occur over the life of this General
Plan and certainly, not all properties will be developed to the maximum permitted
intensities and densities. With this in mind, the following assumptions have been
established (see Table 3).
Density /Intensity
To define a realistic build -out scenario, assumptions about expected density and
intensity levels were established. Considerations used to project future conditions
included examining established land use patterns and past land use development
trends. For the single family residential designations', expected densities were
derived based on a survey of existing densities. Current conditions generally
represent anticipate future conditions, as very few changes are expected to occur in
single family neighborhoods over the life of the General Plan. For multi family
designations', expected densities (dwelling units per acre, or du /ac) are based on 80
percent of maximum allowable density, as units built within the past 20 to 30 years
are not expected to be replaced, and physical conditions and provision of on -site
amenities will limit the ability of some redeveloped properties to achieve the
maximum densities. Similarly, for non residential uses, intensity (floor -to -area ratio, or
FAR) is based on 80 percent of maximum allowable FAR. Maximum permitted FARs
may not be achieved on individual properties given development standards and
amenity requirements (for example, easements, access, parking, landscape, and
buffering requirements).
2 California law requires that a General Plan "cover the territory within the boundaries of an adopting City...as
well as any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning."
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are responsible for delineating sphere of influence boundaries
that are updated every 5 years. Delineating a sphere of influence discourages competition among agencies for
developable land, promotes efficient and effective service delivery for cities and special districts.
3 SFR -2, SFR -4, and SFR -6 in the current General Plan, and Residential Estate, Very Low Density Residential, and
Low Density Residential in the proposed General Plan
4 MFR -12 and MFR -24 in the current General Plan, and Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential
in the proposed General Plan
4
For the mixed use designations, 80 percent of maximum allowable density and
intensity (FAR) was used for the estimates.
Projected Number of Dwelling Units
The projected number of dwelling units indicated Tables 1 and 2 have been
calculated for each land use designation that permits residential uses. Dwelling units
projections are calculated by multiplying the acres of residential land by the
5
Table 3: Arcadia GP Land Use Statistics Assam tions
Single Family Residential 2
Single Family Residential 4
Single Family Residential 6
Multiple Family Residential 12
Multiple Family Residential 24
Mixed Use Commercial /Multiple Family
Mixed Use Commercial /Industrial
Commercial
Horse Racing
Industrial
Public Institution
Open Space
Vacant
Other (ROW, wash, SCCRA, etc)
etc),,
Residentiol tstotes
Very Cow
insity
Low Den
Medium De
Hi! hDe
Commercial
Commercial;(
ntin.. ton Drive 1,0 FAR)
Com rciai Santa Anita Avenue 2.0 FAR)
n Mixed Use
Downtown Commercial /Indus
al
Pubi I
utional
Open
Outdoor Recreation
Other(
ash, SCCRA, etc)
2 du /ac
4 du /ac
6 du /ac
12 du /ac
24 du /ac"
0.4 FAR, 24 du /ac"
0.3 FAR
0.5 FAR
FAR N/A
0.45 FAR
FAR N/A
FAR N/A
FAR N/A
FAR N/A
30 du /ac
2.O FAR
0.5 FAR
FAR N A
1.0 FAR.
dutac
1.0 FAR, ;30 du /ac
du /ac
0.5 FAR
0,6 FAR
FARN A
FAR N/A
FAR N /A
FAR N/A
1.3
2.8
3.9
9.6
17.6
17.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
3:9
0
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.24
0.4
0
0.36
0
0
0
0
Pro sed General Plan Land Use
0A
0.8
0A
1:6
OA
048
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
60%
0%
0%
O%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
40%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
096
0
0%
60%
10
CA. De•t of Finance 2008
Persons Per Household (2008): 2.872
Occu•anc Rate (2008): 95.89%
'For the single- fomily residential designations expected densities were derived based on a survey of existing densities. For multi family designations,
expected densities (dwelling units per acre, or du /ac) are based on 80 percent of maximum allowable density
"Expected density for MFR24 and Commercial /Multiple Family Mixed Use is based on 22 du /ac. While 24 du /ac is the maximum allowed, a density bonus is
required to obtain 24 du /ac.
For the mixed use designations, 80 percent of maximum allowable density and intensity (FAR) was used for the estimates.
expected density for that designation. Dwelling units are also assumed to occur
within the mixed use designations. Acreage within the mixed use designations is
distributed between residential and non residential uses. This distribution is based on
expected initial development patterns but will ultimately be guided by market
demand and economic conditions.
Estimated Square Footage
Estimated square footage accounts for all building area of non residential buildings,
meaning commercial, office, and public or institutional uses. The projection for non-
residential development is calculated by multiplying the land use acres for each land
use designation by the expected FAR. The result is then converted from acres to
square feet This yields the estimated square feet.
Estimated Population
Estimated population is calculated by multiplying the projected number of dwelling
units by two factors: number of persons per household (2.872 in 2008) and the
occupancy rate (95.9% in 2008). The number of persons per household and the
occupancy rate will change year to year, but for projection purposes, the City has
used the most current estimates (2008) from the California Department of Finance,
Demographic Unit for the City of Arcadia.
Economic Analysis
As part of the General Plan program, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted
to evaluate the financial feasibility of development prototypes at key locations within
the City. The three prototype development projects were located in two of the study
areas, Downtown and the Live Oak Avenue corridor. The analysis examined the
financial feasibility of development projects under current land use policy and
development standards, and a scenario that reflected proposed increases to the
intensity (height, coverage, residential density). Factors considered in the analysis
included lot coverage and height (FAR), residential density, parking and development
standards, development costs, revenue (income from rents and unit sales), and
estimated investment returns. The intent of the analysis was to examine whether
current developments standards were adequate to encourage development in the
City and if proposed land use polices would improve or somehow affect the financial
feasibility of new development.
The hypothetical development projects include:
Site #1 (Downtown study area): office building located along Santa Anita
Avenue
Site #2 (Downtown study area): mixed use development located in close
proximity to the future Gold Line Station
s One acre equals 43,560 square feet.
6
Site #3 (Live Oak Avenue study area): mixed use development along Live Oak
Avenue
The resulting analysis included several conclusions:
Current development standards do not encourage development.
Existing development standards and intensity (height, lot coverage) are
considered adequate to encourage development of undeveloped (vacant)
land. The cost to purchase improved (developed) land is significantly greater
than the cost to purchase undeveloped and and there are very few
undeveloped properties in Arcadia. Due to the high cost of purchasing
improved land, it is difficult for properties to redevelop at the current
densities.
Projects at proposed intensity may need incentives to be feasible
Higher intensities (FAR) did result in higher land values (the more you can
develop on a site, the more valuable it is). The intensity proposed in the
General Plan may not be high enough to encourage redevelopment of
improved land given the cost of developments, rents (commercial), and
parking in the City. For example, in some areas even a higher FAR for retail
uses does not improve project feasibility as more developable space
translates to additional parking spaces required.
A reduction in parking standards may be necessary to make new
development feasible in the City.
Parking requirements in the city (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area for commercial uses and 2 resident spaces plus 1 guest parking
space per dwelling unit) negatively impact the financial feasibility of a project.
Due to the amount of parking required, many developments would need to
construct either a parking structure or underground parking both of which are
prohibitively expensive. Rents for retail businesses in Arcadia are not high
enough to offset the high cost of structured or underground parking. These
businesses or developments would need to charge very high rents to balance
out the high cost of parking.
Changes in the City's parking standards are crucial to facilitating new
developments. Additionally, alternative parking arrangements (such as
creating parking districts [and parking fees] in commercial areas, allowing
alternative parking requirements for areas close to the future Gold Line
station, developing City -owned parking facilities, or allowing tandem parking
in residential developments) can help facilitate new development.
Alternative sources of funding may make development more feasible.
Many developers in the San Gabriel Valley have access to off -shore capital
and may approach development from a different perspective than domestic
developers. For example, many developers using off -shore capital are willing
7
to accept lower returns on their investments and have a longer tolerance for
losses in new developments (they have more patience when waiting for a
development to become profitable). This development community may be a
source of redevelopment opportunities in the City.
City resources such as redevelopment agency assistance may also be needed
for key projects that can spur development in some of the analyzed areas. City
and other sources of funding can be used to offset the high cost of
development.
Based on the results of this analysis, the General Plan team has requested an
additional analysis for an alternative scenario that takes into consideration higher
intensity (FAR) and lower parking requirements. This information will be used to test
the types of changes needed in the proposed land use and development standards to
encourage new development in the City.
8
Attachment No. 5
City of Arcadia General Plan
Economic Feasibility Analysis
May 21, 2009
As part of the General Plan program, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted
by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to evaluate the financial feasibility of
development prototypes at key locations within the City. The three prototype
development projects were located in two of the study areas, Downtown and Live Oak
Avenue corridor. The analysis examined the financial feasibility of development
projects under current land use policy and development standards, and a scenario that
reflected proposed increases to the intensity (height, coverage, residential density)
proposed in the General Plan. Factors considered in the analysis included floor area
ratio (FAR), lot coverage and height, residential density, parking and development
standards, development costs, revenue (income from rents and unit sales), and
estimated investment returns. The intent of the analysis is to examine whether the
current development standards are adequate to encourage development in the City
and if the proposed land use policies would improve or somehow affect the financial
feasibility of new development.
Note: The analysis by the economic consultant included a limited number of
scenarios. Scenarios were chosen that best reflected the direction we are proposing
in the General Plan and that tested the feasibility of the proposed maximum
densities and intensities. Please note that there are numerous options for analysis
and many assumptions are necessary to complete development scenarios.
Given the state of the economy, the assumptions utilized in this analysis area based on
a "normalized" market where capital is available and projects can move forward.
The hypothetical development projects include:
Site #1 (Downtown study area) office building located along Santa Anita
Avenue.
2. Site #2 (Downtown study area) mixed use development located in close
proximity to the future Gold Line Station.
3. Site #3 (Live Oak Avenue study area) mixed use and commercial development
along Live Oak Avenue.
1
Each of the sites chosen was evaluated under its existing allowed intensity and density
(Scenario 1), the proposed General Plan intensity and density (Scenario 2), and the
proposed General Plan intensity and density with specific site design components
(Scenario 3).
The accompanying summary tables in Attachment 2 provide a detailed financial
analysis of the three sites in the context of the various scenarios. The analysis includes
both direct and indirect development costs, and financing and closing costs for both
commercial and residential components of each development site. These costs are
compared against expected revenues and profits to determine what the resulting land
value would be. The higher the expected land value, the more feasible the project.
Each of the three scenarios is described in detail below.
Scenario 1: Existing Intensity /Density
This scenario uses the City's existing development standards of .50 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) and parking at 4 spaces per 1000 square feet for office (site') and 5 spaces per
1000 square feet for commercial (sites 2 and 3).
1. Site #1 Santa Anita:
Assumes the development of a 55,321 square foot lot (1.27 acres) on Santa
Anita Avenue.
22,128 square foot Office Building (.39 FAR)
89 Parking Spaces
2. Site #2 Downtown:
Assumes the development of a 79,650 square foot lot (1.83 acres in
Downtown Arcadia.
25,520 square feet of Commercial (.32 FAR)
32 Residential Units (17 units /acre)
224 Parking Spaces
3. Site #3 Live Oak Avenue:
Assumes the development of a 37,355 square foot lot (.86) acres on Live Oak
Avenue.
14,942 square feet of Commercial (.40 FAR)
15 Residential Units (17 units /acre)
120 Parking Spaces
2
The resulting analysis included several conclusions:
1. Current development standards do not encourage development. Assuming the
current allowable intensities /densities for the sites, all sites had very low
returns on investment. Parking is a major overriding factor in project feasibility.
Due to the high cost of purchasing improved land, it is difficult for properties to
redevelop at the current densities.
2. Site #1 The Santa Anita site feasibility is affected by the overall office market
conditions. Office rents in Arcadia are currently too low to support
development. Office development is relatively expensive due to the
development and operating costs, which results in lower net rents. As an
example, even in boom times, very little office space was developed.
3. Sites #2 and #3 With regard to Downtown and Live Oak, the current
development standards and parking requirements, in particular, significantly
discourage private redevelopment activity due to negative or no return.
Scenario 2: Alternative Density Proposed General Plan Land Use
Changes
Scenario 2 is based on the proposed changes to the land use designations which are: a
2.0 FAR for the Santa Anita Corridor and a 1.0 FAR for Downtown as well as higher
housing densities. Also, this scenario introduced a potential reduced parking standard
for mixed use (for all sites the parking is estimated at 2 spaces per unit for residential
and 4:1,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial).
1. Site #1 Santa Anita:
Assumes the development of a 55,320 square foot lot (1.27 acres) on Santa
Anita Avenue.
88,514 square feet of Commercial (1.6 FAR)
354 Parking Spaces
2. Site #2 Downtown:
Assumes the development of a 79,560 square foot lot (1.83 acres) in
Downtown Arcadia.
63,800 square feet of Commercial (.80 FAR)
73 Residential Units (40 units /acre)
401 Parking Spaces
3. Site #3 Live Oak:
Assumes the development of a 37,355 square foot lot (.86 acres) on Live Oak
Avenue.
3
29,844 square feet of Commercial (.80 FAR)
20 Residential Units (23 units /acre)
159 Parking Spaces
The resulting analysis shown in Summary Table 2 includes several conclusions:
A reduction in parking standards may be necessary to make new development
feasible in the City.
2. The City does not need to establish significantly higher FARs since commercial
uses are not the driving factor in project returns, and commercial uses limit
feasibility due largely to the parking requirements. This scenario maximizes the
allowable commercial floor area and clearly, from the resulting land value
numbers, additional commercial area does not improve feasibility. An example
of this is the negative return anticipated with the office project at Site 1.
3. For Site #2, the project supports a higher land value due to the significant
increase in the number of residential units (increased density proposed in the
General Plan). Residential is clearly the driver. However, the commercial
density is too high, as this level of development would likely require commercial
space above the ground floor. Rents for this space would be much lower than
ground -floor retail. Further, the depth of the space would make it very
unwieldy for leasing purposes.
4. Sites #2 and #3 It also makes sense to maximize commercial use on the ground
floor, but not on the upper levels because second -floor commercial lacks
appeal and gets lower rents.
5. For Site #3, even with the reduction in required parking (4:1,000 instead of
5:1,000), the current scenario requires 39 more parking spaces because of the
higher FAR under this scenario. The commercial market on Live Oak is a
softer market than other parts of the City. To make projects feasible,
developments need to have higher rents in order to justify parking needed.
Scenario 3: Alternative Scenarios for Downtown and Live Oak
Avenue based on Specific Design Options using the
Proposed General Plan Land Use Changes'
Scenario 3 is based on taking the proposed changes to the land use designations and
sketching out designs of potential developments that would "fit" within the bulk and
1 The site designs were evaluated with at reduced parking of 4/1,000 square feet of gross floor area
and 2 spaces for every residential unit, and increase in height: Site #2 Downtown: 4 stories, 45 feet high;
Site #3 Live Oak: 3 stories, 45 feet high.
4
mass footprints we are considering. The sketches are provided as Attachment 3. Again,
parking is estimated at 2 spaces per unit for residential and 4:1,000 square feet of
gross floor area for commercial.
1. Site #2 Downtown Site Design
Assumes the development of a 79,560 square foot lot (1.83 acres) in
Downtown Arcadia.
37,800 square feet of Commercial (.47 FAR)
60 Residential Units (32 units /acre)
271 Parking Spaces
2. Site #3 Live Oak Site Design:
Assumes the development of a 37,355 square foot lot (.86 acres) on Live Oak
Avenue.
16,000 square feet of Commercial (.42 FAR)
18 Residential Units (21 units /acre)
100 Parking Spaces
3. Site #3 Live Oak Site Design Commercial Use Only:
Assumes the development of a 37,355 square foot lot (.86 acres) on Live Oak
Avenue.
29,844 square feet of Commercial Only (.80 FAR)
120 Parking Spaces
The resulting analysis show in Summary Table 3 included several conclusions:
1. For Site #2, the scenario supports a land value of $124 per square foot, which is
significantly above the other scenarios. This density and layout minimizes the
parking costs by having the parking structures above grade. In addition, the
scale of commercial development is such that it could remain on the ground
floor.
Additional square footage and units could be achieved if parking were to
be provided off -site.
2. For Site #3, the Alternative scenario supports a land value of $58 per square
foot, which is higher than the other two alternatives (proposed land use
changes and commercial only). However, the lower density of residential limits
the supportable value. (Note: additional residential units were limited by
height and parking).
5
3. KMA indicated that along Live Oak, a purely residential development would not
work, as it would limit retail opportunities. If the City were to allow stand -alone
residential development, it should be on a mid -block location (not at the
intersections).
4. The formula for creating a feasible project may be a combination of lower
parking requirements and encouraging parking above ground. Lower
densities (commercial and residential) can still work if they are designed
appropriately. This may require some flexibility on design to be able to
accommodate above ground parking.
5. For Site #3 (Commercial Use Only), the scenario supports a land value of $17
per square foot, which is much lower than the mixed -use scenario. The project
is infeasible because second floor commercial does not have much appeal,
especially in a soft market such as that on Live Oak. KMA indicated that
options to this are to build Tess intense uses, and accept lower returns on
investments.
Overall Conclusion (All Scenarios):
Current development standards do not encourage development. The
existing development standards and intensity (height, lot coverage) are
considered adequate to encourage development of undeveloped (vacant)
land. The cost to purchase improved (developed) land is significantly
greater than the cost to purchase undeveloped land and there are very few
undeveloped properties in Arcadia. Due to the high cost of purchasing
improved land, it is difficult for properties to redevelop at the current densities.
2. Parking requirements have a significant impact on project feasibility and is
still the overriding factor in project feasibility. With regard to Downtown
and Live Oak, the current development standards and parking requirements in
particular significantly discourage private redevelopment activity due to
negative or no return.
3. Changes in the City's parking standards are crucial in facilitating new
developments. In fact, if alternative parking solutions can be identified such
as reduced parking requirements, the intensities /densities required to make
projects feasible can be mitigated.
4. The City does not need to establish significantly higher FARs since
commercial uses are not the driving factor in project returns and
commercial uses limit feasibility due largely to the parking requirements.
Possible solution for Mixed Use would be to increase the FAR slightly, but
apply the FAR standard to the entire project, not just non residential
portions (this is also more accurate predicting size and mass). For Mixed
6
Use, that standard may not need to exceed 2.0 FAR a 1.4 -1.5 FAR and above
grade parking would support a relatively healthy land value.
5. Focus for commercial development should be on the ground floor only since
second floor commercial Tacks appeal and pays lower rents. The rent for the
second floor space is unlikely to support the structured parking it may require.
6. The Santa Anita site feasibility is affected by the overall office market
conditions. Office rents in Arcadia are currently too low to support
developments, and it is very unlikely new office development will occur in
the near to mid -term. It is because office development is not cheap due
to development and operating costs, which results in lower net rents. An
example, even in boom times, very little office space was developed. One
possible solution would be to increase height, but maintain the FAR.
7. A well- designed mixed -use project along Live Oak could support a greater land
value than a purely commercial project because the commercial market is a
much softer on Live Oak than other parts of the City. So, to make the projects
feasible, developments need higher rents to justify parking needed.
8. With regards to Downtown, additional square footage and units could be
achieved if parking were to be provided off -site. The creation of a parking
district in Downtown would further enhance project feasibility. There are a
number of surface lots which could be leveraged to further reduce the
commercial parking requirements in the area.
Attachments:
1. Maps of Pro Forma Site Areas
2. Summary Tables 1 -3
3. Site Designs for Downtown and Live Oak Scenario #3
4. Pro Formas developed by KMA (provided upon request)
7
Attachment No. 1
(41)
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by R.S.Gaualez, May 2009
200 Feet
ST JOSEPH ST
(151 153155)
(121.147)
(101)
(214)
(180)
(150)
(100)
(300)
SANTA
(110)
100
0
N
100
M -1
(202) (113)
SANTA CLARA ST
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by. R.S.Gonzdez, May 2009
155)
(141)
Site 2 Downtown
(153)
100
R -2
16)
N
0 100
(2617)
(2619)
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by. RS.Gonzalez, May 2009
200 Feet
C `=P"
pally or
(2606)
(2614)
(2620)
(2626)
R4
(2607)
(2615)
(2621)
(2627)
I OAK AVE
R -1 (2633)
c -a
Site 3 Live Oak
(2
30)
(32)
(16)
Attachment No. 2
IJ
0 4 O
M
8.8
INN S n 8 1 4 4,
O 46.0
v 0
N
ft O 1� M .ef
M r- g W X
070
M c M
P! p
—8 fj '444§ e p
1
M M
N I-. N Of 0
tp r 4
N
z$ §S 4§
st
3
O
O
02 SP
r r r
4 do
N y
a8
To M a O Q a [9 4 7 O O Q O
CC r m r if m w M *6 Q j 0
M tp N T 4 M 3 T 2 4 O
N N N r
3
Z N co
Y7 r
N
0 N a CO 'H o g$ b m
p �47f� G N
co h 0 n r
ap r Qf O
p 0
r w
2§. ♦q §1 R O 4 Z. 4 O Q 88
RR
O {pl b W 0 M
RE
4
Ill r N
0
O O
0 0 O
4
m
C
1
0
M
6x
go fi
n r
ee
N y 7
tl
0 y
a
g
,iV
�D CO m
3;
Z N
1
w
Of
N S N
1!!1
r
a r
Z
N
CA
60
a;
§18/R
�S�3g
N to in V; S O lV
r [V r I0
0
s� p 4$
N q �N r INO
7 0 IO 1[!
O
N N N I
8 8 s 8�
N N O 1
N H of
C
O
r
tD
h
88
m H
1 r
t0 t�
O
8
15
3
0
N 8 8 V9 8 8 0 0 Z N
8 0N3 n N
N n V
2 8 8 8
r IA r O N N b P n
of QC h e. 0 0 m N tN
r to N N N 0 M N
N N N N
m Z m 8 o c 8
N ARM N N a3 g 6 N 01
MM Y1 1 e 4 N f0 e M el
T N r 0) r N co O Q1
N N u►
3 ,-0,
Z st 4-4
se
18 8 as 8
N N 4
N N M
m
8
o
i a
a
s
N
W
y
4. P
J 4
g Q
2
V. V
F
W W a
to 0 et
0
N to 4*
r @9 o
S §J
1 N
��I
N
N
CI o 0 Cl'7 N
o
N r
z o
QO 9
I E
a 0
b
0 0 O
M
N 0 0 �7 0 0 N O O o R Q
of co 69
CI r r co 7 fD CO C0
0 r 4*
ID N N 4* H
Sg§ R,z8 z� g
app app N p
M t Of l7 N N W W
t") N N
N
I0
M
4 N S§§ /VIN
n r N
r t[1 ID N
M G 01 N r N
N
4
t7 to N
to r
N
co et.
n r r
N
8 cp
1� N N O aai
O r
of In
O
O
O
H
o
O O
V.
N
tO
N
N
N N
0
N
m
m i
i
i
z i� c
o
s
*a m O
o E E
ce g
8
--m of 5 Cn
as tij
0 W V"
a
I 1 1
5
Attachment No. 3
l 3
11
t
g
3
June 9, 2009
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Modification Application No. MC 09 -02 and Single Family
Architectural Design Review Application No. SFADR 09 -05 for a two
bedroom and two bathroom, detached accessory living quarters/
guest house at 1227 S. Tenth Avenue
SUMMARY
Modification Application No. MC 09 -02 and Single Family Architectural Design
Review No. SFADR 09 -05 were submitted by the property owners' architect,
Sergio Gonzalez, for modifications and architectural design review for a two
bedroom and two- bathroom, detached accessory living quarters /guest house at
1227 S. Tenth Avenue. The proposal is to accommodate an elderly family
member and a live -in caregiver. It is staff's opinion that the proposal would not
have a negative impact on the neighboring properties and would secure an
appropriate improvement of the lot. Therefore, the Development Services
Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal, subject to the
conditions listed in this report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Sergio Gonzalez, Architect
LOCATION: 1227 S. Tenth Avenue
REQUEST: The following modifications and architectural design review for a
detached accessory living quarters /guest house:
1. A full kitchen where one is not allowed (Sec. 9252.2.9.3.2)
2. A livable floor area of 998 square feet in lieu of the 600
square -foot maximum (Sec. 9252.2.9.3.4)
3. Two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, and a laundry room
in lieu of one bedroom and one bathroom (Sec. 9252.2.9.3.4)
LOT AREA: 20,400 square feet (0.47 acre)
FRONTAGE: 50 feet along Tenth Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE ZONING:
The property is improved with a 1,080 square -foot single family
residence that was constructed in 1946, and is zoned R -1.
Plans for a new, two -story, 6,327 square -foot, five bedroom and
8 bathroom house are currently in building plan check.
SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING:
With the exception of the Santa Anita Wash to the west of the
subject property, the surrounding properties are developed with
single family dwellings, and are zoned R -1.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential 0 to 6 dwelling units per acre
BACKGROUND
The subject application was heard by the Modification Committee at its regular
meeting on April 28, 2009. The Committee referred the item to the Planning
Commission due to the scope of the proposal, which was originally for a structure
with a gross square footage of 1,463 square feet. This gross square footage
included the porch cover and an attached covered patio. Since the Modification
Committee meeting, the applicant has reduced the livable square footage of the
proposed guest house from 1,167 square feet to 998 square feet.
The subject property is a 20,400 square -foot lot that backs up to the Santa Anita
Wash. The lot is 50 feet wide and over 350 feet deep, and is zoned R -1. On
November 25, 2008, the Development Services Department approved Single
Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 08 -44 for a new, 6,327 square
foot, two -story, five bedroom residence for this property. Construction plans for
this new main dwelling are currently in the building plan check process.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of the Planning Commission hearing on Modification
Application No. MC 09 -02 and Single- Family Design Review Application No.
SFADR were mailed on May 28, 2009 to the property owners of those properties
that are within 100 feet of the subject property (see the attached radius map).
Because Modifications are exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines
Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, the public hearing notice was not
published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper.
MC 09 -02 SFADR 09 -05
1227 S. Tenth Ave.
June 9, 2009 page 2
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting modifications for a new 998 square -foot, detached
living quarters /guest house toward the rear of the property with two bedrooms, two
bathrooms, a laundry room, and a full kitchen. This proposal requires Modification
approval as it does not comply with the R -1 regulations, which limits accessory
living quarters /guest houses to no more than one bedroom, one living room, and
one bathroom with a maximum of 600 square feet of gross floor area, and does
not allow for a separate room for the preparation of food, and does not allow
facilities for the heating and cooking of food. However, the City's Modification
process specifically lists as eligible requests the accessory living quarters /guest
house regulations that pertain to facilities for the preparation, heating or cooking of
food, the number of bedrooms, and the gross floor area. Apart from the requested
modifications, the proposed accessory living quarters /guest complies with all other
applicable regulations.
The applicant explained that the purpose of the modification requests is to allow
the property owner's mother to live at the same property with the family. The
property owner's mother has a medical need that requires constant care by a
licensed nurse. Therefore, an additional bedroom and bathroom are requested for
the nurse, and to more readily accommodate this living arrangement, the proposal
includes a full kitchen and a laundry room for the nurse's use.
Demographics indicate that there is a growing desire for this type of living
arrangement. The elderly portion of our population is growing, and along with that
growth is a need for all types of housing for senior citizens. And, more families are
no longer content to have elderly or medically- dependent family members housed
and cared for at remote institutions.
An Accessory Living Quarters /Guest House Covenant is required by Code (Sec.
9252.2.9.3.7) to be executed and recorded by the property owners to acknowledge
and provide substantive notice that the accessory living quarters /guest house is
not an additional dwelling unit, and is not to be rented. A condition of approval is
included to clearly note that compliance with this provision is required.
The Code does not require parking for an accessory living quarters /guest house,
but staffs opinion is that an on -site parking space should be available for an
accessory living quarters /guest house of this size. This need could be satisfied by
one of the spaces in the four -car garage that is to be attached to the new main
dwelling since only three garage spaces are required for that dwelling. But, if one
of the garage spaces is not available, there is adequate area in front of the new
garage for an uncovered parking space. The design of the new dwelling precludes
a driveway from being provided to the rear portion of the lot.
Several properties along South Tenth Avenue qualify for the keeping of horses,
and it appears that there are horse keeping facilities at the rear of the adjacent
property to the north. While the City's horse keeping regulations (Sec. 4135.4
MC 09 -02 SFADR 09 -05
1227 S. Tenth Ave.
June 9, 2009 page 3
attached) do not require the removal of horses when a new dwelling is
constructed, it is required that the horses be relocated so as not to be closer than
35 feet from a new dwelling. This requirement can be a hardship to an adjacent
property owner. Staff recommends that if there are horse keeping facilities at an
adjacent property, that the proposed accessory living quarters /guest house be
redesigned or resituated so that the living areas are not closer than 35 feet to any
existing horse keeping facilities.
Staff's opinion is that based on the size and configuration of the property, the
proposed accessory living quarters /guest house would secure an appropriate
improvement of the property, and recommends approval of the requested
modifications, subject to the conditions listed in this report.
Architectural Design Review
Concurrent with the modification application, the Commission may approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the architectural design of the proposed living
quarters /guest house. The proposed design is architecturally consistent with the
Spanish style of the new main dwelling that was approved under Single Family
Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 08 -44. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the architectural design of the accessory living quarters /guest house.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The proposed project is required to comply with all Code requirements and
policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, City
Engineer, Community Development Administrator, and Public Works Services
Director by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for building plan
check review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Modification
Application No. MC 09 -02 and Single Family Architectural Design Review No.
SFADR 09 -05, subject to the following conditions:
1. An on -site parking space shall be designated for the accessory living
quarters /guest house, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Administrator.
2. A covenant as required by Section 9252.2.9.3.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code
shall be executed and recorded by the property owner(s) for the subject
accessory living quarters /guest house, and shall include a provision that the
subject accessory living quarters /guest house be maintained as approved by
Modification No. MC 09 -02 and Single- Family Architectural Design Review No.
SFADR 09 -05 and is not to be expanded or altered.
MC 09 -02 SFADR 09 -05
1227 S. Tenth Ave.
June 9, 2009 page 4
3. In accordance with Section 4135.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, if there are
horses being kept at an adjacent property at the time a building permit is
issued for the subject accessory living quarters /guest house, that the proposed
accessory living quarters /guest house be redesigned or resituated in
compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code, subject to approval by the
Building Official and Community Development Administrator so that the living
areas of the subject accessory living quarters /guest house are not closer than
35 feet to any existing horse keeping facilities.
4. The property shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent
with the plans submitted for and approved by Modification No. MC 09 -02 and
Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 09 -05.
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. The approvals of Modification No. MC 09 -02 and Single Family Architectural
Design Review No. SFADR 09 -05 shall not take effect until the property
owner(s) and applicant have executed the Acceptance Form available from
Planning Services to acknowledge awareness and acceptance of the
conditions of approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve Modification Application No. MC
09 -02 and Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 09 -05, the
Commission should make specific findings based on the evidence presented, and
move to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth above, or as
modified by the Commission, based on at least one of the following findings:
That the request(s) will secure an appropriate improvement
That the request(s) will prevent an unreasonable non economic hardship
That the request(s) will promote uniformity of development
MC 09 -02 SFADR 09 -05
1227 S. Tenth Ave.
June 9, 2009 page 5
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this project, the
Commission should state with specific reasons that none of the above findings can
be made based on the evidence presented and move to deny the project.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this project prior to the June 9, 2009 hearing, please contact
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447.
Approved by:
asama
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo
Zoning Map
100' Radius Map
Plans
Photos of Subject Property and Adjacent Properties
Horse Keeping Regulations Sec. 4135.4
MC 09 -02 SFADR 09 -05
1227 S. Tenth Ave.
June 9, 2009 page 6
(1302)
1227 S Tenth Ave
Arcadia
Zone
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2009
1227 S Tenth Avenue
MC 09 -02
N
100 0 100 200 Feet
(1212)
(1218)
(1236)
R -1
(1230)
v e
A
J
(1235)
(1303)
(1309)
(1315)
(1321)
ect
R -1
(1211)
(1215)
(1302)
(1308)
(1314)
(1320)
(1131)
(1201)
(1207)
(1219)
(1223)
(1231)
(1301)
(1307)
(1311)
(1315)
(1333)
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2009
1227 S Tenth Avenue
MC 09 -02
(1126)
(1206)
(1216)
1222 R
r i
EL SU
(1230) R 1
(1310)
(1312)
5
1218
1 il
111 V '1 N
lex 11 .4
\11
L\X!11
t i N■..
1 1E& I.
N 7&,. we. NX kSe.
N4N
v`
P
1
1240
1244
1303
1302
1211
1215
1301
1307
u
2
1212
0
MC 09 -02
1227 S. Tenth Avenue
100' Radius Map
1309
1207
1308
1311
1216
1001
R AVE
10
11
1010
i
O
0
1
68669.. (866)
L0016 1/0 1 1P'V `NW 6 •O1 CZOL
ueM 6unA ua�aH
4
L —xNMM ixn
I
5
5
o-
w
L66I6 VO "eny'y61. '8 LRL
esnoH ;sane do ;g -eup MON
a
0
ti
oryy
.r GI .rt 136013
.o-s- tA.az
-AA
MINIM
M
°i -11
t fRtfi
1 Wily_
i i g
O �i
It ((((tj�
}tt l(t tt(
tlt(( (((lt!((.
twooditit
TM/
i(f(ii1it(lt!
clti i -1
{lil /(11 i—
l
l l1tcuu(
ili.iiiiilil
WOW!
(au rtl
(il�tfi((i(g(
ril ((lin([—
t�t �ltilit
�f�f tt(il l it_
i u(tlitHi it
i fiff(f( tit('
WO Ail
't f((1
till
VA
�el
1111)
M EM
2
m .9-8
O .L
ti
(114
(1( 11
!!(tl(lli 11
,iilff f itl.— 11
dilt
th f
lttt }ii�inlgii
ti iif(ft((ih(I II
tit(fi!fit((!iE-
ti1 uiil(Illtl
t( }*WO_
"gill
�1=
111 1
lA fl it }tlI �f
an
li 1
(11
l f( 1�� .i ii
441
ilk i.,
d A
..0.4i ,i
I' .o-1 -4)
4(
(1(r:
C iiu'�
1ti 1
A l i t
t (l 9.
1
l(—
�I'llll
l
f!!
f t(
l i
111}111
(t(}1
f u }f {iii ®II
iq{uutifia
(l((((!(tf! r
Ci(li[ii t
t t iln +II
IU il!i((1 1
1(1iIill
i }drill$— 1
(u }iiiltiltutll
I( ((iltfuili J
il_ It Illll 111
1 t(tifqui l
1 lllll
S }I }iitldll Ik l
l "fllii qII 1
fiil(
1 e(Il�1
0%ii
r",:l.,
IIflwjlljl(IIt(IICIE'f
4135.4. EQUINE AND OTHER ANIMAL LOCATION REQUIREMENTS.
A. Equine and other animals which are permitted to be maintained (other than household
pets, rabbits, poultry and domestic fowl), shall not be housed, corralled, kept, pastured,
tethered, ridden or allowed to be located or remain, within one hundred (100) feet of a
main dwelling or guest house, in use or occupied by any human being, other than the main
dwelling or guest house of the owner of such animal(s) or at such greater distance as is
required by any applicable law or ordinance.
EXCEPTION:
1. A new main dwelling, new guest house, or addition to the existing main dwelling or
guest house which is located less than one hundred (100) feet from an animal on a
parcel other than the parcel on which said new main dwelling, new guest house, or
addition to the existing main dwelling or guest house is located, shall not require the
removal of said animal provided that:
a. Said animal has been legally kept for a period of not Tess than six (6) months prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of such new main dwelling,
new guest house, or addition to the existing main dwelling or guest house, and
b. Said animal is maintained, located or relocated so as to be not less than thirty -five
(35) feet from such main dwelling, new guest house, addition to the existing main
dwelling or guest house.
2. The keeping of such animals in accordance with this exception, shall be a
nonconforming use. If such nonconforming use is abandoned or discontinued, any
subsequent use of the property shall be in conformance with the provisions of this
Division.
3. Horses which have been temporarily relocated for the purposes of participation in
horse shows, training, racing, or breeding shall not cause the horse keeping use of
said property to be considered abandoned or discontinued.
4. Said animals may be maintained less than one hundred (100) feet but not Tess than
thirty -five feet from the main dwelling, guest house, or addition to an existing main
dwelling or guest house, on an adjacent parcel provided that the owner of said parcel
shall have recorded a covenant, in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney,
agreeing that any such animal or animals may be kept within one hundred (100) feet of
his main dwelling or guest house.
5. This shall not preclude the riding of a horse upon an equestrian trail established and
maintained by a governmental agency, nor the riding of a horse from a lawful location
by direct route to and upon a public street.
B. No barn, corral, facility, or other area used for keeping any such animal(s) shall be located
between the front property line or corner side property line and the main dwelling structure
on the parcel where the animal is being kept or maintained.
C. No person shall keep any animal(s), other than household pets, rabbits, poultry and
domestic fowls within seventy -five (75) feet of the front lot line as defined in Article IX of
this Code, of any lot or parcel of ground.
D. No barn or other structure which is used for the keeping or maintenance of such animal(s)
shall be used for permanent or temporary living quarters.
E. Adequate fences, walls or other barriers shall be installed and maintained on the premises
so that each such animal is confined on the premises so as to preclude such animal from
damaging adjoining property.
(Amended by Ord. 1338 adopted 2- 21 -67; amended by Ord. 1867 adopted 8- 18 -87)
June 9, 2009
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application 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 at
715 S. First Avenue.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission, at its regular meeting on April 28, 2009, reviewed
Conditional Use Permit Application 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 at 715 S. First Avenue. The Commission was
not satisfied with the applicant's proposed drop -off and pick -up arrangements, and
continued the application to the June 9, 2009 meeting to allow the applicant to work
with staff in developing a better plan. The applicant's revised proposal is to
designate six (6) of the basement garage parking stalls for limited time parking, and
require parents to sign an agreement to utilize the basement garage for the drop -off
and pick -up of students. Although this arrangement would theoretically alleviate
traffic congestion on the street, staff is still concerned about the practicality of this
plan and the difficulties of enforcement once the business is operating. It is staff's
opinion that the proposal is inappropriate for the location and could negatively impact
the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Development Services Department is
recommending denial of this application.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the subject application at its regular meeting on
April 28, 2009. The staff report and minutes from that meeting are attached. At that
meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the drop -off and pick -up
arrangements. There was discussion about a designated curbside passenger
loading only zone, but the Commission was not satisfied that such a zone would be
adequate and stated that there should be a more definitive approach to the issue.
Therefore, the Commission continued the public hearing to June 9, 2009, to provide
an opportunity for the applicant to work with City staff in developing a better pick -up
and drop -off plan.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -05 were
mailed on April 17, 2009 for the April 28, 2009 meeting 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 the hearing was continued to a specific date, no
additional notices were mailed for the continuance of this application.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposal is to operate a tutoring center that would occupy the existing 2,477
square -foot, ground floor retail space at 715 S. First Avenue, as described in detail in
the attached April 28, 2009 staff report. The Commission expressed concerns
regarding the pick -up and drop -off arrangement for the students, and continued the
item for the applicant to work with staff to develop a better plan.
In addressing the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant is proposing to
designate six (6) of the 42 basement garage parking spaces for limited -term parking
(i.e., 15 minutes). These spaces are to be near the elevator and stairway. Parents
will be required to sign an agreement (see the attached sample) to use the garage
parking spaces to pick -up or drop -off their children, and not park or double -park on
Alice Street or First Avenue for that purpose. The agreement also requires
adherence to a sign -in and sign -out procedure, where parents will have to enter the
tutoring center and sign their children in and out.
If strictly followed and enforced, the revised proposal would address the Planning
Commission's concerns. However, it is staff's opinion based on experience with
other tutoring centers, that this arrangement will be difficult for the applicant and /or
the City to enforce, and despite the written agreement and other proposed
requirements, some parents will at least occasionally pick -up or drop -off their
children at curbside on First Avenue or Alice Street because it is more convenient
and /or because of time constraints. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the
subject application.
In the April 28, 2009 staff report, conditions were recommended if the Planning
Commission were to approve the project. Staff proposes for the Commission's
consideration, the following revised condition no. 4:
4. Six (6) parking spaces in the basement garage nearest the elevator
and stairway shall be designated as 15- minute parking spaces. These
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
June 9, 2009
Page 2
The following condition (no. 11) shall also be added to require all parents to sign the
pick -up and drop -off policy agreement:
11. A pick -up and drop -off policy agreement subject to the approval by
the Community Development Administrator shall be signed by
parents /legal guardians of the students.
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 qualifies
as 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. If
the Planning Commission determines that this project is categorically exempt, the
Development Services Department will prepare a Notice of Exemption. A
Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report.
FINDINGS
spaces shall be available to all tenants. Signs for those spaces shall
be per the Arcadia Municipal Code and California Vehicle Code, and
the time limitation shall be enforceable by the Arcadia Police
Department and /or the parking enforcement service.
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,
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
June 9, 2009
Page 3
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 prerequisite condition no. 3 cannot be satisfied because the
design of the development is inadequate to accommodate on -site drop -offs and pick-
ups for a tutoring center. This deficiency means that drop -off and pick -up activity will
take place in the public rights -of -way, which will cause traffic congestion, and unduly
impact the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 09 -05.
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, staff recommends
the following conditions:
1. There shall not be more than thirty (30) students with six (6) instructors and
one (1) administrator /receptionist at any time at the tutoring center.
2. The hours of operation of the tutoring center shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., seven days a week.
3. The tutoring center shall post and distribute notices to all students, their
parents, and the staff, instructing them where to park and where to drop -off
and pick -up students in accordance with requirements to be 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.
4. Six (6) parking spaces in the basement garage nearest the elevator and
stairway shall be designated as 15- minute parking spaces. These spaces
shall be available to all tenants. Signs for those spaces shall be per the
Arcadia Municipal Code and California Vehicle Code, and the time limitation
shall be enforceable by the Arcadia Police Department and /or the parking
enforcement service.
5. The use approved by CUP 09 -05 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 -05.
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
June 9, 2009
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
6. The approval of CUP 09 -05 includes a one space parking modification which
is applicable only to the tutoring center approved by CUP 09 -05.
7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
09 -05 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 -05 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.
11. A pick -up and drop -off policy agreement subject to approval by the
Community Development Administrator shall be signed by parents /legal-
guardians of the students.
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should
move to approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -05; 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.
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
June 9, 2009
Page 5
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should
move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -05; 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 June 9 public hearing, please contact
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447.
Approved by:
Ji y asama
ommunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Pick -up and Drop -off Policy Agreement
Operation Schedule
April 28, 2009 Staff Report
Aerial Photo with zoning information
300 -foot radius map
Plans
Photos
Letters of Opposition
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
April 28, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
June 9, 2009
Page 6
Yale Education Institute
715 S First Avenue
Arcadia, CA 91007
Tel:
Dear Parents /Guardian:
To ensure safety of the students, Yale Education Institute requires all students to be
dropped off and picked up at the subterranean spaces (with 15 minutes time limit) for
Yale Education Institute and mandatory sign -in and sign -out policy that needs to be
followed by parents. No pick ups or dropped off are allowed on First Avenue or Alice
Street. Yale Education Institute will enforce this policy strictly for the best interest of the
students to make sure all students are safe and are under supervision at all times.
Please kindly fill out and sign the following safety agreement:
I have read the Yale Education Safety/Pick up and Drop -off Policy. We /I,
parents(s) /of
agree to pick up and drop off my child at the six
subterranean parking spaces (with 15 minutes time limit) for Yale Education Institute.
We /I will accompany my child into the institute and will follow Yale Education's sign -in
and sign -out procedures for my child's safety concern. At no time will We /I pick up or
drop off my child on Alice Street or First Avenue.
Agreed upon
Signature:
Printed Name:
Yale Education Safety /Pick -up and Drop -off Policy
day of 2009:
Education After School Chinese Language Program Schedule
Low Impact on Traffic Flow
Estimated Teachers:
Estimated Students:
Operation Hours:
Class Schedule Hours:
11:45 AM -6PM
3:00 PM -5:30 PM
3:15 PM 5:45 PM
3:30 PM 6:30 PM
9:00 AM– 11:00 AM
1:00 PM -3:30 PM
Class Schedule:
6
30
10AM -7PM
(Kindergarten -5 Students, 1 Teacher)
(1 Grade 2 Grade -5 Students, 1 Teacher)
(3 Grade 4 Grade -5 Students, 1 Teacher)
(5 Grade -5 Students, 1 Teacher)
Art Class at Weekend (5 Students, 1 Teacher)
Language Class at Weekend (5 Students, 1 Teacher)
M -F Afternoon Class for Tutoring
S -Sun Weekend Art and Chinese, Spanish Class, Tutoring
Please note that the classes are scheduled so that the classes do not overlap. Therefore,
only 5 students at a section of time are being dropped off and picked up so there will be
no rush of 30 students all together. Also, Yale Education Institute will provide a
transportation mini van service that seats seven to pick up students from nearby school to
accommodate busy parents. This will further decrease the number of cars that will be
picking and dropping off students. Therefore, Yale Education Institute perceives there
will be minimum, if any, impact on traffic flow.
April 28, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUMMARY
GENERAL INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 18,304 sq. ft. (0.42 acres)
FRONTAGES: 143 feet along South First Avenue
128 feet along Alice Street
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application 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 at
715 S. First Avenue.
Ms. Eileen Li, representative of the lessee, Yale Education Institute, submitted
Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -05 to operate a 2,477 square -foot
tutoring center with up to 30 students at 715 S. First Avenue. Because of the
absence of an on -site pick -up and drop -off area, it is staff's opinion that the proposal
is inappropriate for the location and would negatively impact the neighboring
properties. Therefore, the Development Services Department is recommending
denial of the application.
APPLICANT: Ms. Eileen Li, Representative of the lessee, Yale Education Institute
LOCATION: 715 S. First Avenue NW corner of S. First Avenue Alice Street
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit for a 2,477 square -foot tutoring center
with up to 30 students at any one time. The hours of operation will
be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.
EXISTING LAND USE ZONING:
The site is developed with a three -story, 23,800 square -foot, mixed
use building with eight residential units and 7,577 square feet of
commercial space. The property was developed in 2008, and is
zoned C -2, General Commercial.
SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING:
N o rt h Non conforming residential building zoned C -2
South: Non conforming residential building zoned C -2
East: Arcadia Presbyterian Church zoned R -3
West: Ten -unit condominium complex zoned R -3
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Mixed Use Commercial /Multiple Family
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -05 were mailed on April
17, 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 three -story, 23,800 square -foot mixed -use
project with eight residential units and 7,577 square -feet of commercial space. The
development was approved on October 26, 2004 under CUP 04 -13 by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1714. The commercial space originally consisted of a
2,477 square -foot retail space on the ground floor, and 5,100 square feet of general
office space on the second and third floors.
On November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 with one member
absent to conditionally approve Modification Application No. MC 08 -42 for 34 on -site
parking spaces in lieu of 38 required to allow a dental office to occupy the 2,550
square -feet of office space on the third floor of the subject building. The condition of
approval is that the subject dental use is limited to one pediatric dentist.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The proposal is to operate a tutoring center that would occupy the existing 2,477
square -foot, ground floor retail space at 715 S. First Avenue. There will be six
classrooms with up to five students in each class, which equates to a maximum of 30
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 2009
Page 2
students at the proposed tutoring center. Classes in language, art, and general
tutoring will be offered to students from kindergarten to fifth grade. The hours of
operation will be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week. The proposed classes
include an 11:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. kindergarten, and three, two- and -a -half to three
hour long after school sessions for first to fifth graders (see the attached class
schedule). The weekday schedule is staggered so that the tutoring sessions begin
and end fifteen minutes apart from each other. There will be six teachers; one for
each classroom, and one administrator /receptionist. A tutoring center is a permitted
use in the C -2 zone with an approved conditional use permit.
Parking
There is a basement garage with 42 parking spaces; 34 are for the commercial uses
and eight are guest parking spaces for the residences. Each of the residential units
has a two -car garage on the ground -floor level. Additionally, of the 34 commercial
parking spaces, ten are compact stalls, which are no longer allowed by Code.
Modification Application No. MC 08 -42 was conditionally approved by the Planning
Commission on November 25, 2008 to allow 34 on -site parking spaces in lieu of 38
required to convert the 2,550 square -foot, third floor general office space into a
dental office. The condition of approval is that only one pediatric dentist is permitted
to operate at this location. The following table lists the current parking requirements:
Parking Requirements for Current Commercial Uses at 715 S. First Avenue
Uses
3rd Floor Dentist
2nd Floor General Office
1 Floor Retail
Totals
On -site parking spaces provided
Approx.
Sq. Ft.
2,550
2,550
2,477
7,577
Parking
Ratio
6/1,000 sq.ft.
4/1,000 sq.ft.
5/1,000 sq.ft.
Spaces
Required
15.3
10.2
12.4
38
34
By code, a tutoring center for students of non driving age is required to provide one
on -site parking space for each employee and one space for every five students. If
limited to six teachers, one administrator /receptionist, and 30 students, the proposed
tutoring center would be required to provide 13 spaces, which is only one more than
the requirement for the permitted retail use of the first floor. The parking calculation
for the proposed tutoring center is shown in the following table:
Total
Parking Requirement for the Proposed Tutoring Center
Criteria
1 space per employee
1 space per 5 students
Parking Ratio Spaces Required
x 7 employees
x 30 students
7
6
13
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 2009
Page 3
Although the parking requirement for this mixed -use development increases by only
one space for the proposed use, it is staff's opinion that because this project cannot
provide for off street drop -off and pick -up of the students, this application, if
approved, would have a negative impact on the neighboring properties and the traffic
flow on First Avenue and Alice Street.
The proposed staggered schedule may help prevent too many drop -offs and pick-
ups from occurring at one time, but because the parking for the commercial uses is
located in a basement garage, it is inevitable that most of the students will be
dropped off and picked up at curbside on First Avenue or Alice Street. This type of
activity occurs frequently at other existing tutoring centers along First Avenue even
though there may be a readily accessible on -site parking lot. These situations cause
traffic congestion during peak hours, and the prevention of double parking violations
is also a recurring problem. A curbside passenger loading only zone could
somewhat alleviate these problems.
Staff received four letters of opposition from nearby residents (see attached). These
neighbors are concerned about the traffic impacts, and the unsupervised gathering
of children before and after the tutoring sessions.
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. If
this project is determined to be categorically exempt, the Development Services
Department will prepare a Notice of Exemption. A Preliminary Exemption
Assessment has been prepared and is attached to this staff report.
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:
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 2009
Page 4
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 prerequisite condition no. 3 cannot be satisfied because the
site is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate an on -site drop -off and pick -up
location for said use. The lack of an adequate on -site location means that most of
the drop -off and pick -up activity will have to take place in the public rights -of -way,
which will cause undue traffic congestion.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends denial of Conditional Use
Permit Application No. CUP 09 -05.
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this application, staff recommends
the following conditions:
1. There shall not be more than thirty (30) students with six (6) instructors and
one (1) administrator /receptionist at any time at the tutoring center.
2. The hours of operation of the tutoring center shall be limited to 10:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., seven days a week.
3. The tutoring center shall post and distribute notices to all students, their
parents, and the staff, instructing them where to park and where to drop -off
and pick -up students in accordance with requirements to be 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.
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 2009
Page 5
4. A designated passenger loading zone in front of the subject building along
First Avenue shall be provided if deemed acceptable by the City Engineer.
Such loading zone shall be provided at the tutoring center's expense in a
manner to be determined by the City Engineer.
5. The use approved by CUP 09 -05 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 -05.
6. The approval of CUP 09 -05 includes a one space parking modification which
is applicable only to the tutoring center approved by CUP 09 -05.
7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
09 -05 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 -05 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 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 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 -05; 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 -05; 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 April 28 public hearing, please contact
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447.
Approved by:
asama
Community Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo with zoning information
300 -foot radius map
Plans
Photos
Letters of Opposition
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CUP 09 -05
715 S. First Avenue
April 28, 2009
Page 7
us rrrli -P
11
BUSINESS PLAN
UEC ENTERPRISE INC.
YALE EDUCATION INSTITUTE
715 S. FIRST AVE.,
ARCADIA, CA 91006
(626)675 -1848
EILEEN LI
March 24, 2009
SECTION 1: THE BU'
Pte nese
SS PROFILE
Estimated teachers: 6
Estimated students: 30
Operation Hours: 10:00 am -7:00 pm
Class Schedule Hours:
11:45am- 6:00 pm (Kindergarten 5 students, 1 teacher)
3:OOpm- 5:30pm (1 grade 2 grade) (5 students, 1 teacher for each classroom)
3:15pm- 5:45pm (3 grade 4 grade) (5 students, 1 teacher for each classroom) aj
3:30pm- 6:30pm (5 grade) (5 students, 1 teacher for each classroom)
(O:OOam- 11:30am Art class at weekend (5 students, 1 teacher for each classroom)
1:OOpm- 3:30pm Language class at weekend (5 students, 1 teacher for each
classroom)
Class Schedule: M -F Afternoon Class for Tutoring
S -Sun Weekend Art and Chinese, Spanish Class, Tutoring.(A11 Classes
should according State standard and follow up State regulations)
Operation Plan for Loading and Pick up:
The parents transportation rides and school bus will be loading and pick up children y'
on Alice Ave where is close to facility at different time schedule depends on class
schedule.
k Targeted Market and Customers
Everyday, after school hour, many children have not place can go to do homework,
review classroom work, also in our country, they need take care and under care before
,I they get 14 years old by law, as one of those parents, I and we cannot leave children
behind our care, let them walk on the street by themselves, that is dangerous for them, for
E;' parents, we need give the hands to them and their parents, and their parents can working
at office without worry.
ii
Growth Trends In This Business
This market have a big potential clients, in Arcadia City, we have 5 elementary schools
and 3 middle school, 1 high school, every school average about 670 students there, but
only have same kind of function after school about 25 -30, it is not enough for our needs.
Pricing Power
After very carefully and completely research and analyze, our pricing is average between
i the highest and lowest, but we provide more and perfect services to students and parents,
such like we provide good and nutrition snack; eye excises time; enough rest time; Friday
funny shows; umbrella service; pick up services; etc..
f+ i
ii
t'
SECTION 2: THE VISION AND THE PEOPLE
We will have a strong management team and very professional, friendly, patiently teacher
team to build good reputation and middle pricing range to get most middle income
range's family come to our school.
THE PEOPLE
Personal Background and Education Credentials
See resume.
Work Experience Related to My Intended Business
As a education staff, I have a many years experience at school industry both in China and t
here, I worked at Rosemead English School, also I have business experiences, my major
is business management and graduated from University of Shenzhen.
Computer and Communications Tools
4 Resource Requirements:
11 Communications
We will have some flyers and put some advertisement to radio station and newspaper to let people
who living the area know us.
Telephones
We will have 3 different individual line for business and 1 line for children service, the budget is
$500.
fi
Pagers
;1 We will arrange cell phone provide to key staff.
1
Facsimile
We will have a regular basis fax machine and budget is $350.
BUSINESS PLAN
SECTION 3: COMMUNICATIONS
Computers
We will have a individual computer learning room for children, and inside held about 10
computers, budget is $3,000.
Internet
We will have a regular computer Internet access such as DSL or AT &T internet services package,
the budget is $500 per month
BUSINESS PLAN
SECTION 4: ORGANIZATION
Business Organization
Arcadia Commerce Chamber.
Because if join the chamber in the city, will have a lot of benefit from there, like we have
net work, we can communicate with whoever joined chamber each other.
1 Professional Consultants
Lawyer: Daniel Huang Law Office
bl
Insurance Agency: KCAL Insurance Agency
Accounting Office: William Woo
II Licenses
Condition Use Permit and Business License.
BUSINESS PLAN
DBA: Yale Education Institute
Zoning: C3
Licenses: Local Business License
Local: Arcadia Business License and Condition Use Permit
State: N/A
Federal: N/A
Trademark: N/A
Sellers Permit: For sell some drinks and small foods;
EIN: 80- 0352331
SECTION 5: LICENSES, PERMITS AND BUSINESS NAMES
Due Diligence Procedures for Licenses, Permits and Business Names (Session 14):
List the following:
BUSINESS PLAN
SECTION 6: INSURANCE
1 sn urance
Insurance will provided by KCAL Insurance Agency, the cost estimated $820
$1500 per year.
BUSINESS PLAN
SECTION 12: MARKETING
Marketing Plan
(Session 12): Describe your overall marketing and sales strategy including how you plan
to get and retain customers.
Advertising and Promotion Plans ..�...�._..�.M.....,�.�._��_..d
The plan for advertisement is we will put our AD to Chinese Yellow Page; California
Chinese Yellow Page; California Color Page; Chinese Newspaper; colorful flyer; etc..
The budget is $3000 per year.
i4
Purchasing and Inventory Control
New equipments: folding tables; folding chairs; new boards; new stationary; office
such as copier, printer, computer, telephone, hone electronics pencil cutter, etc..
equipments p P
I' We have individual storage room nearby our office for manage and control our stock and
books and business stuff.
90016 VD 'VIOYJYV
3nv isall 5 slt `u 3:)rn 11-V Ls
1VDN3WWOD
OaNOJ 11Nf1-B
3ZN3211A Vll
I
il VI
1
VI
.1 1
L.......
NY 1d 3115
numb.
a
la Q
e
i 1
IL' 0
KOLZOO, a No.
tl
V1340
V1 110 8
grleoxV
5
1
1
T
T
133NIS 3017V
t►
FIRST AVENUE
900L6 V vicrowe
3AV 157111 3 SIL `15 3JIN 'WV L5
1VI7143W WOD
OGNOJ 11Nn -9
3ZN31IIJ V11IA
goo 0 i 0 o
T T T T T g
6 31 a) e z� e 2Yi
A Y. a t a i aid lip
ii liii; ¢m i i i C i 6 6 fi g
V "R 1 R ki 1 ki ii i¢6� sk y Q��!<tl5
gi 5 r p G p ell 14 B p lit Ai I R]k
e b !FIN 4 7 p i p 9$ 1 148 r i !ii i! 01 q 1 1 ,1 &Iv pi 00,,04
Ai is G g q i h .i /1 A rr, MIN
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1-
.0 a1
buszsawno
SLDIION NU NINON
.0-,L =.en aivos
dWVif AVM3AkI I AO NOLLO2S
3d01S &f a 7103
SNVld MOOD O1 halal
-j
NVId JNIO1If79
710013 1s111A
TM ADO
.0 -.ON
11
it
2
g g6 et
aZ
M.ZZ.9CbB5
it
B'ZZl
NVId 1N3W3SV9
TOLL 1.86
Is
R
BASEMENT
9
L
3AV 15MIi 'S 5 u
7VIJ
OaNOJ 11Nf1.8
3ZN3211i V I1IA
WO
nwMc
51"110" BA 11111N014
u —3
x
a
i
xp
I
I
win
u 1LL
pao
O
1
ap
p .1
40 1 o
r
c p
o
o
Q
p
L i4I 1 r
1
2
g g6 et
aZ
M.ZZ.9CbB5
it
B'ZZl
NVId 1N3W3SV9
TOLL 1.86
Is
R
BASEMENT
3AV 15MIi 'S 5 u
7VIJ
OaNOJ 11Nf1.8
3ZN3211i V I1IA
WO
nwMc
51"110" BA 11111N014
u —3
1
2
g g6 et
aZ
M.ZZ.9CbB5
it
B'ZZl
NVId 1N3W3SV9
TOLL 1.86
Is
R
BASEMENT
L
1 I g o ppp i 8gpg g
&Il E�6
R
Id In hi no that th
as
R g g F g 6 y
R dd c g A x 4 O R
z
0
1—
t
9
U
N
PARTIAL WEST EL
SCALE: 1 14"m
main
(no mm/mN
Yn,m.11
Minna
Mad
[1 I
DX 111111 IM° mr.s
suvswv•raa tanotl
pn�
�J'�'U"�
n -m
i t
7
i
I
11
I
l
ill
Ma MS
MI .C.ra.
la VA mm
m arm
av mmm
vaw
/1•4110
L
1 I g o ppp i 8gpg g
&Il E�6
R
Id In hi no that th
as
R g g F g 6 y
R dd c g A x 4 O R
z
0
1—
t
9
U
N
PARTIAL WEST EL
SCALE: 1 14"m
3 A V I S I I I I S SLL "153711V 'WV LS
'1VIDt13WWOJ;
DX 111111 IM° mr.s
suvswv•raa tanotl
pn�
�J'�'U"�
(1 7NI011f...,
SN011d/�313
niumm
b 1
7
i
i
i
11
OGNOD .1.1N11-9
3ZN3ZI1� d111A
L
1 I g o ppp i 8gpg g
&Il E�6
R
Id In hi no that th
as
R g g F g 6 y
R dd c g A x 4 O R
z
0
1—
t
9
U
N
PARTIAL WEST EL
SCALE: 1 14"m
S
.4,.11,.s
11.
hI
C
MI Val
,x..06
imE
Or
ih|
MOS
I CPS
toms
,u.
VOID MELO
ISO VS
MK MN
CMS
Us MI
mg awe
¥tava_
n_'
mDS,o
OONOD JN�n,
2mG VITA
4
I
1/5161
IPR
gi h g W
,q ■m k Ii |q g!
me-en inw bee no
exuars Nano Ix a•
S1311.1101Y NM MOH
(11 DN. nm
ma_2
EAST ELEVATION (BUILDING II)
Tom Li
From: li li [Ii 123 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:56 PM
To: Tom Li
Subject: public hearing for 715 S. First Avenue #CUP 09 -05, public hearing
Hello Mr. Thomas Li,
Page 1 of 1
My name is Ted Li and I live in 126 Fano St. #A and I am voting a "NO" to this permit, as
there are already too much "Education Center" in First Avenue area and the parents
always block the street roads in picking up the kids, plus from time to time those kids
(especially for high school kids) will just hang out in the street after off from those
"Education Center I would like to vote "NO I do not know if we can against them in
setting up this new "Education Institute but sincerely hope city can help us to provide
more quite and safe enviorment.
THANK YOU.
Li
miucsmotmvelamotxwei
4/20/2009
Tom Li
From: zhou zhou [zhouj12 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:17 PM
To: Tom Li
Subject: 715 S. 1st Ave, CUP 09 -05 FOR YALE EDUACTION
DEAR MR. L/,
I DO NOT THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA IN SETTING UP MORE EDCA T /ON CENTER
HERE IN S. F/RSTA VENUE, AS THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEMALREADYAND
EVERYDAY WHEN DRIVE BACK FROM MY WORK (I LIVE IN 52 BONITA STREET
ARCA /DA) THERE ARE ALWAYS K /DS HANGING OUT IN THIS STREET AND SITTING
IN THE STREET WAITING FOR THEIR PARENTS TO PICK THEM UP. THE TRAFFIC
IS AWFUL EVERYDAY FROM TIME 5.•30PM TO 6..30PM. MY W /FE USE TO TAKE MY
KIDS OUT FOR STORLL /NG AFTER THE DINNER, BUT NOW SHE DARE NOT GOING
OUT JUST BECAUSE OF THERE ARE TOO MANY K/DS AND CARS IN THE STREET
I WOULD URGE CITY NOT TO GIVE OUT THIS PERMIT TO PROVIDE A SAFE
QUITE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR US WHICH WE NEED IT.!!!
SINCERELY,
JERRY ZHOU
MWC cA1F AAV E I i IUKVA ON pE
4/20/2009
Page 1 of 1
Tom Li
From: HUNG KUEI CHANG [changage @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:43 PM
To: Tom Li
Subject: yale education, CUP NO 09 -05
Mr. Thomas,
We would vote a big NO on this permit, as 1st Avenue already too many education school I
think at least 6 -7 of them), maybe you not live in nearby, I talked to our neightbors
today it's choas from Mon to Fri after 5:30pm.
We live in ALICE STREET and just the street next to 715 S. 1ST AVENUE, the traffic already
awful those several years and I do not want to block meself outside of my home for those
private schools everyday.
We do not know what kind of evidence we can or need to provide to your esteemed planning
department of Arcadia City and truly hope City will not giving out any more permit in this
neighborhood again. I can not attend the hearing that day beacuse of my job, can you
please let me know how to let all concerned department awaring of our attitude in
regarding of this case.
Changs Family it's neighbors
1
Tom Li
From: Top League [topleague88 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Tom Li
Cc: Rosi Ueng
Subject: notice for public hearing for cup 09 -05 715 s. 1st ave.,
Hello Thomas,
Page 1 of 1
We have to vote a big "NO" for this hearing hold on this 28th at 7:OOpm, as we doubt if it is against the existing
regulations, as it looks like only front side of 715 can have the place to pick up the students, Does this
application fits city's pick up /parking regulations Do they have enough space for parking( for both teachers
and students).
Do we have to show up that day of hearing or we can just use this mail to present our opinion I was told
before it's impossible to apply for education use in this location(limited parking space), how come city now
willing to give this company a trial.
Thank you
Alex
817 S. 1 ST AVENUE, ARCADIA
4/21/2009
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: CUP 09 -05
2. Location: 715 S. First Avenue
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
X B. Other (Private)
4. Staff Determination:
Date: March 31, 2009
(1) Name: Eileen Li (representative of lessee, Yale Education
Institute)
(2) Address: 405 S. Del Mar Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776
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. X The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 22
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
Thomas P. Li
Staff
7/02
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -05
715 South First Avenue
UEC Enterprises, Inc., dba Yale Education Institute (Lessee)
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,477 square -foot
tutoring center with up to 30 students on the ground floor of an existing
commercial/residential mixed -use building. The hours of operation will be 10:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.
Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report.
Chairman Beranek called for questions from the Commissioners.
Chairman Beranek asked if there will be an easement for use of the residential areas
behind the building as a drop off point for students. Mr. Li explained that since that
area lacks adequate circulation it was not considered as an option.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Ms. Eileen Li, the applicant, said that UEC Enterprises wanted to invest in Arcadia
because they have identified a need for the service they provide. Ms. Li said that
there are not enough tutoring centers in the city for the number of children who wish
to attend. She explained that Yale Education Institute offers an excellent program in
a positive, healthy environment and that the project has very strong community
support. Ms. Li also noted that the applicant has agreed to comply with all
conditions of approval.
Commissioner Baerg asked how the students will be dropped off and picked up at the
center.
Ms. Li said that they will have a maximum of thirty students on a staggered schedule
and that the owner of the adjacent residential property on Alice Street has agreed to
allow them to use the street in front of their property for drop off and pick up. She
noted that the traffic in this area is usually light. The parents of the students will be
required to sign in and out when dropping off or picking up their children.
Commissioner Baderian noted that video cameras are to be installed to insure the
students' safety and he asked who would be monitoring these cameras. Ms. Li
explained that the receptionist will monitor the cameras and that the cameras will be
in operation round the clock providing a view of the basement or street even after
school hours.
Mr. Tony Banadio, a local real estate investor, noted that the applicant has had
difficulty finding a suitable location for their business in Arcadia. He asked if an
insurance policy protecting the city from law suites would be appropriate.
Ms. Judy Chiang, the owner of the property, said that in the current economic
situation, it is hard to find good tenants that will be an asset to the community. She
said she believes that Yale Education Institute will meet these requirements. Ms.
Chiang said that Arcadia is noted for education and that there is a high demand for
after school programs. She also said that she feels the tenant has adequately
addressed the issues of traffic and safety and they have agreed to comply with all city
codes and conditions of approval. Ms Chiang said that she has lived in the
community since 1976 and has her life savings invested in this property.
Ms. Estella Kuo, the broker leasing this space, said that the current economic
recession makes it difficult to find tenants although she had inquiries from an internet
gaming business and a liquor store. Ms. Kuo said that Ms. Chiang preferred to lease
to a professional tenant like the education center. She pointed out Ms. Chiang's
courage in starting a new business in these uncertain times and said that she hopes
that they will have a chance to succeed.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to
close the public hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Beranek asked City Engineer, Mr. Wray, if the arrangement whereby the
neighbors agree to allow the education center to use their property for drop off and
pick up of students is practical.
Mr. Wray said that the space they want to use for a loading zone is in the public right
of -way so it is possible for this type of arrangement to work although it is generally
discouraged. He said that designating an area as a loading zone is counter to the most
efficient use of parking space. He did note, however, that there is a space close to the
corner that could be designated as a loading zone and might be more practicable.
Commissioner Parrille asked if the City had any problems at other schools where
there is a drop off area. Mr. Wray said that he was not aware of any significant
problem, but since they are proposing subterranean parking here, the drop off and
pick up is not as easy as at other schools.
Commissioner Baderian asked how many students are expected at a time. Ms. Li said
there would be six arriving at a time.
Commissioner Baderian asked if this number of students would cause a traffic
problem. Mr. Wray said that they would have to abide by the traffic laws and might
have to circle the block or find parking since queuing is not allowed but, if they are
staggered it probably wouldn't be a problem.
Commissioner Parrille asked if drop off could be restricted to the basement only. Mr.
Wray said that it could, but Mr. Li pointed out it would be difficult to enforce.
Commissioner Baderian noted that the Commission doesn't question the merit of
education but does have some concerns about safety. He said that he is not
comfortable with a loading zone in front of the center unless it is monitored to be sure
there is only one car there at a time since it is not enough to hope that the parents will
take turns.
Commissioner Baerg agreed with Commissioner Baderian and said that he felt drop
off and pick up arrangement should be more clearly defined.
Commissioner Parrille expressed agreement and called for a more definitive approach
to the problem.
Commissioner Hsu said that most parents would come at dinner time and even with
on -site parking, traffic could back up into the street.
Chairman Beranek also stated his concerns with the pick up arrangements.
Commissioner Baderian suggested a continuance to allow the applicant to work with
staff to develop a better plan for drop off and pick up of students.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to
continue Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -05 to the June 9, 2009 regular
meeting, but in no case longer than sixty (60) days
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES: None
June 9, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
Development Services Department
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -06 to legalize an
existing auto garage for the maintenance and storage of collectible
vehicles in an existing 6,200 square -foot warehouse, and to legalize a
non permitted 600 square -foot canopy at 141 Santa Clara Street.
SUMMARY
Mr. Ben Reiling, property owner, submitted Conditional Use Permit Application No.
CUP 09 -06 to legalize an existing auto garage for the maintenance and storage of
collectible vehicles in an existing 6,200 square -foot warehouse, and to legalize a
non permitted 600 square -foot canopy at 141 Santa Clara Street. The Development
Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed garage subject to
the conditions listed in this staff report, but the canopy cannot meet building code
requirements and must be removed.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Mr. Ben Reiling, Property Owner
LOCATION: 141 E. Santa Clara Street
REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to legalize an existing auto garage for the
maintenance and storage of collectible vehicles in an existing 6,200
square -foot warehouse, and to legalize a non permitted 600 square
foot canopy.
SITE AREA: 8,000 sq. ft. (0.18 acre)
FRONTAGES: 50 feet along east Santa Clara Street
50 feet along an alley
EXISTING LAND USE ZONING:
The site is developed with a one -story, 6,200 square -foot
warehouse. The property was developed in 1948, and is zoned
M -1 Planned Industrial District.
SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING:
With the exception of the Hilton Garden Inn hotel that is zoned C -2
General Commercial, to the southeast of the subject property, the
surrounding properties are developed with industrial uses that are
zoned M -1 Planning Industrial District.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Industrial
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09 -06 were
mailed on May 28, 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 one -story, 6,200 square -foot warehouse
that was previously a motorcycle rental shop. This business closed in 2002 and was
subsequently occupied by the current property owner to maintain and store his
vehicle collection. It was the property owners understanding that this use does not
require any special permits from the City.
The subject industrial building includes an approximately 970 square -foot service
area with two roll -up industrial doors in the rear portion of the building, a 4,500
square -foot warehouse space, and a 540 square -foot office and reception area at the
front of the building at Santa Clara Street.
On February 11, 2008, the applicant was issued a notice of violation for the canopy
structure that was erected without permits. In attempting to secure permits for the
canopy structure, the applicant was notified that the automobile garage and storage
uses require a Conditional Use Permit.
CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
June 9, 2009
Page 2
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant has a collection of vehicles that require regular maintenance and
secure storage. The application is to request approval to use an existing 6,200
square -foot warehouse for this purpose. In addition, the application includes a
request to maintain a non permitted 600 square -foot canopy structure.
Parking
By Code, a 6,200 square -foot warehouse is required to have twelve (12) on -site
parking spaces. The Code does not specify a requirement for automotive garages or
for automotive storage. There are two (2) on -site parking spaces off the rear alley.
This is an existing non conforming condition and because the proposal is for a non-
commercial use, staff does not expect a demand for on -site parking. For the
occasional visitors, there is currently ample curbside parking available along this
portion of Santa Clara Street.
Canopy Structure
The application includes a request to maintain a 600 square -foot canopy structure to
shade and shield the rear driveway area from sun and dust. This structure is
attached to the rear portion of the building and the wrought iron fencing along the
east side property line. The Building Official has reviewed this structure and has
determined that neither the materials, nor the configuration comply with the building
code. Therefore, this structure cannot be permitted and must be removed.
The proposed automobile garage and storage use is strictly for the applicant's
personal use and is not a business; it serves as a place to maintain and showcase
his collection of vehicles. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use satisfies the
prerequisite conditions for a Conditional Use Permit, and recommends approval of
this application, subject to the conditions listed in this report, including the removal of
the canopy structure.
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
Staff's assessment is that this project qualifies as categorically exempt from further
environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines Existing facilities involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead
CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
June 9, 2009
Page 3
agency's determination. If the Planning Commission determines that this project is
categorically exempt, the Development Services Department will prepare a Notice of
Exemption. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment is attached to this staff report.
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 -06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The 600 square -foot non permitted temporary canopy structure shall be
removed within 60 days. Any permanent shade structure to replace the
canopy shall comply with all applicable Building, Fire, and Safety codes and
shall be subject to Architectural Design Review approval.
2. The use approved by CUP 09 -06 is limited to the proposed private
automobile garage and storage, which shall be utilized and maintained in a
manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and
approved for CUP 09 -06.
3. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP
09 -06 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any
approvals, which could result in the closing of the auto garage and storage.
CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
June 9, 2009
Page 4
4. 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. The subject property and
building shall be inspected by the Fire Prevention Bureau, and any and all
requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
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 CUP 09 -06 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.
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 -06; 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 -06; 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.
CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
June 9, 2009
Page 5
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the June 9 public hearing, please contact
Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574 -5447.
Approved by:
J
sama
munity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo with zoning information
300 -foot radius map
Plans
Photos
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CUP 09 -06
141 Santa Clara Street
June 9, 2009
Page 6
141 E Santa Clara St
Arcadia
Zone
Subject
Prope
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2009
141 E Santa Clara Street
CUP 09 -06
(122)
(126)
(130)
(136)
(140)
(150)
(154)
(158) (162)
100
(130)
(125)
N
0 100
M -1
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, June 2009
(136-140)
200 Feet
41)
(155)
(145)
(144)
(149)
t4
SANTA CLARA ST
(150)
M -1
M 1
ST JOSEPH ST
(153)
(157)
(152) (156)
1
J
(215)
(205)
(125)
(121)
(117)
(109)
(105)
(300)
141 E Santa Clara Street
CUP 09 -06
(2(
1,
Ore SUE MORENO
87 VC Y 350-5944
OWNERSHIP 1 OCCUPANTS UST
RADIUS MAPS. LAND. USE -PLANS
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING
12106 LAMBERT AVEU3 MONTE, CA 21732 2/0((826p5O
PROJECT INFORMATION
141 SANTA CLARA ST.
ARCADIA, CA.
09 -050
SCALE 1" 200'
6 ST. i JOSEPI -I
14
13
as
'E. 8
lsw
M
N/
190
iSF
15
rort
3T 5
v
4
tar 4
a
LA PORT
DR_ &HUNTINGTON
ti
w
T.
e ll
12
11
12
Or)
13
14
U
IS
DR.2
CST.
ro
J
1w.3V
am,,,.
.4 1.1E5 L
SANTA; CLARA
is7.73
84
,as Ir!
J. 1 1 1 41
t HUN T1NGTON
R.S. IL! -K
.s1
1.1.13
euv
f. V rAtV.1t\fct
A, G. rAvr.-b rAf- 141Ntt
0 W.I. voNGe
.1"Wr0gtzNr 0 'UN l'U ?f
yNl -'Cif 1� MAX 1�•r.
rY01%le' i 141 0..14 0• CI-NO.,
Nt2GAVIN GAitAr.
liif Iwo (A0O0
�bG 5 72'',r.
aU76. 1 1-' O O, rAgA rT
/ONN0(t O teitAt4 t
WhIANO6 VW• (4 4-795 -3717
���E% a.oa !IAN
,i eota -p
t i f7ur1
-4 vpf
1 (1 4 U 61 'date
NO.TN (1 le5YA1110N
1f il,,011
.oU (OkRf N ai i2
y s. tt e
A-1 MN GlAKI\
CA'n 1 A� 61\1, l ra
1 iUG4 7Oc
*jot /69
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: CUP 09 -06
2. Location: 141 Santa Clara Street
3. Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
X B. Other (Private)
(1) Name: Ben Reiling (Property Owner)
4. Staff Determination:
Date: May 14, 2009
(2) Address: 3001 Lombardy Rd.,
Pasadena, CA 91107
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. X The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 01
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
Thomas P. Li
Staff
7/02
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 5 :30 P.M.
Arcadia Council Chambers Conference Room
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in a special meeting on Tuesday, May 12,
2009 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers Conference Room of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W.
Huntington Drive, with Chairman Beranek presiding.
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
ABSENT: None
a. REPORT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Senior Planner Lisa Flores offered a Power Point presentation on the General Plan Update,
reviewing progress to date and the strategy for the next phase of the project. Topics
covered included: 1) What we have done to date Public Outreach; 2) Proposed Land Use
Changes; 3) Build -out Analysis; and 4) Economic Implications.
A general discussion of the material followed. The Commissioners were particularly
interested in the statistics on housing and population growth as well as the possible impacts
on infrastructure. They also discussed the mixed use concept. They agreed with the
revisions made to the land use concept since it was originally presented to them. The
Commission felt the concept is appropriate and in -line with the goals and objectives of the
City's long term vision.
Chairman Beranek asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak on this
item. There were none.
ADJOURNMENT 6:45 D.M.
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, May 12, 2009
at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive, with
Chairman Beranek presiding.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
ABSENT: None
OTHERS ATTENDING
Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg
Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama
Senior Planner Lisa Flores
Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Ms. Flores distributed an enlarged floor plan for ADR No. 05 26, Item 1.
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. AMENDMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 05 -26
The applicant is requesting an amendment to condition of approval no. 9 in City Council
Resolution No. 6562 for the Phase 1B expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall to increase
the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. This proposed change does
not increase the total square footage approved for Phase 1B because there would be an equal
reduction in retail space (i.e., 13,500 square feet of space previously slated for retail uses would
be the requested amount of restaurant space).
Senior Planner Lisa Flores presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hsu asked if the restaurant space was shown on the handout. Mr. Flores
explained that the potentially leased restaurant spaces are shown in green.
Chairman Beranek asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. John Healy, Vice President of Development for Westfield, explained that in the current
economic climate, retailers are not expanding at the rate that was projected when the project was
first approved. Therefore, Westfield decided to modify their original plan, changing retail space
to restaurant space. Mr. Healy offered to answer any questions from the Commissioners.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project. There were
none.
PC MINUTES
5 -12-09
Page 2
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Parrille and seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the
public hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Baderian noted that parking concerns appear to have been addressed through the
traffic management plan and that this change would have no significant impact. He said it was
a trade off, reducing retail space and adding a corresponding amount of restaurant space and he
would recommend approval.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council for their consideration.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES: None
CONSENT ITEMS
2. MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2009
3. RESOLUTION NO. 1793
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 09 -04 for a 1,542 square -foot women's fitness center at 1436 S. Baldwin
Avenue.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve the
minutes of April 28, 2009, as presented and to adopt Resolution No. 1793.
Without objection the minutes were approved and Resolution No. 1793 was adopted by voice
vote as presented.
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Beranek announced that Councilman Chandler has notified him that he would not be
able to attend the meeting.
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS
Commissioner Parrille reported that there were two items on the Modification Committee agenda
this morning. The first item, MC 09 -10, was continued and the second item, MC 09 -11, was
approved.
PC MINUTES
5 -12 -09
Page 3
FURTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF
Mr. Kasama told the Commissioners that since there was nothing on the agenda for the Planning
Commission on May 26, the meeting will be canceled. However the Modification Committee
will meet on May 26. On June 9 the Commission will review the continued CUP for the
tutoring center at First Avenue and Alice Avenue, a modification request that was referred to the
Commission for a large guest house on Tenth Avenue, a CUP to add office /classroom space for a
church youth group at Baldwin and Lemon and the General Plan Land Use Alternatives for
formal consideration.
Chairman Beranek agreed to attend the May 26 Modification Committee meeting in place of
Commissioner Parrille who will not be available.
ADJOURNED TO JUNE 9, 2009 7:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Chairman, Planning Commission
PC MINUTES
5 -12 -09
Page 4