No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-23-10PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 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 conceming any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive Dennis and Rowena Dureg (Homeowners) Paul and Sue Sivas (Appellants) Curtis and Beth Kerrick (Appellants) Tracy and Terry Totten (Appellants) Patricia Wood (Appellant) This is an appeal of the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board approval of a 1,026 square -foot, second -story addition to the existing 2,300 square -foot, one story residence. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of Appeal There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals am to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 3, 2010. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive Elite of Arcadia, Inc. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a tutoring center with up to 80 students within 4,313 square -feet of existing office space on the second floor of an existing commercial shopping center. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval 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 2 -23 -10 A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09 -08 (71182) AND RESIDENTIAL- MOUNTAINOUS PERMIT NO. RM 07 -01 This site is an approximately 90 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road extending east to the boundary of Wildemess Park. The area to be developed is on the west side of Canyon Road between 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. (Engineer) The applicant is requesting the Tentative Parcel Map for a two parcel subdivision and renewal of a Residential- Mountainous Permit for the grading of proposed Parcels 1 and 2. Parcel 1 would be developed with a two -story, 5,490 square -foot residence, and Parcel 2 would be developed with a two -story, 5,110 square -foot residence. The grading to accommodate the proposed developments would involve approximately 5,000 cubic -yards of cut and 40 cubic -yards of fill. RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 4. ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 09 -01 728 W. Huntington Dr. Charles Huang, Dexter Huntington, LLC The applicant is requesting to change the zone of the subject property from C -2 D (General Commercial with Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential at a density of 24 dwelling units per acre. RECOMMENDATION: Approval The Planning Commission's decision and comments will be forwarded for the City Council's consideration at a public hearing CONSENT ITEMS 5. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2010 RECOMMENDATION: Approval 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 2 -23 -10 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 staff report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning staff report may be asked and answered at this time. 4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. 12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a five (5) working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574 -5423. PC AGENDA 2 -23 -10 February 23, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner STAFF REPORT Development Services Department SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 of an approval of a proposed, 1,026 square -foot, second -story addition to the residence at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive. SUMMARY This is an appeal by the neighbors of the proposed project: Paul and Sue Sivas, Curtis and Beth Kerrick, Tracy and Terry Totten, and Patricia Wood of the approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Highlands Homeowners' Association (HOA) of a 1,026 square -foot, second -story addition to the 2,300 square -foot, one -story residence at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive. The Development Services Department is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. BACKGROUND The subject property was improved with a one -story, single family residence and attached, two -car garage in 1952. A family room and breakfast area were added in 1959. Photographs of the existing home are attached. On January 14, 2010, the ARB held a public hearing at the subject property to consider the proposed 927 square -foot, first -floor addition to the rear of the house, a 300 square foot patio cover, a 40 square -foot, front porch extension, and a 1,026 square -foot, second -story addition see the attached plans. At least two letters of opposition (attached) were submitted to the ARB and the homeowners from the neighbors at 79. and 85 E. Grandview Avenue. The ARB unanimously approved the proposed project. The Findings and Action forms are attached. On January 26, 2010, the aforementioned neighbors filed an appeal of the proposed second -story addition. The appellants are not opposed to the first -story additions. Their appeal letter is attached. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on February 10, 2010 to the owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property (radius map is attached) and to the Highland Oaks HOA President, Mr. Phil Consiglio, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Ralph Bicker. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an addition to an existing residence is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, it was not required that the public hearing notice be published in the local newspaper. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The appellants are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB approval of a 1,026 square -foot, second -story addition at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive. As stated in their appeal letter, the appellants believe that the proposed, second -story addition will negatively affect their properties and the neighborhood and distinctly change its character and complexion, which currently consists mostly of one -story homes. The appellants also believe that the proposed second -story addition does not meet the intent of the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines because it is not compatible with the surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood, will not relate well to the surrounding properties nor to the environment, and would give the subject property a distinctly different appearance from the other properties in the neighborhood. The appellants are also concerned that the second story will create a "closed in" feeling for the neighboring properties to the south. The homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Dureg have stated that careful considerations were made in designing the proposed addition to ensure that negative impacts to their neighbors were identified and minimized. A letter from the homeowners to the Planning Commission is attached and a list of two -story homes within the neighborhood is included. These addresses have been plotted on the attached map of two -story homes, and photographs of four of them are attached. Also attached are photographs of the five adjacent surrounding properties. The homeowners purposely did not consider a larger second floor and believe that they have minimized its impacts. Additionally, after the ARB's public hearing, the homeowners' architect and the ARB Chairman visited the neighbors, Paul and Sue Sivas (appellants) at 79 E. Grandview Avenue. A letter from the architect about this meeting is attached and includes a diagram (side elevation) that indicates that only the roof and top portion of the second floor wall would be visible from the neighboring property. Highlands HOA Regulations The Highlands HOA regulations are established in City Council Resolution No. 5289 (attached) for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. The design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness; all of which can have a negative impact on the environment HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 2 of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Highlands HOA area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of the property, Resolution No. 5289, in Section 3 imposes the following applicable conditions: FLOOR AREA. No one family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,600 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, or 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the ARB shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building, or any part thereof, occupying the front 100 feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than six (6) feet. GARAGES. All garages shall be incorporated as an integral part of the main structure and physically attached thereto. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. City Council Resolution No. 5289, in Section 17, also sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 3 A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the amenities and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Front Yards). In approving the proposal, including the second -story addition, the ARB issued the following findings the Findings and Action forms are attached: 1. The proposed materials ARE compatible with the existing materials. 2. The proposed materials WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property. 3. The proposed project WILL BE significantly visible from the adjoining public rights -of -way because it will be a two -story home in a neighborhood of mostly one -story homes. 4. The proposed project WILL BE significantly visible from adjoining properties because it will be a two -story home in a neighborhood of mostly one -story homes. 5. The elements of the structure's design ARE consistent with the existing building's design. The proposed project will be somewhat larger than the average home in the immediate area. However, it will not be out of proportion to several other two -story homes that have recently been reconstructed and /or expanded in this neighborhood over the past few years. 7. The location of the proposed project WILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property and the neighborhood for the reasons explained above. 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties. The only condition of approval imposed by the ARB was that all city setback and height restrictions be strictly complied with. Zoning Regulations The City's zoning regulations allow the subject property to have two stories and an overall building height of 30 feet, and the setback requirements for a second story are as follows: HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 4 Front Yard Side Yards Rear Yard 35 feet 33' -6" which is the average of the two adjacent lots and a 30- degree plane projected from ground level at the front property line. 20 feet based on a requirement of 20 percent of the lot width (which is measured at a right angle to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. The proposed second floor will increase the overall building height to approximately 23 feet and will have the following setbacks: Front Yard Approximately 56 feet at a 19- degree plane projected to the front of the proposed second floor. Side Yards the north side will be setback 21 feet and the south side will be setback approximately 36 feet. Rear Yard Approximately 48 feet The zoning regulations allow for a much larger second -story addition than what was proposed and approved. At the subject property, a second story could be 7 feet taller, 22 feet closer to the front property line, 17 feet wider (i.e., 1 foot closer to the north side property line and 16 feet closer to the south side property line) and 13 feet closer to the rear property line. Single- Family Design Guidelines In relation to additions such as the proposed project, the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines state on page 33, "The primary challenge is to integrate the new with the old, maintaining and continuing the best elements of the existing house. This applies to massing as well as detailing." The City's guidelines for additions and alterations are as follows: 1. An addition should be designed to look like part of the original house. All exterior treatments should match those of the existing house as closely as possible. 2. Second floors should be modest in relation to the first floor. This often involves setting the second floor walls in and keeping the top plate height lower than the first story. 3. Porch additions should match the scale and architectural style of the existing house. In general, the eaves of the porch roof should align with the first story. 4. Alterations to an existing house that do not enlarge its floor area, such as replacement windows, doors, siding, or roof tiles, should be consistent with the building's architectural style. HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 5 5. Piecemeal alterations to the exterior of a house are strongly discouraged. Alterations to one elevation should be consistently carried out on the other elevations. 6. Window and door change -outs on existing structures should match the existing windows /doors for architectural consistency. Alternatively, all windows and /or doors should be replaced to complement the architectural style of the house. 7. Natural clay tile roofs should be replaced with the same material. For repairs, remodels and additions, care should be taken in the selection of material and installation to match as closely as possible the color of the "aged" tiles. Page 33 of the City's guidelines also displays the attached photographs of second floor additions. Conclusion Based on a review of all the .applicable guidelines and regulations, and an examination of the neighborhood; staff is of the opinion that the proposed second -story addition satisfies the requirements of City Council Resolution No. 5289, complies with the City's zoning regulations, and is consistent with the City's Single Family Residential Design Guidelines; and therefore, will not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the property or the neighborhood. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project will be subject to plan check through the City's Building Services and will be required to comply with all code requirements and policies determined to be applicable by the City's Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, and Fire Marshal. The north side yard setback for the first floor addition will require the approval of a Modification from the required first floor side yard setback of 10'- 71/4". Whether, or not this Modification is consistent with the ARB's condition that all city setback and height restrictions be strictly complied with is to be determined by the ARB Chairman. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 10 -01. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB's decision, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 based on a determination that the design of the proposed second story does not comport with the regulations and principles set forth in City Council Resolution No. 5289 and /or is not HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 6 consistent with the applicable architectural design guidelines; such that it is not harmonious or compatible with the property or neighborhood, is of poor architectural character, or would be detrimental to the use, enjoyment or value of the property, the adjacent properties, or the neighborhood. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB's decision, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 based on a determination that the design of the proposed second story satisfies the requirements of City Council Resolution No. 5289 and is consistent with the applicable design guidelines; such that it is harmonious and compatible with the property and neighborhood, is of good architectural character, and will enhance the use, enjoyment and value of the property, the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the February 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa L. Flores at (626) 574 -5445, or at Iflores(a ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: J K ma munity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Zoning Vicinity Map Photos of Subject Property Plans of Proposed Project Letters of Opposition ARB Findings and Action Forms Appeal Letter 100 -Foot Radius Map Letter from Property Owner Letter from Architect with Diagram Map of Two -Story Homes Photos of Two -Story Homes Photos of Adjacent Properties City Council Resolution No. 5289 City's Two -Story Design Guideline Photos HOA Appeal No. HOA 10 -01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive February 23, 2010 page 7 1911 Alta Oaks Ave Arcadia R -1 Zone ,opment Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, February 2010 1911 Alta Oaks Avenue HOA Appeal No. 10 -01 Aerial Photo Zoning (1932) (1926) (160) (1920) (166) (1912) (1906) (1857) (1849) (1841) 0 100 Feet 1938) (1854) (1861) (152) (1906) (176) (151) Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, February 2010 fr O cn rn 0 (165) 1911 Alta Oaks Avenue HOA Appeal No. 10.01 Vicinity Map GRAr Project' <3 ►cal )4 ttu. Or. `PHOTOS OF 1911 ALTA OAKS DR. PHOTOS OF 1911 ALTA OAKS DR. PHOTOS OF 1911 ALTA OAKS DR. SN fld NV1d 31IS orrosoleasskavaaatsa 1Wf3 •s teseletel: zrd 90E0W•omu ra Valor 'es 311nS we MfiA NV30O Zew 'ONI'aossdV YIv avaaois Y3 ONINNVId 93Hr110311HOHV o161 B0016 YO 'COW vo v1w 1 I 30N30IS31 9af10 3 A I N a i S N V 0 V 11V n r LJ L LL LL LL LL d d d d o d N N 0 0 0 0 lh 0 O m p a p m N P M O N W z 2 0 F 0 3 n 'Q 0 J I- 0 0 0 F w 0 a a w o R m Q O pj y p 1 N 0 0 O w 1? -j Q m0111I....w.•c•.a w.o•me..n «em.m WYE VS EMI .m•mn•um.. p.•o PLANS S Nrirl d 1 INISTEMISOM1300151:1M3 WSW ant X% 911f2i0111•0Z0111 Y3 loom Van we emirdao rat 3NI '00881111/1Y 011VOCIOIS ONINNY1d 3b1C1103.1.1HONV Z 4 o 6 LL 0 I X LLi ft ems .1os:emu maw ma mann ma ea opeu .ov &m.o. ver,a. wan elnantee n ono. Ihroor sel SNV'Id 98C K(Bw)e0a18YY150111111 OZ32S11A1818A ATM zsW '3N1'30SSY V TIT 0NVODOIS'V 3 9NINNV1d V 3ilf110311NONV 9001EY0 MOYOlW'3NlIO$)NOYrtY 81 33N3OIS3J J3Jf14 1 a947..m.e,n..■11e....... MEM NMMSOM 110,111 ..6 .i.t■OlN..1.11017.1111.111917 PLANS Wi r i 3. EMS! WV fa 1, (6.101 OM 111 3NI 'OOSSV YIY ONV0001.8 YO saw letal•ressvAsomoveonuns woo 0110/2D0 arrreo Toe. aszgiselst: xvd ONINNVld 3tlf11.0311HDtili L L L ,9-Af NOW 10 'VIOVIN WOV11YR6 t 30N3CIIS31 931fICI MAI NO014 ON003S J 1 2 o 0 V 011101A Olt SMO 41111111110111 MS el IP 74 PLANS 51V.Q'1Q Il 13 Nreme36S008Y0001S3lvrIE1 9E5111 Wit :XVd W 61} INI 9{ O) •0 0018103&02111101V0 Nd330zsro 'ONI '3OSSd'8 VI' MOWS S 'tl'O ONINNVId 9 31,1N10311H3NV PRIM 7S E HO 111 g SE A 900t6tl;lYlOtl32Y3J aS)NOtl1Ntt6t 33N30IS3 J ovi is SNO1LVA313 8012131X3 1 VJ w Z 0 w J w W a®.m. 31.•. d.0710MR110.M......a,.,•..910IIY .P.010.., ,.PLANS 13n101003101030015011W8•1R59 W):) A 99E49K 91 8) .OW18 OZ9N '0NI'3OSSY V H'I'V' WOES Y3 ONINNY1d 4 3N1113311H3 V 900 MVO SfIY0 Y11Y {6{ 33N30IS38 J38la SNOIIVA313 8OIa31X3 N 1Q MI= n.101.11 WWI WI MOM VI PLANS January 10, 2010 iVlr. Ralph Bicker Architectural Review Board Chairman Highlands Homeowners Assn. 101 White Oak Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006 Since we will be out of town on January 14 and unable to attend the scheduled hearing, we are submitting this letter to voice our opposition to inclusion of a second story to the proposed addition. We are not opposed to any first story addition to the Dureg home, however addition of a second story will negatively affect our property and other neighbors' properties. A second story addition on the uphill side of our home will intrude on our view of the nearby mountains and affect the privacy in our back yard /patio area by affording direct line of sight into the rear windows of our home, our pool, spa, patio and back yard. The mountain views rom several of our bedrooms, our back yard, pool, and patio area and the privacy of these areas were major considerations in our purchase of this home three years ago; and we believe the change of view coupled with the loss of privacy will negatively affect our property value. Addition of the proposed 1026 square foot second story addition will distinctly change the character and appearance of this neighborhood, which is almost entirely comprised of single story homes built on a hillside. A second story addition to the Dureg home will could affect mountain views for a number of homes in the immediate area. Subject: Proposed Home Addition; 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. This correspondence is submitted in response to the Highlands Home Owners Association notice of hearing to be held at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive on Thursday, Jan. 14. The hearing to be held concerns the proposed addition to the Dennis and Rowena Dureg home at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive. The Dureg property is immediately adjacent to our property at 85 E. Grandview Avenue, which is a corner lot on the corner of Grandview and Alta Oaks. We certainly understand the Dureg's desire to increase the size of their home and we would not oppose any ground level addition they wish to build. However, we are opposed to addition of a second story. Sincerely, Curt and Beth Kerrick 85 E. Grandview Ave. Arcadia 626 355 -4946 LETTER OF OPPOSITION January 11, 2010 Dennis Rowena Dureg 1911 Alta Oaks Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Dear Rowena and Dennis: Paul Sue Sivas 79 E. Grand View Ave Arcadia, California 91006 626 355 3190 This letter is in regard to the proposed two story addition at your home at 1911 Alta Oaks drive; our home is adjacent your home and your proposed two story addition would negatively impact our privacy and mountain view. The proposed addition would look directly into our master bedroom and family room compromising our privacy. We have lived in our home for thirty -four years and never imagined such an intrusion. We have enjoyed the quaintness of this neighborhood and feel that such a large structure will not fit in well with the current landscape and will affect the country feeling Highlands's area currently enjoys. We would ask you to please reconsider your proposed structure based on the impact it would have on our privacy and the privacy of your other neighbors. We would not have an issue with a single story addition that would not negatively impact the current privacy and mountain views that we and our neighbors enjoy. Since ely, cd S ue Paul Sivas CC: Ralph Bicker Highlands Home Owners Association Inc. LETTER OF OPPOSITION FILE NO: 2010 -002 DATE SUBMITTED: 12 -24-09 ARCH11ECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. B. PROPERTY OWNER Dennis Rowena Dureg ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT: N/A C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation) 1. The proposed materials ARE compatible with the existing materials. 2. The proposed materials WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property. 3. The proposed project WILL BE significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way because: It will be a 2 -story home in a neighborhood of mostly 1 -story homes. 4. The proposed project WILL significantly visible from adjoining properties because: Same as No. 3 above 5. The elements of the structure's design are ARE consistent with the existing building's design. 6. The proposed project Will be some what larger than the average homes in the immediate area. However, it will not out of proportion to several other 2 -story homes that have recently been reconstructed and/or expanded in this neighborhood over the past few years. 7. The location of the proposed project WILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property and the neighborhood for the reasons explained above. 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties. See Page 2 (Over) ARB FINDINGS ACTION D. ACTION: Ralph L Bicker, Chairman Jeff Bowen, Member Guy Thomas, Member Kevin Zimmerman, Alternate Jim Thomas, Alternate H. APPEALS I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL Page 2 APPROVAL subject to the following condition: 1. That all city ordinance building setback and height restrictions be strictlyly complied with and E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S ACTION: January 14, 2010. F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBERS RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION G. REPRESENTING THE HIGHLAND'S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Appeals from the Board's (Committees) decision shall be made to the Planning commission. Anyone desiring to male such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeals must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. ARB FINDINGS ACTION File 20 16 6 2 Property Address 91 fI L-7 (37414-_s 0 Property Owner Li /✓N 75 Cu z- ay A Submission Date l 2 Z 9 9 The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE of the HIGHLANDS" HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., acting in accordance with CITY of ARCADIA Ordinance 1479, have met 9 1 »A--Ti's G414 0 /L on z-e-#o and do hereby q m the working d r a w i n g s a n d c s i t i o n s i d e n t i fi e d b y t h e a b o v e fi l e n u m b e r a n d d a t e 26i s COMMrirt; bases its decisions on the material submitted by the applicant, whose responsibility it is to provide accurate material in all respects. Any material changes made subsequent to this COMINIITTEE's approval must be submitted for additional approval In case of disapproval, detailed findings for the COMM1TI'EE's action are attached. Condition's for approval, if any: COMMITTEE members present: 1 eiie 12,' 6409 -ia .f) /1-12v ¢,Gtc.¢d fGtEr I�t. ✓l�' 2_r0.1. Highlands Homeowners Association Inc. Architectural Review and Area Planning Committee COMMITTEE APPROVAL: ARB FINDINGS ACTION JAN 2 0 2010 PLANNING Ai' January 24, 2010 1 City of Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia, CA 91006 JAN 2 6 2010 PLAT Subject: Appeal Regarding Proposed Home Addition at 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. This correspondence is submitted to register our opposition to the proposed home addition at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive in Arcadia and to appeal the Highlands Homeowners Association and Arcadia Planning Commission approval of the project plans. We are homeowners whose homes are immediately adjacent to the Dennis and Rowena Dureg property at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive where the proposed addition is being planned for construction. We are submitting this letter to voice our strong opposition to inclusion of a large second story to the proposed addition. We are not opposed to any first story addition to the Dureg home, however addition of a second story will affect our properties and the neighborhood negatively. The City of Arcadia Single Family Residential Design Guidelines states "the key to a successful residential project in Arcadia is to assure its compatibility with the surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood." Addition of the proposed 1026 square foot second story addition to the Dureg home is not compatible with the surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood. A large second story addition to the Dureg home will distinctly change the character and complexion of this neighborhood, which is entirely comprised of single story homes. The planned expansion will result in a 4,253 square foot two story home in a neighborhood where existing homes are all single story and in the range of 2000 3000 square feet of living space. The Arcadia Architectural Design Review, Single Family Application form asks "how does the design of the project relate to the site, surrounding properties, and the surrounding environment This project as designed, does not relate well to surrounding properties nor to the environment. As stated previously, the surrounding properties are all single story homes. The large second story expansion would give this home a distinctly different appearance than all of the existing properties in this neighborhood. From an environmental standpoint, the height and size of the second story addition will create a "closed in" feeling for the Sivas, Totten, and Kerrick properties. Unobstructed views of open space and the nearby mountains will be replaced by a looming second story which closes off that open space and the open space feeling of the neighborhood. APPEAL LETTER The City of Arcadia has stated concern for compatibility with surrounding dwellings in its' Single Family Residential Design Guidelines. Please do not allow the aesthetically pleasing character of our neighborhood to be changed by approving the incompatibly planned addition to the Dureg home. Sincerely, Pad Paul and Sue Sivas 79 E. Grandview Ave. Arcadia 626 355 -3190 k 'z ea-.14 a-7_6 ,.f -3/,c 2 g ,ft-es Curtis and Beth Kerrick Tracy and Terry Totten 85 E. Grandview Ave. 73 E. Grandview Ave. Arcadia Arcadia 626 355 -4946 APPEAL LETTER 100 -foot radius around 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. Radius Map February 2, 2010 City of Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia, CA 91006 To whom it may concern, This letter is being written to state our reasons for the proposed addition to our home in 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. We moved to the City of Arcadia in May, 2001 because of its excellent neighborhood and school district. For us, it is the most ideal place to start and grow a family. We wanted to provide our 3 boys with the best education and best environment possible within our means. At the same time, my husband and I work close to the city. Our home is a three, bedroom single story approximately 2300 sq. ft. At the time of the purchase, our home was sufficient for our family needs. However, in our mind, we always knew that eventually, we would need to make a home addition/remodeling to meet our growing family needs. Therefore, we worked hard to save money for the proposed addition. Now our children are age 13, 11, 10 and we realize that this is the time to do it for various reasons but mostly for the need for more space for each and everyone in our family. We have basically outgrown our home. Two of my boys share a bedroom. My husband and I share a small masters bathroom. There is no extra room for visiting relatives of friends. My husband and I want to give what is best to our family, That is to provide a comfortable living space for each of our children by giving them their own bedroom and playroom with lots of storage space for their books as well as their games and toys. We also wanted to have a bigger masters bedroom, masters bathroom and a walk in closet. As it is right now, there is not enough closet for the five of us. An office space is likewise needed where I can do work from home and a guest room for visiting relatives and friends. At the present time, it is difficult to entertain guests or my children's friends because of the limited space that we have. The reason we wanted to build a second story home is to preserve as much lot as we can of our backyard which mainly serves as a safe playground for our children. This is basically one of the reasons why we bought this house, its big backyard. With the proposed addition, if it were a single story, this will be forfeited since half of the backyard will be occupied, and therefore less playground for the children. We have also considered the presence of two story homes in the neighborhood. Our home will not be the first two story home within our street and the surrounding area. As a matter of fact, we have attached addresses of two story homes within the neighborhood. We also did consider the privacy of our immediate neighbors. With the suggestion of our architect, I went up to our roof to look at the view and what I saw was just the roof of our neighbors homes and nothing else. This is because of the considerable distance of the homes from LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER each other, the presence of tall trees, shrubs and the size of the lots. With all these careful thought and consideration, the plan for a two story home was conceived. The overall living space with the two story addition is only 29% of the lot size which is well below the 35% as required by the city. Our architect made sure that we are within the building codes for a second story home as required by the homeowners association and the city with regards to setbacks from the neighboring houses and that the architectural design conforms with the neighborhood. In our opinion, our home addition/remodeling will enhance the appearance of our house, the neighborhood and positively impact (not negative) the properties of our neighbors. We also don't think that having a second story addition will create a "closed in" feeling for our neighbors primarily because of our lot sizes and the distance between houses. This proposed architectural plan was submitted and eventually approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Highlands Homeowners Association. These are the reasons why we are building a second story addition to our existing home. It is primarily for the need, comfort and enjoyment of our growing family. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Dennis and owena Dureg 1911 Alta aks Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006 Phone number: 626 -590 -7738 LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER List of Two Story Homes Within the Neighborhood of 1911 Alta Oaks Dr Alta Oaks Dr: 1. 1853 2. 1852 3. 1958 4. 1959 5. 1739 6. 1729 7. 1679 E. Grandview Ave. 1.61 2. 161 Highland Oaks 1. 1911 2. 1717 3. 1601 Elevado Ave. 1. 1670 2. 1817 White Oak 1. 181 2. 176 3. 149 4. 100 Wilson Ave 1. 2011 2. 1959 3. 1960 4. 1810 5. 1709 LETTER FROM PROPERTY OWNER February 17, 2010 C.A. STODDARD A.I.A. ASSOC., INC. Architecture, Planning Lisa Flores City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 Re: Appeal of Highland Homeowners Association Decision HOA Appeal No. 10-01 1911 Alta Oaks Drive Dear Ms. Flores, On January 14, 2010, after the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association Public Hearing, Mr. Ralph Bicker and I visited the adjoining neighbor Paul and Sue Silvas at 79 E. Grand View Avenue. The purpose was to see the impact of the proposed two story addition at 1911 Alta Oaks Drive. The included drawing indicates what part of the two story addition (based on the existing top of fireplace flue) would be seen above the existing fence and landscape screening. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Craig Stoddard 4452 Ocean View Boulevard, Suite 200 Montrose, California 91020 (818) 249 -8386 (818) 248 -5236 FAX cstoddard @sbcglobal.net LETTER FROM ARCHITECT LETTER FROM ARCHITECT DIAGRAM 2 -story homes in the vicinity of 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. 2 -story homes near 1911 Alta Oaks Dr. 1852 Alta Oaks Drive 1853 Alta Oaks Drive Photos of Existing Two -Story Homes Existing Two -Story Homes in the Neighborhood 1959 Alta Oaks Drive 1958 Alta Oaks Drive Photos of Existing Two -Story Homes 1921 Alta Oaks Dr. 79 E. Grandview Ave. Photos of Adjacent Properties 85 Grandview Ave. Front 85 E. Grandview Ave. Street Side along Alta Oaks Dr. Photos of Adjacent Properties 73 E. Grandview Ave. 69 E. Grandview Ave. Photos of Adjacent Properties THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4335, and adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1479, for the property described in Exhibit "A attached hereto, to implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the Highland Home Owners Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the Architectural Review and Area Planning Committee is established and is hereinafter referred to as the "Committee SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single- family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832: 1. FLOOR AREA. No one family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,600 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, or 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony, garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls. RESOLUTION NO. 5289 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE HIGHLAND OAKS "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA. 5289 2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot proposed to be improved, the Committee shall have the power to require an appropriate front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an adjacent front yard. 3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building, or any part thereof, occupying the front one hundred (100) feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not less than six (6) feet. 4. CORNER LOTS. No building or other structure shall be erected or permitted on a corner lot which is less than twenty -five (25) feet, (except fifteen (15) feet in Tracts No. 10725, 13367, 14626, 15285, and 16920) at any point from the side street property line. 5. GARAGES. All garages shall be incorporated as an integral part of the main structure and physically attached thereto. 6. TREES. No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, or pine tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at a point on the tree which is not more than three feet above the grade immediately adjacent to said tree, shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the Committee. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is not practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it. 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 8. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. 9. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the Committee. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Committee. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the Committee. 2 5289 e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. f. The Committee shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision of the Committee shall be maintained by the Committee. Any decision by the Committee shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the reasons for the Committee's decision. Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the Committee members who considered the application. A copy of the Committee's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3) working days of the Committee's decision. h. All meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). 11. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE. The Committee shall have the power to: a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2 of Section 3. b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in "K accordance with the above Conditions ,7 8 of Section 3. If necessary to properly consider any application, the Committee may require specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples. The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. 10. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE. The Committee shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area. b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the Committee. c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Committee. d. Owners have been appointed to the Committee in accordance with the by- laws. 3 5289 c. If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Committee may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans. d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the Committee if the Committee determines that such action will foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this resolution. e. The Committee shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk. 12. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE. a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Committee for the review of applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the application. b. The Committee is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process Application. c The Committee Chairman or another Committee member designated by the Committee Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the Committee; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. d. The Committee may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such Conditions. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of Planning. 13. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES. a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Committee for the review of the Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in which the applicant failed to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the required property owners. b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 6 of Section 3, which the Committee has determined are not appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above. c.. The Committee is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Committee's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Committee with the last known name and address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the County. The application shall also provide the Committee with letter size envelopes, which are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes. e. Any decision by the Committee shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the Committee, and such decision shall be rendered by the Committee members who considered the application. f. The Committee shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Committee; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. 14. EXPIRATION OF COMMITTEE'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Committee, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. 15. LIMIT ON COMMITTEE'S POWERS. The Committee shall not have the power to waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in said area. The Committee may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency, which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such regulations. 16. APPEAL. Appeals from the Committee shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within seven (7) working days of the Committee's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Committee's decision, such appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee. 17. STANDARDS FOR COMMITTEE DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Committee and any body hearing an appeal from the Committee's decision shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Committee or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the amenities and vlaue of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 7 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Conditions No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution Front Yards). SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the 6 5289 environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre- existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986. ATTEST: /s CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia /s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO Mayor of the City of Arcadia 7 5289 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5289 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino NOES: None ABSENT: None /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 8 5289 Above: This Arcadia home exhibits the positive results of a well- designed second story addition. Instead of having a "tacked-on" appearance, the addition is thoughtfully integrated with the architecture of the existing house. CITY 2-STORY DESIGN GUIDELINE PHOTOS February 23, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission Development Services Department FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner NS SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01 to operate a tutoring center with up to 80 students within 4,313 square -feet of existing office space on the second -floor of the commercial shopping center at 1135 W. Huntington Drive. SUMMARY Ms. Karen Hwang, on behalf of Elite of Arcadia, Inc., submitted Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01 to operate a tutoring center with up to 80 students within 4,313 square -feet of second -floor office space at 1135 W. Huntington Drive. Attached are an aerial photo, vicinity map, and photos of the subject property. It is staffs opinion that based on the proposed schedule for this tutoring center, and the large amount of on -site parking, the site can accommodate 80 students without significantly impacting the neighboring properties.- The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed tutoring center, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Elite of Arcadia, Inc. LOCATION: 1101 -1155 W. Huntington Drive REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a tutoring center with up to 80 students within 4,313 square -feet of second -floor office space above an existing commercial shopping center. The school will instruct students of all ages and the hours of operation are to be Monday— Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Friday 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The tutoring center will be closed on Sundays. SITE AREA: 208,652 square feet (4.79 acres) FRONTAGE: 620 feet along W. Huntington Drive 342 feet along Michillinda Avenue 342 feet along Sunset Boulevard EXISTING LAND USE ZONING: The site is developed with two commercial buildings and a small recycling center totaling 66,649 square feet. The easterly one -story building at 1101 W. Huntington Dr. is a 44,702 square -foot Ralphs Grocery Store. The westerly building at 1135 W. Huntington Drive contains a mix of office and retail uses totaling 21,447 square -feet. The recycling center is 500 square -feet in size and located between the two buildings toward the rear of the site. The property is zoned C -2, General Commercial. SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING: North: Corporate office building with an attached two -story parking structure, and a 97 -unit senior citizen retirement center (CUP 84 -19) zoned C -2 South: Multi- family residential zoned R -3 East: Two -story office building zoned C -O, and Multi- family residential zoned R -3 West: A general office building zoned C -O, and Single Family residential in an unincorporated County area GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01 were mailed on February 7, 2010 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 A grocery store and shopping center have been at this location since the late 1940's. Beginning in the mid- 1960's, the subject property has had a parking agreement with the adjacent northerly property at 618 Michillinda Avenue to lease 199 parking spaces. The leased parking spaces are used primarily by Ralph's customers and employees, however, as there was never a formal Covenant for the leased parking agreement, the lease could be discontinued without City approval. To address this concern, in 2002, MP 02 -24 was submitted by Ralphs Grocery Company and approved by the Planning CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 2 Commission permitting 221 on -site parking spaces in lieu 337 required for the entire shopping center at 1101 1155 W. Huntington Drive. Approval of MP 02 -24 ensured that if the parking lease were to be terminated, the Ralphs Grocery Store would still be in compliance with the City's parking regulations. The shopping center at 1101 1155 W. Huntington Drive has a number of previously approved Conditional Use Permits, including the following: CUP 81 -05 allowed the original grocery store that was built in 1948 to be demolished and a new 31,850 square -foot Grocery Store to be built. CUP 84 -25 CUP 85 -15 allowed a restaurant and banquet room with seating for 175 patrons the restaurant is no longer in operation and the CUP has since expired. CUP 91 -18 was granted in 1992 to allow tutoring services for up to 25 students at 1135 W. Huntington Dr., Suite 200 closed in December 2007 and the CUP has since expired. CUP 92 -13 was granted in 1993 to allow tutoring services for up to 30 students at 1135 W. Huntington Dr., Suite 211— currently active and operated as College Prep Center. CUP 02 -07 was granted in May 2002 to permit a 13,000 square -foot expansion to the Ralphs Grocery Store. The applicant, Elite Education Institute (dba Elite of Arcadia) currently operates in 17 tutoring centers located. throughout California, and an additional 15 tutoring centers located in Canada, South Korea, Thailand; and Turkey. According to their website, Elite offers students in grades 3 through 12 a flexible, proven system of courses and personal academic counseling that emphasize fundamental preparation in core academic skills, customized academic planning, small classes, continuing faculty feedback, student conferences, and parental involvement. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The proposal is to operate an after school tutoring program with a maximum of 13 instructors /staff and 80 students at any one time within 4,313 square -feet of second story office space (see the attached site plan and floor plan). The proposed hours of operation are to be Monday— Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Friday 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The center will be closed on Sundays. A tutoring center is a permitted use in the C -2 zone with an approved conditional use permit. In practice, the class schedule and number of students will be Tess intense than the proposed operating hours indicate. The attached operational plans indicate two different class schedules. Schedule A will run for 42 weeks of the year, and during CUP 10-01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 3 this time a maximum of 35 students will be allowed at any one time on Tuesday Thursday, and 50 students on Friday- Saturday. Weekday classes will be limited to 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and Saturday classes to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Schedule B will run for 8 weeks during the summer and 2 weeks during the winter, and at these times classes will be expanded to a maximum of 50 students at any one time on weekdays, and 80 students on Saturday. Weekday classes will be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and Saturday classes to 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. A detailed operating plan from the applicant (Elite of Arcadia, Inc.) is attached. Parking and Traffic The property has a total of 221 on -site parking spaces that are shared between Ralphs Grocery Store and the tenants in the two -story commercial building. The commercial shopping center also leases 199 parking spaces from the adjacent property to the north. Since there is no formal covenant that requires these parking spaces be leased in the future, only the 221 on -site spaces can be included in the formal parking calculation. Based on the current uses of the existing buildings, the parking requirement is 316 spaces for an existing parking deficiency of 95 spaces. With the proposed tutoring center, the combined parking requirement of this property is 337 spaces, for an increase in the deficiency of 21 spaces. The proposed tutoring center by itself would require 40 on -site parking spaces based on the Code requirement of 1 space per 3 students and 1 space per staff member. The parking requirement for the existing remaining uses would be 297 spaces see the attached parking table for the parking requirement calculations. With the proposed tutoring center, there would be a parking deficiency of 116 spaces. However, the existing parking modification granted by MP 02 -24 to allow 221 on -site spaces in lieu of 337 spaces required would permit the tutoring center without needing an additional parking modification. Building Use Ralphs Grocery Offices Retail Power Prep Tutoring Ctr. Two Banks Proposed Tutoring Center Parking Requirement Calculation Parking Requirement 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 5 spaces (per CUP 92 -13) 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per instructor 1 for every 3 students No. of Spaces Required 223 spaces 12 spaces 21 spaces 5 spaces 36 spaces 40 spaces Total: 337 spaces For drop -off and pick -up of students, the tutoring center will require parents to either park their vehicles or pick -up /drop -off at a designated area at the rear of the building as shown on the attached site plan. The applicant states that at their other school locations in California, the majority of the students drive themselves to the tutoring center, which likely reduces the amount of parent queuing and traffic congestion in the parking lot, but will also mean that more parking spaces will be used for extended periods of time by students. Both parents and students will also be instructed not to park or pick -up /drop -off in the parking area in front of the building along Huntington CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 4 Drive. To facilitate and direct the drop -off and pick -up of students, the applicant is proposing to stagger the class schedule so that classes begin and end at different times. The tutoring center staff will also supervise the pick -up and drop -off of students to ensure that parents are using the correct locations, and not creating traffic congestion in the parking lot. The applicant has provided the attached draft parking guidelines. It is staff's opinion that based on the staggered class schedule and existing underutilization of the parking lot, the site can accommodate the parking demand and pick -up /drop -off requirements of the proposed tutoring center. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment (including a full- coverage fire alarm system) parking and site design, and water supply and irrigation systems are required to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, 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 (CEQA) Section 15303 of the Guidelines, as a conversion of a small commercial structure under 10,000 square -feet in floor area. 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. CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 5 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. It is staffs opinion that the proposed tutoring center can satisfy each prerequisite condition. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01 subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall not be more than fifty (50) students and thirteen (13) faculty and staff members on weekdays, and no more than (80) students and thirteen (13) faculty and staff at any time on Saturday. The tutoring center shall be closed on Sunday. Students shall arrive and depart in accordance with the schedule proposed and approved for CUP 10 -01. 2. Instruction shall be limited to Tuesday- Thursday, 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Friday, 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., and Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except for 8 weeks in summer and 2 weeks in winter when instruction will be limited to Monday- Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3. The use approved by CUP 10 -01 is limited to the proposed after school tutoring center and it shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved for CUP 10 -01, subject to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or designee. 4. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 10- 01 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the tutoring center. 5. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency equipment, parking and site design, and water supply and irrigation systems are required to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 6 7. Approval of CUP 10 -01 shall not take effect until the property owner(s), applicant, and business owner(s) /operator(s) 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 application, the Commission should move to approve Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01; 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 for adoption at the next meeting. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this application, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP10 -01; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the February 23 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr by calling (626) 574 -5422, or by email at tschwehr @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jim a Co y unity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo Vicinity Map Photos of Subject Property 300 -foot Radius Map Site Plan Floor Plan Operational Plans Draft Parking Guidelines Preliminary Exemption Assessment CUP 10 -01 1135 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 200 February 23, 2010 page 7 1135 W Huntington Dr Arcadia Zone Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by R.S.Gonzalez, February 2010 1135 W Huntington Drive CUP 10.01 HUNTINGTON DR (1148) POR TOLA 1 (1030) (1036) Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R. &Gonzalez, February 2010 1135 W Huntington Drive CUP 10 -01 S OBSEcTT pRoPER T Y— REAR ENTRANc.E. SW ttS 1 L9 98 t L89 8 w 63178£ ON x _LONAll lit* 144 CO ec'f 0 SZ tt2 9Z1' Mt 9 C' qr. 'n•cE eve!. 9 IN 5783.1 7 is 698£9 ON wisr 10V81-0 OLE MASA N 1.15 S DOS M/OS.£ N CD Sr 501. 7 I c* i Cr991, z V ds 6SOE1 1 f 47.61) 8 1 8 SHEET 3 i 8 C asa 8 GPM 319 30 31 1 m SHEET 2 la st Z 3.01.60.49 N 04L14 S 23 1 4 1L a 1.Z 9ZOL 9 IN Al9 7- 13suns '5379 1 3 I --7::. PO a. 0. e C) C 4., I a ai t! P CD 1- R r• 2 1- I-- ihrilr 0 g i+ 'I)® A a ii6;•■••(;\ et) C lao mon• 0o mc.c 0 o iS Y u R CA 1 -1 0 4 0 u 5777 764&) .4'• 500 ID2 5777 I 35_ 23 POO cE 0 164 1.5119 -....„,--2.1-2..,Le.......-4-- 51 0 0 li: 0 i o CI: g .r.47 0 7 s5 1 di u G q 4 4 D DONNA'S RADIUS MAPS 684 S GENTRY LANE ANAHEIM HILLS CA 92807 DATED: 1 6—/ 0 60(.0919 .fitta 1:11 01000,7 alinr.11113dINSIM uctlam1. ".0 JoVeit, tvkz.„"r„.e.C. orA =Axe" ?,105-2,-ezze— g a! rep zig h; 444.14 NWW311 E E I s-neJ womaursurienAJ !AONVdf1000 9 7 7 2141 5 5 SLl 1 OS Wl7Ya R R a R R 1131514 9 8 9 US SOL V3W GAGA F5 '3s Rl'e 9Aa5 ele't '3s 151'1 raw mid.. Oa 3WVN WOOL! ya= 3e 40 la n am:YA u 1101 sf16 IMMO WI u3•1 ISO =WO A1 vd- i re o 1V101 1Y101sf16 3 enoVa 3 dnOtlO nab .n $F A ^S yy iY 1 MN NO WM 0.103.110.40 1411.14110 MIN trf.1 Ij pp 1# 4f Mel I WPM II 1 11 Yi as $1a i 4e�� d 0 w J (3OVdS 3O14dO) 1NVN311N33Vra3 (3) 1 Pri go cti s (3OVdS 331440) J1NN311N3OVI'OV (3) AVM11VH L. 44.144 Hit 0 a 0 0 -J ELRE PROJECT AREA PLUMBING FIXTURE NUMBER TABULATION DESIGN SUMMARY Saturday 8:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m. 8:30 -noon Testing Groups 1/3 (supervised by existing staff 1 Staff /30 students) 8:30-1 SAT Instruction Group 2 (4 Instructors /50 students) 1 -5:30 SAT Instruction Group 3 (4 Instructors /50 students) 1:30 -5 Testing Groups 1/2 (supervised by existing staff 1 staff/20 Students OS o) )(spu 12 -8:30 p.m. 4 -7:30 Testing Groups 2/3 (supervised by existing staff 1 staff /20 students) 4:8:30 SAT Instruction Group 1 (3 Instructors/30 Students) 09 i v co Thursday 12 -7:30 p.m. 3:30 -5:30 Book Club 1 (2 Instructors/20 students) 5:30 -7:30 Book Club 2 (2 Instructors /20 students) 4 -7:30 Testing Groups 1/2/3 (supervised by existing staff/15 students) S£ NI- co itepseupeM •urd 0£ 1 ZL 4 -5:30 p.m. Math Help (1 Instructor /10 students) 4 -7:30 Testing Groups 1/2/3 (supervised by existing staff /25 students SE v co Tuesday urd OE:L 3:30 -5:30 Book Club 1 (2 Instructors/20 students) 5:30 -7:30 Book Club 2 (2 Instructors /20 students) 4 -7:30 Testing Groups 1/2/3 (supervised by existing staff /15 students) 9£ co Aepuoyy CLOSED eN o T7:7 Sunday CLOSED e/u 0 0 0 Aea Business Hours co co Total Maximum Number of Students at any Given Time Full -Time Staff (present at all times) Full-lime Part-Time Staff e.g. Instructors (prsesent only when students are present) N N pJ E E.' 0 ft m co To H OPEgATIOAJAL Saturday 8:30 a.m. 5:30 p.m. 8:30 -noon Testing Groups 1/3 (supervised by existing staff 1 Staff/30 students) 8:30 -1 SAT Instruction Group 2 (4 Instructors/50 students) 1 -5:30 SAT Instruction Group3(4 Instructors/30 students) 1:30-5 Testing Groups 1/2 (supervised by existing staff 1 staff/50 Students E a rn Aeppd W'd Oc:9 'ore OE :B 8:30 a.m. 2 p.m. Morning Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 students) 2:30 -6:30 pm. Aftemoon Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 Students) 09 a a) Thursday 8:30 a.m. 6:30 p.m. 8:30 a.m. 2 p.m. Moming Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 students) 2:30 -6:30 p.m. Afternoon Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 Students) a w AePseuPeM 'W'd OE:g 'W'e OE :B 8:30 a.m. 2 p.m. Moming Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 students) 2:30 -6:30 p.m. Afternoon Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 Students) 09 a w Fepseni 8:30 a.m. 6:30 p.m. 8:30 a.m. 2 p.m. Morning Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 students) 2:30 -8:30 p.m. Attemoon Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 Students) 09 a ca Aepuoyl 8:30 a.m. 6:30 p.m. 8:30 a.m. 2 p.m. Morning Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 students) 2:30 -6:30 p.m. Afternoon Boot Camp Programs (5 Instructors/50 Students S a a) AepunS CLOSED e/u O O O tea Business Hours J _m 7 0 Total Maximum Number of Students at any Given Time Full -Time Staff (present at all times) Full Time Part -Time Staff e.g. Instructors (prsesent only when students are present) a S co g E 3 g se 0 00 0 1 a 0 2 a C 7 O 1 .3 3 O T O c c 2 o 1 O p w 4 a o 13 cc o 0 m m d 2. Please note that Friday programs operate as usual. ELITE 1. PARKING GUIDELINES Dear Parents and Students, The following rules and regulations regarding pick -up /drop -off and parking were established by Elite of Arcadia to ensure a safe and orderly transportation environment for both students and neighbors. Please read the following and sign where indicated. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, Henry Kim, Branch PARENT PICK UP/DROP GUID DESIGNATED TIMES. All Parents will receive a de within 15 minutes of class start and end times. Parents wh up times may be turned away without refund or make -up of class. 2. DESIGNATED LOCATION. All Parent drop -off. 3. PARKING. Parents park and wait for s 1. PER ap 2. PARKI dashboard. parents will be direct students to may be towed, e premises ey are in cla ing off their stu INES RIVING GUIDELINES ARCADIA time for pick -up and drop -off ve late to their designated pick d shall not be entitled to any ated location for pick -up and er dropping off their students. Parents may not ivilege. No student may drive to Elite without express he Branch Director may revoke any driving privilege at is permitted to drive must display the proper parking tag on the g is not displayed, then the vehicle may be towed, and the student's ible for the cost of towing and storage. Further, the Branch Director may k in particular locations. Students must park where directed or the vehicle d the student's parents will be responsible for the cost of towing and storage. 3. PASSENGERS. Students will not drive another Elite student without express authorization from both sets of parents, and, of course, unless permitted by law. 4. MUSIC. Students will not play music at a level that is audible from outside the vehicle car. GENERAL GUIDELINES COPYRIGHT ELITE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE 1 @ELITE PARKING GUIDELINES ARCADIA 5. THE RULES OF THE ROAD. The regulations of the California Motor Code apply to all vehicles on campus and are in effect at all times. 6. COURTESY TO NEIGHBORS. Parents and students will use best efforts to be courteous drivers to all other persons and drivers in the shopping center. Parents and students will not block the flow of traffic for any reason. 7. SPECIAL ASSISTANCE. Parents or students requiring special assistance due to disability should inform either the Branch Director or the Assistant Director so th ecial accommodations can be made. 8. GENERAL. Elite reserves the right to change or modify the Further, these parking guidelines are hereby incorporate Contract between Parents /Student(s) and Elite. 9. RELEASE Parents shall voluntarily release Elite officers, agents and employees, from all liabil' representatives, assigns, heirs, and next of kin for Undersigned further expressly agrees that the forego be as broad and inclusive as is perm ted by the law of t any portion thereof is held invalid, it that the bala continue in full legal force and effect. Student's Name Student's Signature COPYRIGHT ELITE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE 2 s egulations hereto. refer- nto the Student Institute, its di s, and all his /h: personal da age of any kind. The lease and Waiver is intended to to of California and that if 1, notwithstanding, Date Date PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 10 -01 for a 4,313 square -foot tutoring center with up to 80 students. 2. Project Location Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7Y2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 1135 W. Huntington Drive (between Sunset Blvd and Michillinda Ave) 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. City of Arcadia 4. Staff Determination: B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Elite of Arcadia, Inc. (2) Address: 9908 Las Tunas Dr., Suites D, E F Temple City, CA 91780 (3) Phone: (626) 227 -1245 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 aMinisterial Project. c. The project is an Emergency Project. d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 3 Section No.: 15303 f. The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: Section No.: g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: February 1, 2010 Staff: Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner February 23, 2010 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (071182) and renewal of Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01 SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Development Services Department Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (071182 attached) proposes to subdivide an approximately 90 -acre undeveloped property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road into two parcels see the attached Vicinity Map. The subject property was previously approved for a three -lot subdivision under TPM 07- 05, which proposed two lots for single family residential development, and a third lot to be dedicated as open space. The following applications are necessary for the proposed project: Tentative Parcel Map Application No TPM 09 -08 (071182) is required for the subdivision of the property into two separate lots; Renewal of Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01 is required for the grading of parcels 1 and 2 in preparation for the two proposed single family residences. RM 07 -01 was approved concurrently with TPM 07 -05 and included Modifications of first and second floor side yard setbacks for the two new residences. Since the revised proposal does not involve any changes to the previously approved development, a renewal is as effective as a new application. Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04 was approved concurrently with TPM 07 -05. Rather than renew or reapply for an oak tree permit at this time, the applicant has opted to submit a new application with an updated arborist's report during the plan check process. Staff is agreeable to this approach because the oak tree information will then be timely. Attached for reference is the Arborist's Report dated November 15, 2007. Architectural Design Review approval of the conceptual plans for the two new single family residences (attached) was granted by the Highlands ARB in preparation for TPM 07 -05. The ARB's Findings and Action forms from 2007 are attached. The ARB Chairman has indicated that the approval would most likely be renewed, but approval of conceptual plans is always subject to the ARB's review and approval of the final construction plans. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff conducted the attached Initial Study and determined that implementation of the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Program have been prepared. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed project, subject to the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. (Civil Engineer) Location: An approximately 90 -acre undeveloped property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road extending east to the boundary of Wilderness Park. The area proposed for development is a 2.82 acre area on the west side of Canyon Road between 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road. Requests: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) for the subdivision of the property into two (2) Tots. Parcel 1 would be 46.71 acres in area and Parcel 2 would be 43.74 acres in area. Renewal of Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01 to permit the grading for the two lots in preparation for the construction of two new single family dwellings. Site Area: The total size of the property is 90.45 acres; the area proposed for development is less than three (3) acres in area. Frontage: Approximately 679 feet along Canyon Road. Existing Land Use: The subject site is currently vacant, undisturbed hillside /mountainous area containing native vegetation and wildlife. Santa Anita Canyon Road runs diagonally through the property from the southwest to the northeast. Zoning: R -M D Residential Mountainous Single- Family and Design Overlay General Plan Designation: Single- Family Residential at 0 -4 dwelling units per acre Surrounding Land Uses Zoning: North: Angeles National Forest Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain consisting of relatively undisturbed native vegetation and wildlife. South: Existing low- density single family residential neighborhoods East: Arcadia Wilderness Park and existing low- density single family residential neighborhoods West: Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain and existing low- density single family residential neighborhoods TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject property is currently an undisturbed mountainous /hillside area containing native vegetation and wildlife. Photographs of the subject property from 2007 are attached. In September 1977, the Planning Commission recommended a zone change of the subject property and surrounding area from R -1 D 10,000 Single Family Residential and Design Overly with minimum 10,000 square -foot lots to R -M D Residential Mountainous Single Family and Design Overlay (Resolution No. 1009). The zone change was subsequently approved by the City Council by Ordinance No. 1614. In 2000, Nevis Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide the subject property into 11 Tots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 00- 01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 051941) but withdrew the applications before they could be heard by the Planning Commission. In 2003, Nevis Homes submitted a revised proposal to subdivide the property into 7 lots (Highland Oaks Specific Plan No. SP 03 -01 and Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 051941). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal due to significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (Resolution No. 1717) and the City Council subsequently denied the applications (Resolution No. 6466). On August 26, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1776 (attached) conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07 -05 (069775) Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07-01 and Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04. These entitlements were to subdivide the subject property into three parcels with Parcels 1 and 2 to be developed with new single family residences, and Parcel 3 (80.33 acres) to remain undeveloped and be dedicated as open space. On February 10, 2009, the Planning Commission approved a request to revise Mitigation Measure No. 1.5 of the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This measure required a nonrefundable $200,000 deposit to the City to endow the maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land that was to be dedicated as open space. The applicant requested the alternative measure of creating an assessment district that would place the financial burden of 'maintaining the open space on the owners of the two proposed residential properties. The developer has determined that this approach is not marketable and has resubmitted for the proposed two -lot subdivision. DISCUSSION The current proposal, TPM 09 -08 (071182) is for a two -lot configuration. This proposal does not need a condition for an assessment district or other funding mechanism to maintain the undeveloped areas of the proposed two Tots. The undeveloped areas will be part of the two lots and each property owner will be responsible for the maintenance of their entire lots. A mitigation measure call for the designation and zoning of a vast majority of the site (approximately 80 acres) as open space. This mitigation measure is to limit and compensate for the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The proposed subdivision is to create two parcels that are to be developed with a new single family residence on each lot. Because the subject property is zoned R -M Residential Mountainous, a development permit is required for the grading work that will be necessary. Additionally, development of the properties will require the removal of or encroachment upon 12 oak trees, and the proposed new homes are subject to architectural design review by the Highlands Homeowners Association. The following is a discussion of each of the entitlements that must be secured in order to proceed with the project. TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 3 Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (071182) According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9117.1, a Tentative Parcel Map shall be processed for all proposed divisions of land resulting in four or fewer parcels. Implementation of the subject Tentative Parcel Map will result in two parcels. Parcels 1 and 2 will contain 46.71 and 43.74 acres, respectively, and will be developed with a single family dwelling on each lot. The two Tots will be situated on the west side of Canyon Road, between two existing single family residences at 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Single Family Residential at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and the zoning is R -M Residential Mountainous, which requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) per lot. Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision Code, and Zoning Code. Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01 R -M Evaluation Criteria According to the Municipal Code, no person shall grade, excavate or fill in the R -M zone without a development permit from the Planning Commission if such grading, excavation or filling is in excess of 15 cubic meters. Below is a description of how a development permit application should be evaluated per AMC Section 9250.5.9: A. The following criteria shall be considered in assessing the application for a development permit: 1. Extent of grading required for the reasonable use of the property. 2. Visual impact of the proposed project. 3. Relationship of the proposed project to adjoining properties and /or structures. 4. Adequacy of proposed landscaped areas, drainage facilities, erosion control devices and other protective devices. 5. Adequacy of fire equipment access. 6. Extent of preservation of existing ridge and crest lines. 7. Extent of attempt to have roads follow existing contours. 8. Developability of sites. B. An application shall be denied if, in the judgment of the City, based upon the purpose of this Division, the proposed work or design of the Tots and streets in the development would: 1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or 2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; or 3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 4 4. Would adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone; or 5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of this Division. C. In granting a development permit, the City may impose conditions which may be reasonably necessary to prevent danger to public or private property or to prevent the operation from being conducted in a manner likely to create a nuisance. No person shall violate any conditions so imposed in said permit by the City of Arcadia. Such conditions may include but not be limited to any of the aforementioned requirements of this Division. The City Engineer or a designated alternate may issue a permit for any emergency hillside work that may be necessary to prevent danger to public or private property. R -M Analysis The proposed project involves 5,000 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill. The portion of the site that will be graded is approximately three acres in area on the west side of Canyon Road. In accordance with the Municipal Code, all cut and fill slopes will not exceed a 2:1 slope. Additionally, the grading will include concrete swales, catch basins, planters, retaining walls, and drain inlets to minimize erosion and runoff. Some of these are depicted on the proposed tentative parcel map. Engineering Services has reviewed the proposal and found it to be acceptable. An estimated 108 truck trips will be necessary to haul the graded earth material to the Puente Hills Landfill. The proposed truck route is south on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freeway, east to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to the landfill. Engineering Services has reviewed the proposed truck route and has determined that the proposed route is the best option. A neighborhood notification program will be required prior to the. commencement of grading activities (see conditions of approval). The applicant estimates that grading activities will last approximately one year; however, staff recommends that the Commission limit grading activities to the months of April through October to minimize the impact on nearby property owners and to avoid the rainy season. Once grading is complete, construction will begin on two single family residences that will be accessed off of Canyon Road and be set back 25 to 30 feet from the street. No new roads are proposed and the homes will be built below the ridgeline to preserve existing views of the hillside. Each house will have two stories and contain 3 bedrooms and 3 baths, with approximately 5,000 square feet of livable space, a two -car garage, a flat paved area for guest parking, and large outdoor terraces off of both the first and second floors. The residences will comply with all applicable zoning regulations with the exception of the side yard setback requirements. Renewals of the following modifications are being requested in conjunction with the renewal of RM 07 -01: For parcel 1, a first story side yard setback of 31' -0" in lieu of the requirement, and a second story side yard setback of 16' -0" in lieu 91' -0" requirement. For parcel 2, a first story side yard setback of 16' -0" in lieu of the requirement, and a second story side yard setback of 31' -0" in lieu 44' -9" requirement. 10 percent or 45' -6" of the 20 percent or 10 percent or 22' -5" of the 20 percent or TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 5 Given the development constraints of the hillside and the fact that the proposed lots are significantly wider than the other lots in the area, staff finds that the modification requests are appropriate. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Highland Homeowners Association did review and approve the conceptual design of the proposed project. The ARB did not have any special conditions regarding the design or grading of the site. Oak Tree Removal and Encroachment Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08 -04 was approved concurrently with TPM 07 -05 and RM 07 -01 for the removal or encroachment of twelve (12) oak trees in the area to be developed. According to the arborist's report in 2007, at least nine (9) of the trees needed to be removed due to the grading work that is required for the development of the two (2) properties. As a mitigation measure, the arborist suggested that the graded slopes be planted with native plant material and seeded with acorns obtained from the oak trees on the site. Because of the passage of time and the potential for changes to have occurred on the site, even though there are no physical changes proposed by TPM 09 -08 to the previously approved development, an updated oak tree application and report are necessary. A condition of approval will be for the applicant to submit a revised arborist report prior to the issuance of a grading permit with renewal of the oak tree permit to be at the discretion of the Development Services Director. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project (see attachment). Said study found that implementation of the proposed project without mitigations would result in substantial or potentially substantial adverse effects to the environment. Removal of the site's indigenous plant life, for example, could have a significant impact on .the biological resources and aesthetics of the project site Additionally, since the proposed project requires significant grading of the site, there will likely be substantial short-term impacts to the surrounding community in terms of air quality, alterations to the geology and soils, noise, and traffic. Staff believes, however, that these impacts can be managed to a Tess than significant level through implementation of mitigation measures, and has therefore prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following: Limiting grading /construction hours and days to mitigate noise and traffic impacts; and Limiting truck speeds, suspending construction and grading activities during smog alerts and high wind conditions, regularly sweeping affected streets, and watering the grading site to minimize dust and air pollution. Designation and Zoning of the area beyond the existing adjacent parcels as open space, and maintenance of the entirety of the parcels including the open space areas in compliance with fire and building safety requirements. A detailed description of the project's environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation measures are in the attached Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 6 OTHER REQUIREMENTS The proposed project is required to comply with all Code requirements and policies as determined to be applicable by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Public Works Services Director, and any service districts and utility providers, and are to be determined by having fully detailed construction and grading plans submitted for plan check review and approval. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (071182) and renewal of Residential Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall agree to and execute the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) thereby agreeing to pay the City any applicable fees and expenses to implement the mitigation measures in the design, construction, and maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of approval. 2. An updated arborist report shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit with renewal of Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04 to be at the discretion of the Development Services Director. 3. All structures shall be sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Single and Multi Family Dwelling Sprinkler Standard. 4. All structures shall comply with building regulations for the Wildland -Urban Interface area. All landscaping within 30 feet of all structures shall be fire resistant and "provided with means of irrigation. Landscaping within a distance of 30 to 100 feet of all structures shall be cleared of all dead and /or non -fire resistant vegetation. A detailed landscaping plan showing compliance with these requirements shall be provided upon building permit application. 6. A 36 -inch box oak tree shall be planted on each property in or adjacent to the right -of- way; the specific placements are to be determined by the Public Works Services Department. 7. All 11 items listed in the attached memorandum dated January 27, 2010 from the Public Works Services Department. 8. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the City Engineer and /or Public Works Services Director for utility and /or public maintenance activities. 9. The truck haul route for graded earth material shall be as follows: South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freeway, east to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to the Puente Hills Landfill. Any alterations are to be approved by the City Engineer. TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 7 10. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall hand deliver written notification to all residents along the haul route between the point of activity and the 210 freeway, detailing the proposed construction staging plan, haul route and schedule, and other pertinent grading and construction information. 11. All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, landscaping, water supply and water facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and NPDES measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Police Chief, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction and grading plans submitted for plan check review and approval. 12. 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. 13. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for TPM 09 -08 (071182), RM 07 -01, and any subsequent renewal of TR 08 -04 shall be grounds for immediate suspension and /or revocation of any approvals. 14. Approval of TPM 09 -08 (071182), RM 07 -01, and the subsequent Oak Tree Permit shall not take effect until the property owner, civil engineer, and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residences. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this proposal, the Commission should move to approve TPM 09 -08 (071182) and renew RM 07 -01; accept staff's conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures; state the supporting findings; and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 8 Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this proposal, the Commission should move to deny TPM 09 -08 (071182) and not renew RM 07 -01; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. A project shall be denied if the Commission finds that it would: 1. Cause excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; 2. Cause unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crest line; 3. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; 4. Adversely affect existing development or retard future development in the R -M zone; or 5. Be inconsistent with the provisions of the R -M zone. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the February 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama at (626) 574 -5442 or at ikasama(c�ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Jirrt sama >dommunity,Development Administrator Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map No. 071182 Vicinity Map Arborist's Report dated Nov. 15, 2007 Architectural Plans ARB Findings Action forms Initial Study Part 1 Environmental Checklist Form Part 2 Environmental Information Form Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Photographs of Subject Property Resolution No. 1776 Memorandum from Public Works TPM 09 -08 (071182) RM 07 -01 February 23, 2010 Page 9 VD bladed AI O NO) NVO NOISIAIG f1S 101 66S£ £9Z (9Z9) 999£ (9Z9) P1 90016 YO 'YIOVONY V 11NA 'OV0d ON160100 61911 'OM `S3IVI00SSV 193 6c ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST OWNER: NEVIS HOMES 650 W. HUNTINGTON DR., SUITE 201 ARCADIA, CA 91007 PH: 626 254 -0099 FAX: 626- 254 -0199 CITY OF MONROVIA Vicinity Map 2100 Block of Canyon Road, Arcadia, CA. Report on Existing Trees November 15, 2007 1728 Garth Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone /Fax 310.838-6744 E -mail plseveaearthlink.net By Pieter Severynen, Certified Arborist ISA -WE- 3271 -A California Registered Landscape Architect 1970 Report on Existing Trees November 15, 2007 Contents: Page: introduction 3 Observations of existing conditions 4 Discussion about observation and probable effect of construction on existing trees 7 Recommended tree protection measures 10 Photographs 13 Tree location map 18 PSA Experience 19 INTRODUCTION Background information: On October 29, 2007, Studio R requested me to conduct a tree survey on an unnumbered parcel located on the west uphill side of the 2100 block of Canyon Road in Arcadia. Studio R had prepared plans for the construction of two adjacent single family dwellings on the parcel. He would like to have those on site trees catalogued that would be affected by the proposed construction and in particular, he wanted to find out how to protect one large oak on site. Whereas the property is in, excess of 2 acres and contains many trees, the tree report should address only those trees directly affected by the proposed construction. After exchange of some more emails for clarification, my site visit, and my receipt of a Sept. 20 2007 soils report prepared by Environmental Geotechnology Laboratory, Inc. for this parcel, Studio R retained my services for the following assignment. Assignment: 1. Perform an on -site investigation to identify which trees will be directly affected by the proposed construction of the two single family homes. 2. Assess the current condition of the large oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) on site. Determine what protective measures should be recommended in order to safeguard this tree during and after grading and construction. 3. Determine protective measures to safeguard any other trees to be saved that may be impacted by the construction. 4. Prepare a written report outlining my observations and conclusions about the investigation. "3. Determine if any of the examined trees are protected by the City of Arcadia, or occur in the street right of way or are subject to jurisdiction by the Highland Home Owners Association. Limitations of the assignment: I believe that within the scope of my investigation the thoroughness of the investigation is adequate for drawing reliable conclusions, making professional recommendations and completing this assignment. However the report is limited to the investigation and documentation on the dates of the field work. 1 did not use any lift equipment or climb any of the trees on site. OBSERVATIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Investigative procedures: Observations, measurements and documentation were performed from the ground. Only non intrusive arborist equipment was used; no drilling was done to investigate the inside of tree trunks. While conducting the on -site examination I recorded any relevant observations of site, soil, root collar, trunk, central leader, branch attachment, lateral branches, shoot tips, leaves and acorns. Site observations: The currently vacant site occupies a northerly and northeasterly facing, uphill slope, which is quite steep in places, in a large lot, single- family home neighborhood. Slope gradient varies from fairly easy to walk almost 1.9 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), through difficult to stand on 1:5 :1, to not possible to scale unaided .65:1. The site abuts the National Forest (picture 1). it is covered with fairly heavy oak woodland vegetation of indigenous plants that shows many mature oak trees, a rather dense cover of large shrubs including Blue Elderberry, Sambucus nigra mexicana and Laurel sumac, Rhus laurina as well as many perennials and annuals including Monkey flower, Mimulus aurantiacus, Golden currant, Ribes aureum, Caterpillar Phacelia, Phacelia cicutaria and weeds, including Castor Bean, Ricinus communis. In between the trees and shrubs was an abundant growth of lush poison oak, Toxicodendron diversiloburn, shrubs and vines up to 10' tall, which made progress on the slope quite difficult. The soil is silty sand. It is subject to some surficial erosion. In two places locally concentrated drainwater in a little draw had eroded soil a few feet deep. A heavy layer of duff and leaves covers the soil especially around the oak trees. I climbed the slope where possible and measured the trunk diameter of each protected tree at breast height (DBH, 4.5' above ground) and estimated the height and width of the crown: I also investigated the health of each tree. Note that because of steepness of slope some trees were inaccessible and I could not make direct trunk measurements; there I had to use best estimates instead. General tree observations: 1 investigated only protected trees. In the city of Arcadia these are Oaks (Engelnann, California or Coast Live) over 4" DB -1, or, if there are two or more trunks, at 3 DBH, or any other oak at 12 DBH for a single trunk or 10 DBH for 2 or more trunks. For removal and/or encroachment upon these oak trees a permit is required. In addition the Highland I -lorne Owners Association must approve the removal of any of the following trees: oaks, sycamores, liquidambars, magnolias and pines with trunk diameters larger than 6" at 3' above grade. The site is divided into lots 1, 2 and 3. Lot 3 is the large lot atop, to the southwest. Lot 2, the small one to the northwest, contains two oak trees and one sycamore. Lot 1, the one to the southeast, contains the very large oak referred to above, which is close to the lot line with lot 2, and some nine countable oak trees of varying sizes. All the trees on site niade the city protected tree list. Some tree -like shrubs including elderberries, did not qualify as trees. Apart from one California sycamore all the other 4 trees were evergreen oaks, Quercus agrifolia. Based on leaf and crown characteristics it seemed that almost none of those oak trees were genetically pure; it appeared that all the oaks had hybridized to some extent with other oak species. This does not make them outstanding or unique; oak trees are notorious hybridizers and it is not uncommon to find individuals that show characteristics of more than one species. Although it is very difficult to identify other oak lineage in the field from leaf appearance and shape, it seemed that potential candidates for the previous hybridization include California Black Oak, Quercus kelloggi, and Engelmann Oak, Quercus engelmannii. Since this is a northerly and northeasterly facing slope not subject to the severe sun exposure a southern slope would experience the vegetation appeared lush even Mier a record dry year and on and offsite oak trees had grown to respectable sizes. In the following columns, trees are listed by number (corresponding to number on survey); common name; botanical name; size in feet, shown as height x width; diameter at breast height (DBH), i.e. 4' -6" above ground; condition and any remarks. Some of these trees are also shown in the list of pictures. Num. Name 1 Coast Live Oak 2 Coast Live Oak 3 California Syc- amore 4 Coast Live Oak 5 Coast Live Oak 6 Coast Live Oak 7 Coast Live Oak. 8 Coast Live Oak fair /good 9_ Coast Live Oak 10 Coast Live Oak 1 I Coast Live Oak 12 Coast Live Oak 13 Coast Live Oak Botanical name Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Platanus racemosa Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Quercus agrifolia Size :HxW(ft.) DBH Condition 25 x 30 36" and 16" good 25 x 25 18 ",17 9" good 30 x 25 24" good 60x65 20 x 20 25 x25 30 x 25 35x40 25 x 25 35 x 45 20 x 20 30 x 20 30x35 3'9" and 2'9" fair /good* 11" good 18 est. fair 18" est. good 15 and 12" est. 12" est. 18,15,12" est. 6 and 4" est. 17" 15,10,8" fair fair poor fair /good fair /good k *The large oak tree, no. 4, which bore an old aluminum tag, labeled '3', had two massive trunks. The smaller of the two trunks had broken off several years previously at a point about 25' above ground. Cause ofthe break was not clear; it could have been high wind or previous decay in the trunk. The decayed trunk is still lying on the ground. The loss of almost halfa trunk had made a big hole in the previously symmetrical crown, so that instead of 90' wide, the crown was now more like 65' wide. The break was rough, had torn a 10' long chunk out of the trunk and some decay is occurring at the breakage point. Below the break there is only one very large lateral remaining on the trunk. The tear extends below the lateral, putting that at some risk of any decay started above. Close to the ground an old surface wound, some 12" at its widest point, is slowly healing; while there is decay occurring here, a ring of healthy woundwood surrounds the wound (picture 5 Sounding of the trunk at the lower level did not indicate any obvious areas of severe decay or hollowness. The larger trunk of the tree divides in two codominant trunks (meaning of equal thickness) at about 25' up. *Tree no.7 is leaning over, eventually might slide down into the street. Tree no 17 is leaning, might become unstable even absent construction activity. *Tree no.13 bears old aluminum label #5. Most of the trees growing in the lower area (1 8) are in good shape; most of the higher growing ones only in fair shape. Still the trees add an enormous amount of aesthetic and environmental value to the site and will do so even more after construction; this holds especially true for the large one. Testing and Analysis Testing was limited to sounding wherever there was a question as to internal decay and the tree was accessible. No obvious decay or internal hollow areas were detected using this method. However I did not test the area of the break in the big oak's trunk; this should be tested once the area around the tree has been cleared, and prior to any occupancy of structures. 6 DISCUSSION ABOUT OBSERVATION AND PROBABLE EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION ON EXISTING TREES Effects on individual trees: Tree no.1, which bore an old aluminum tag '125', appears to be only about 10' from proposed construction. While it is very close to construction and will be negatively influenced by it, it appears that the tree can be saved. See proposed tree protection measures below. Tree no.2, bearing old tag '124': this tree too will be affected. Contour lines and cross section B -B' on the geotechnical report indicate severe grading that may well dispose of the tree. Any chance to save it should be explored. Tree no 3, the sycamore, appears to be located within the footprint of the house and would be lost. Tree no. 4, the large coast Iive oak, bearing old tag '3' will need pruning regardless of construction. The decay will continue to go down unless the broken trunk is cleanly pruned (under direct supervision of a certified arborist) down to the large lateral. Without pruning eventually the lateral could break off and tear a large chunk out of that trunk. Even with expert pruning there is no absolute guarantee that the decay will not continue deeper down into the trunk. Pruning the trunk off altogether at the junction with the larger trunk would only make matters worse, because decay would spread into the main part of the trunk and eventually might kill the tree. Since part of the crown fell down the tree is now unbalanced. It will experience uneven wind loading and stress. Pruning for balance will probably leave effects as bad as leaving the tree as is Best remedy is to have the tree establish a new balance by growing the missing part back. This is a very.slow process. Proposed construction will negatively affect this tree in the following ways. Construction of the house retaining walls some 20'east and north downslope of the tree will probably cut off anchoring roots of the tree where they may be expected to be most numerous. The upslope retaining wall some 45' west oldie tree will not likely cut off anchoring roots but will interfere with the surface and subsurface flow of water that has nourished the tree for the past several hundred years: Grading indicated by the geotechnical report contour lines and section A -A' shows removal of several feet of topsoil in the area around but somewhat away from the tree, thus depriving it of feeder roots and possibly anchoring roots. The proposed grading may leave the tree sitting on a tilted 'island' several feet higher than the surroundings. Grading close to the trunk, underneath the branches, would remove part of the tree's feeder and anchoring root system. Grading should stay away from the tree, outside the dripline. Tree roots can easily extend two to three times the width of the leaf crown, sometimes more. That is why judicious grading leaves at the very least the grade inside the dripline intact. The more grading and construction activity takes place close to and within the dripline, and the closer to the trunk, the greater the chance of fatal damage to the tree. 7 The geotechnical report proposes to scrape several feet of topsoil off the slope behind the two homes, clear down to bedrock, removing all plant growth surrounding the tree. This will reduce the tree's feeding area and substantially change the microclimate that the tree has grown up with. Tree no.5 is located inside the construction area of the southerly unit and will be lost. Tree no.6 is located inside the construction area of the southerly unit and will be lost. Tree no.7 is located within the construction area of the southerly unit or very close to it and will be lost. Tree no.8 is located so close to construction that it will be lost. Trees no. 9 -13 are located in an area where the grading plan shows considerable grading. It appears likely that most or all of these trees will be lost. In summation, tree no.4 must be saved, nos. 1 and 2 should be saved if possible, nos. 3, 5, 6, land 8 will be lost, and nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 may all be lost but attempts should be Made to save some of these if possible. In accordance with City requirements, a permit is needed for removal and/or encroachment on all affected trees, and the Highland Home Owners Association must also approve the removal of trees. There are no trees located in the City street right of way. Overall effect: In addition to the direct removal for construction or damage due to grading, construction may result in several other adverse effects to those trees not slated for removal unless protective measures are taken. There will be additional compaction of soil, and resulting unavailability or lack of subsurface air and water and microorganisms; there may be damage to leaves, trunk and roots by nailing, storing materials, dumping or dispersing chemicals or paint, leaving concrete or its residue on the soil caused by dumping or washing of tools, or cutting off of branches; or disturbance of the natural grade. Construction may take place too close to the trunks, trees may lose part of their root systems, or have.major roots cut close to the trunk. Any of these impacts may put significant additional stress on the trees; together they may be deadly. The trees are used to a Mediterranean climate of winter rains and suiirner droughts. Last year was an extremely dry year and this may be another dry year Even so many of the trees look quite healthy. The north eastern exposure and downslope underground water flow contributes to their health. The proposed grading will strip the topsoil of the slope. This will change the microclimate around the remaining trees into a drier one with more reflected sun> The retaining walls will interfere with surface and subsurface water flow. The trees to be saved, especially the big one, will receive less natural water than before and have less of a growing area available for the roots, with fewer beneficial microorganisms. The newly denuded slope needs to be landscaped to protect the surface. Planting will have a hard time becoming established without benefit of topsoil. The new planting should not interfere or compete with the oak trees. No planting should take place within 8 15' of the trunk, and only sparse planting of adapted native material under the remainder of the crown. The poison oak has excellent slope anchoring qualities and should be preserved if possible, even if cut back. The irrigation system should neither wet tree trunks nor water under the tree crown. ideally irrigation is applied irregularly and deeply, but that will be impossible to achieve on a steep, bedrock slope. On the other hand, the irrigation system should make up the water loss that the tree will experience due to the construction of the retaining walls and the grading. Landscape planting of the slope needs to achieve both fire safety and erosion protection, so that majority of new planting will probably consist of low, spreading plants. Yet for continuity of existing planting, for best eventual growth and for slope anchoring and for creation of new topsoil it would be advisable to get new oak trees established. The best course of action would be to plant dozens of acorns into the slope, in addition to the preferably indigenous low growing plant cover. These acorns should be obtained from nearby oak trees in order to preserve the local seed bank. The advantage of using acorns is that the taproot can penetrate deeply into the soil thus anchoring the plant more securely than could be obtained by planting container plants. Acorns could be planted 5 -8 to a hole in widely spaced holes (25'+ apart). Probably at most 10 of the acorns would germinate. The surviving seedlings would grow only very slowly, and most of then should be thinned out after several years' growth. The point is not so much to create new oak woodland but to over time establish a new soil profile and microclimate, thus indirectly supporting the existing trees. 9 RECOMMENDED TREE PROTECTION MEASURES Measures to induce better tree health prior to construction: Pruning: See below. Watering: Deep water once a month only if needed. Aeration: Not recommended. Fertilizing: Not recommended. Microorganisms and mycorrhizae: No additions recommended at this time Pests and diseases: Symptoms of above ground rot, fungus, or insect infestation were not observed or were so minor as not to warrant aggressive treatment at this time. Root protection zone measures before and during construction: The root protection zone extends from the trunk to the furthest points under the overhanging foliage. Collectively this area at the edge ofthe foliage is called the drip line. Most ofthe roots in this protection zone are located in the upper 12 -24" of soil, although some go much deeper, Both thin feeder roots and major structural roots must be protected for the tree to remain healthy. Because the oaks are very sensitive to any disturbance and the chance to inflict major damage to the trees to be saved is great, a lot of care must be taken to protect the trees that will be saved. Before construction the arborist, architect and soils engineer should discuss how best to protect the trees, and whether placement of the retaining walls needs any adjustment. Before actual grading the contractor, architect and arborist should discuss the tree protection measures so that everyone is clear on the protection requirements. The following are minimum protection measures necessary during construction: install min. 4' high chain link fence around the affected trees' root protection zone, outside of the tree's dripline (it may not be possible to protect the full root protection zone for some of the smaller trees, due to proximity of construction). Do not attach anything to the trunk or dispose of anything within the drip line. Keep the trees in good health by occasional deep watering and preventing the soil from drying out. Do not store any materials in the root protection zone. Minimize root damage. Avoid cutting major roots over 3 Use hand tools for cutting. Do not cut major roots within 10' of the trunk: roots there are relatively inactive, and cutting them too close may cause decay reaching into the trunk. Cut major roots >3" dia. only under direction of a certified arborist. Where cutting is unavoidable cut at right angles at a branching lateral root. Do not change the grade within the drip line. Do not use heavy equipment, which compacts the soil, within the drip line. Do not raise soil level around trunks above the basal flare (base of trunk flaring out to form root system). During construction have a certified arborist on call to field review all cases of root pruning of over 50% of a tree's root area, over 30% of a 10 tree's major roots over 3" in diameter, or cutting roots close to the trunk (within 10'). Retaining wall design or location may have to be modified slightly to prevent substantial root damage and to allow for some drainage water flow through. Any landscaping on the newly shaved slope must respect the trees' needs. Sprinklers should not wet trunks. Landscape will have a hard time getting established in bedrock after removal of topsoil as recommended by the soils report. Any unusual site condition potentially affecting the trees should be immediately brought to the attention of the arborist. Branch pruning before or during construction. Prune only in accordance with industry standards (ISA or ANSI 133.1) and only under direct supervision of a certified arborist. Remove dead, diseased, damaged wood and structural defects only Make cuts perpendicular to the branch, either ata side branch minimally 1/3 the diameter of the branch, or at the trunk. For cuts at trunk, stay just outside the branch bark collar, and prevent tearing of bark. Recommended tree protection clause in construction contract: Since the trees to be saved are easily endangered by construction, the following clause should be incorporated in the construction contract :"The existing big oak tree oak is the focal point of the development and its preservation in a healthy state is crucial. The contractor shall take the utmost care in preventing any harm of any kind to the tree, and instruct all his /her on site workers and subcontractors to do the same. Therefore nothing shall be attached to the tree in any way; it shall not be cut or damaged by nailing, hitting, cutting or pruning, above ground or below. Trenching for footings must be sharp and neat. Cutting of roots should be prevented, but where absolutely necessary, all roots encountered there must be cut cleanly, with a clean sharp handsaw. No storage of materials shall take place under the tree. No grading of any kind shall take place within the drip line area No soil compacting heavy equipment shall be used under the tree. No worker shall walk or drive equipment on soil to remain uncovered under the tree; if frequent walking becomes necessary on any such areas, plywood sheets must be spread on the walkway. A min 5' high fence must surround each drip line. No chemicals, cement, concrete, paints, solvents, or anything else except for clean water shall be poured on or disposed of on the soil anywhere on the grounds; and no harmful chemicals shall be dispersed in the air. If contractor or his /her subs inflict substantial and evident damage to or cause death of the tree, directly or indirectly, or by not taking and enforcing any or all of the measures above, during the full length of the construction period, then the contractor shall pay the owner full value for damages caused, as determined by project arborist, or in accordance with the following value schedule: $10,000 for the substantial loss of or great damage to a major limb over 8 up to $100,000 for the death or complete destruction ofa tree. Damages to the smaller trees will be valued at one fifth of the amounts for the big tree." 11 Respectfully submitted, Pieter Severynen Attachments: PHOTOGRAPHS TREE LOCATION MAP PIETER SEVERYNEN BIOGRAPHY 12 PHOTOGRAPHS 1. NEIGHBORHOOD 2. CA. SYCAMORE, #3 3. `FIRESAFE' ADJACENT FRONT YARD 13 4. TREES #1 (RIGHT) AND #2. 5. EROSION 6. LARGE OAK TREE, #4 7. LARGE OAK TREE BROKEN TRUNK 9. OLD WOUND, TREE #4 Q. TREE #5 11. TREE #6 16 14. TREE #13 12. TREE #7 13. TREE #i 8 17 l u 1•IR urccrle IseslITM D Il .4) p N ©ANa7 uluwlnnnti wow Ili azume aame4 •r'i'r~ J 90046 e pea uo+(usa N ri ;yr r cr I I r r I •1 o i I of -k1 t l f i1Jd Nrid 31JS a 1f PIETER L. SEVERYNEN Certified Arborist ISA -WE- 3271 -A Licensed California Landscape Architect 1970 Pieter Severynen is the president of Pieter Severynen Associates (PSA), a private firm providing arboriculture and landscape architectural services to private and public residential, industrial and institutional clients in the Western United States. He is also the Director of Planning and Design at North East Trees, a private non -profit urban forestry, park and green space design /build organization in Los Angeles that aims to restore nature's services and known for its mini -parks along the Los Angeles River and innovative environmental solutions. PSA consults on urban forestry, urban natural environment interface solutions, tree protection and preservation measures, tree hazard evaluation and the selection, care, pruning and long term growth and survival of trees in the urban environment, from individual specimens to the urban forest and from planning through on the job pruning supervision. The firm integrates arboriculture and landscape architecture through design and review of site planning, grading, drainage, landscape, planting, erosion control, irrigation, night liglhung and hardscape plans, landscape maintenance provisions and observation of project construction. PSA is familiar with public and private recreation and open space needs, human comfort zones, our emotional connection to trees, plant requirements and growth habits including California native planting, and climate and soil variability. The firm designs emotionally appealing, environmentally sensitive, ecologically sustainable, easier to maintain landscapes and plantings emphasizing character revealing trees, A 10 year certified arborist and a 30 year landscape architect, Mr. Severynen previously served with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Los Angeles Office as a Landscape Architect /Lind Planner, Environmental Specialist, and Community Planning and Development Representative. His bands -on experience with plants and design dates back a long time,._ In 1964 he acquired his pruning diploma simultaneously with his BS degree in tropical and subtropical agriculture from the State Agricultural College in Deventer, the Netherlands. He operated his own nursery in the Netherlands. After graduating from UC Berkeley in landscape architecture in 1969 he kept combining his interests in design and arboriculture: he prunes trees and shrubs, directs the pruning of large specimens, and he teaches workshops on the pruning of fruit trees, the creation of character in ornamental trees and shrubs, the long- term maintenance of plants, the design of gardens creating the best environmental conditions for healthy plant growth. Mr. Severynen is fascinated by the relationship between people and plants and their mutual influence As a public speaker he addresses land use planning; global warming sensory awareness; selection., care and pruning of trees; fire adapted landscaping; urban -rural interface design and environmental issues. He is a member of various professional organizations,. including Street Tree Seminar, and a long term Board member of the Southern California Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. IGl /aM7SRr 1aovam JJ voreamPWOompe mwvaeunrse°mMu s�c 'to laao imxi MI6 'e!peae pew ua(ue, NO ,&NVD Nrd311S V4 T I 1 0 0 y k T 0 10 d] O i E- r I1 --I 1 1 0 ry 0 L -1 t 4 I �L ipL bid f r I t t I `1 L a 1 l/ r 4 f 1 a�7t CD {wwu{annq =al 111111 1 Pp Q 3100.1.11111Iner Mill711121 d IKOVICSIA 111101041/.0111.1011011 PUMINE14110 1900941 MUMS lakilarl Mt 90016 etwoine ;mu ucutum 35111014 I3MO1 thin NOANV3 SNV1d 11001.4 wirrrommo d 101110121 Walla Meal tti b 9001.6 auuoille7 'elpeale Pew uotuea f 3S11 0 H 'add 11 €Oda N 0 A N V SNV-€d11oo1A e 4 4 a a. ..u.slt 9!!!!I !mill, 4. •1. MUIR 9a6a■ IMO •1 •1 •1 •1: IM MUM c 11 111 S mut a a+: ;:di9a61; :::1111•111111111111 .1•asaaal ntill1hR•m!!1 ��r�wrrir 19€6!!!6!!! G:a1a•a!! Rmamlm a I I!i!a ai11 immamlmi al l Ral9.3ai1 iaflaaauu11am11' iiauilal Ia flallilim!!!ma!'I Ra ■maial 1aH■a!i laammamuni 11111111 1111111111 I•nRa11i11a1•1•aa: Ra6a6aa1 Iivami■ Rammama6� +a!■rairtmaaa•IIIaa immmons SWAIM .nrawqrawalr. nureworiertrvmorret tf t atV1 Rtl 900L6 1 jUJ�Jfl 3 ‘2 )Pearif pvcm uoAuso pit NOANV3 SNOLLVA313 NO1113.DGI 31•0•1•Pik EIN1131i1 NOVIISID tiitalvapPOWIMPO seuswetasurs Noma stravus Karam gst b 900E6 e!woillto `EiPeale pew uoitue3 'hill NOANVD SNOILVA313 HOWIDG uwere 10. 4. ...tn.,. Mt .4 .44 sat 4$1 398 30..101.11 NNW= •10:41121:11 wavacenewais tetsswann 'poems terallt1110200/314 •los >4. 1.. IIiiii NOANVD 1 SWIMS %Inns :Ig 90016 Alto We= peat uoAuga DONIMPI.• 41INTOCITII 1071111rID 13110 VIMISSWIVII010 CIVIOLLSNIMADITIt b 11.1* 9001.6 etwoille etpate pew utguez NOANY) littb SNOII.D3S Ow :4: C w n i k stia :��Ia 114 a l M gma.wwt 0 s SO www. v MI. .w•Ni. w /0 w w .mow a err .0 s.• nit +n..111 Aft er; +6. ;id III il=!"..i t Ili.. l A ='tea■ ......,tinulll FILE NO: 2007-026 DATE SUBMITTED: 1 -17 -07 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2100 Block Cannon Road (Parcel. Map for 2 Building Lots) B. PROPERTY OWNER: Nevis Biomes Capital LLC ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT: 650 West Huntington Drive C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation). 1. The proposed materials NSA compatible with the existing materials because: The proposed project is complete new project. 2. The.proposed materials Will Not have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property because: Same as No. 1 above 3. The proposed project Will be significantly visible from the adjoining public right of way because: It will involve construction of two new 2 -story hones and necessitate extensive grading (earth moving) to create two new graded building pads above street bevel. 4. The proposed project Will Be significantly visible from adjoining properties because: Same as No. 3 above. 5. The elements of the structure's design are N/A consistent with the existing building's design because: Same as No.3 above. 6. The proposed improvements: Will Be Reasonably in proportion-to the_ improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because T1ii pronosecl homes will be in the range of 4270 and 4650 Sq.Ft. of living floor area. 7. The location of the proposed project Will Not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because The proposed homes (1)will be reasonably comparable in size to other nearby homes, (2) will meet all City Ordinance setback requirements (both from the public street and from all adjacent existing homes and, will be situated on lots of approximately one acre each. 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because See No. 7 Above. See Page 2 (Over) I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL 9. OTHER FINDINGS: Allowing development of this property as proposed under this current application should hopefully, once and forever, resolve the long standing.problem that both the, City and the Homeowners Association has experienced with developers unsuccessful attempts to try to subdivide the land into anywhere from 7 to 15 or more tots over the past 10 years or so. That would be true only if the large remainder Parcel 3 is placed into a conservancy or some similar form of public ownership so that another private owner will not come back at some future time with an attempt to try to subdivide that parcel. D. ACTION: Approval subject to the following conditions; 1. City approval of a "Parcel Map" to create Two building sites (parcels of approximately one acre each), with the large remainder 3 parcel to be placed in a conservancy or some other similar form of ownership acceptable to City to preclude further attempts to subdivide that parcel. 2. ARB's Approval is a "in concept only" approval and the final construction Plans are to be re- submitted to the ARB for a final approval prior to issuance of permits. 3. All City building setback and height restrictions are to be strictly complied with. 4. Full compliance with all recommendations of a project geologist and soils engineer including recommended maximum slope grading, drainage improvements and slope planting to control soil erosion. E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S ACTION: 6/02/07 F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBERS RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION Ralph L Bicker, Chairman Guy Thomas Member Phillip Consiglio, Alternate Member G. REPRESENTING THE HIGHLAND'S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION H. APPEALS R -2 Page 2 Appeals from the Board's (Committees) decision shall be made to the Planning commission.` Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. File 8007._dg6 Property Address /,wA.'f 4WD 21D v I i—c L e. Q'. (?,4„#,- c ,v Ja 01 Property Owner /led /.S //0/174 Cry,/-' 7• L L G Submission Date 6 /i 7/6) 7 The ARCHITECTL1RAL REVIEW AND AREA PLA NNING COMMITTEE of the HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., acting in accordance with CITY of ARCADIA. Ordinance 1479, have met at R /00 4 60/C., L, R on 57.3 '7 and do hereby appeceft (cc nditionall approve`} slisapparve the working drawings and specifications identified by the abov number and datedt 01 ve =/6 This COITTEE bases its decisions on the material submitted by the applicant, whose responsibility it is to provide accurate material in all respects. Any material changes made subsequent to this COM]tiRTT`!"E;E's approval must be submitted for additional approval. In case of disapproval, detailed findings for the COMMrI'I 's action are attached. Condition's for approval, if any; cY a ,re COMMITTEE members present: ighiands Homeowners Association Inc. Architectural Review and Area Planning Committee 47ircue i, 5aA -4-A .4c77e,v COMIvffTTEE APPROVAL: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) and Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Name: Thomas Li, Associate Planner Phone: (626) 574 -5447/ Fax (626) 447 -9173 Email: tli @ci.arcadia.ca.us 4. Project Location: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) proposes to subdivide an approximately 90 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue, and north and northwest of Canyon Road in the northerly foothills of the City of Arcadia,' adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, in Los Angeles County. The Residential Mountainous Development Permit (Application No. RM 07 -01) is required for the grading of an approximately three (3) acre area at the southerly portion of the above described property that fronts the westerly side of Canyon Road between 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Hank Jong EGL Associates, Inc. 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA 91006 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 7. Zoning Classification: R -M Residential Mountainous Single Family Zone CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 1 File Nos. TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 6. General Plan Designation: SFR -4 Single- Family Residential, up to 4 dwelling units per acre: Provides for low density single- family detached residential neighborhoods. Development is typified by large lot single family homes on lots between 10,000 and 22,000 square feet in size. Appropriate uses include single family residences on a single lot, the keeping of large animals, and individual private recreational facilities. -1- 6/06 CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 1 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None File Nos. TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) The proposed project involves the subdivision of an 90.45 -acre undeveloped property in the foothills of Arcadia into two (2) parcels. Two (2) applications are necessary for consideration of the proposed project: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) is required to subdivide the property into three (3) lots. Parcel 1 would be approximately two (2) acres in area and Parcel 2 would be approximately 0.82 acres in area. The remaining parcel, Parcel 3, would be approximately 80.33 acres in area and has not been designated for any development or improvement at this time. Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01 is required for the grading of Parcels 1 2. Parcel 1 is proposed to be improved with a two (2) story, 5,490 square -foot residence on a 2,940.5 square -foot pad, while Parcel 2 is proposed to be developed with a two (2) story, 5,110 square foot residence on a 2,991.5 square -foot pad. The grading to accommodate the proposed developments would involve approximately 5,000 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic -yards of fill. The applicant has estimated that construction of the above mentioned project would result in 108 truck trips. The proposed truck route is south on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 Freeway, east to the 605 Freeway, south to the 60 Freeway, and east to the Puente Hills Landfill. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: Angeles National Forest Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain consisting of relatively undisturbed native vegetation and wildlife South: Existing hillside low density single- family residential neighborhoods within the City of Arcadia East: Arcadia Wilderness Park and existing hillside low- density single family residential neighborhoods within the City of Arcadia West: Undeveloped hillside and mountainous terrain and existing low density single family residential neighborhoods in the City of Sierra Madre -2- 6/06 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology Soils Hazards Hazardous Materials Hydrology Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Traffic Utilities Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Thomas Li, Associate Planner For: Jim Kasama Printed Name Title Community Development Administrator CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 1 File Nos. TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 -3- 6/06 CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 1 File Nos. TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a Tess than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -4- 6/06 Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [X) Although the proposed project would alter a portion of the project site from an undisturbed hillside to a low density single family residential development, the vast majority of the site (over 80 acres) would remain in its natural, undeveloped state. Furthermore, the proposed residences would be built below the ridgeline of the hill to preserve the view of the hillside and ridgeline from the surrounding properties. Additionally, the proposed residences have been reviewed and approved by the Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board, which found the project's conceptual design to be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding properties (Source Nos. 12 14). b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The portion of Canyon Road which is affected by this project is not within a scenic highway area. As previously stated, the proposed homes would be located below the ridgeline so as not to alter the view of the hillside from the surrounding properties. There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the site. However, due to the steepness of the slope and the significant grading work that is required, up to twelve (12) mature Coast Live Oak trees and one (1) California Sycamore would be removed or encroached upon. The applicant has agreed to mitigation measures for the lost trees, including the planting of acorns throughout the site. One particularly large and visible Oak tree would be preserved (Source Nos. 9 12). c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [X] While a portion of the site would be altered in appearance, implementation of the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The proposed low- density, single- family residences are consistent with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the vast majority of the site would remain undeveloped. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [X] The introduction of light and glare associated with the proposed two (2) new residences would create a new source of light and glare in the area, but given the proximity of the site to other existing residences, the new lighting would not be out -of- character for the area and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views (Source No. 12). II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? The project site has not been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance (Source Nos. 1, 2 3). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [Al [Xj 5 6/06 Issues: b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? IX) The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not under a Williamson Act contract (Source Nos. 1, 2 3). c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non agricultural use? [X] There is no farmland within or in the vicinity of the project site (Source Nos. 1, 2 3). III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The proposed project would be in compliance with the City's adopted General Plan and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the region's Air Quality Management Plan developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (Source Nos. 1 2). b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? IX) The project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties as well as portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality measurements in the SCAB region consistently exceed both State and Federal air quality standards. Because the project is in compliance with the land use density allowed in the City's General Plan, any long -term air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the project would be less than significant. In the short term, air pollutants usually not present in the immediate area would be emitted by construction equipment and dust/particulate matter would be generated during the grading and site preparation. Therefore, standard mitigation measures for site preparation, such as watering the grading site and street sweeping, would be implemented during the construction phase. With these measures in place, any air quality impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a nonattainment area for Ozone (0 Fine Particulate Matter (PM Respirable Particulate Matter (PM and Carbon Monoxide (CO), and is a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO Any pollutants produced by the proposed project would be a miniscule portion of the total air pollutant emissions across the basin. Nevertheless, standard mitigation measures would be enforced during construction and site preparation to minimize the project's air quality impacts. If these measures are properly implemented, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (Source No. 12). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [X] [X] [l 6 6/06 Issues: d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [Xj The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is Highland Oaks Elementary School, which is located at 10 Virginia Road, approximately one (1) mile away from the project site. Despite the substantial distance between the project site and school, the proposed project would affect Highland Oaks School during the construction and site preparation phase because the proposed truck route passes the western edge of the school on Santa Anita Avenue. In order to minimize the impact of the trucks' pollutants to a less than significant level, standard mitigation measures such as the cleaning and maintenance of trucks and the suspension of work during smog alerts would be implemented (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed residential use would not generate objectionable odors. The fumes emitted from the construction equipment would not affect a substantial number of people (Source Nos. 1 2). IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Although the project site is located in an area which could potentially contain plant and animal species that are considered endangered, rare or threatened by State and Federal government agencies, biological field surveys conducted in Spring 2000 in the project area determined that no such plant or animal species were present at the site proposed for development. Additionally, over 80 acres of undisturbed hillside would be preserved as part of this proposal (Source No 12). b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no riparian habitats within the project area. The only potentially sensitive habitat that would be affected by the construction is a grouping of Coast Live Oaks at the upper portion of the grading area. This grouping of Oaks could be defined as Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland due to the trees' canopy structure. Depending on construction factors, it may be possible to save some or all of these Oak trees. If the trees must be removed, mitigation measures such as the planting of replacement trees and acorns throughout the site would be required. By far the largest tree in the project area, a 74" trunk diameter Coast Live Oak, would be preserved. Finally, over 80 acres of the project site (Parcel No. 3) would remain undeveloped under the current proposal. In order to preserve this natural community and prevent any future development, the City would require a General Plan amendment and zone change of Parcel No. 3 from Residential Mountainous to Open Space and the establishment of a funding mechanism to maintain the property in perpetuity (Source Nos. 9, 10, 11 12). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [Xl [l [X] [l l [Xl l 7 6/06 Issues: c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no wetlands at or near the project site (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? There are no native residents within the project area. Wildlife movement corridors may be present in the project area, but not in the 3 -acre area to be developed. Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with any native resident or wildlife movement corridors (Source No. 12). e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? According to the City's adopted Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, removal of or encroachment upon any Oak tree meeting certain trunk diameter requirements requires City approval and an assessment from a Certified Arborist. Additionally, the removal of any Oak, Sycamore, Liquidambar, Magnolia, or Pine tree is subject to approval by the Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board. Under the current proposal, up to 12 Oak trees and one Sycamore tree may need to be removed and /or encroached upon. A Certified Arborist has reviewed the proposal and deemed the removals and encroachments to be necessary. Additionally, the proposal has been conditionally approved by the Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, including preserving 80 acres of the site as permanent open space and planting acorns and replacement trees throughout the site, the project's impact on the site's protected trees would be less than significant (Source Nos. 9, 10, 12, 16 17). f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is not within the boundaries or vicinity of an adopted or proposed local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [X) l [X] [X] l [l [l [X] a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? [X] While there are a number of historic resources within the City of Arcadia and the San Gabriel Valley area, there are no such resources within the project area (Source Nos. 1 2). b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? [X] There are no known archaeological resources at the project site. Should any potential archaeological resources be detected during the clearing /grading phase of the project, all ground disturbance activities shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist shall be called in to examine the resources (Source Nos. 1, 2, 11 14). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 8 6/06 Issues: VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1 l 1 [X1 There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project area. Should any such resources or features be detected during the clearing /grading phase of the project, all ground disturbance activities shall be suspended and qualified experts shall be called in to examine the resources or features (Source Nos. 1, 2 14). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1 1 1 [X1 Human remains, either formally or informally buried, are not known to be present on or near the project site (Source Nos. 1, 2 14). [1 [1 [1 [Xl The most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthqake Fault Zoning Map issued for the area (1977) does not identify any earthquake faults within the project area. Additionally, field and laboratory research conducted by the applicant's geotechnical engineer confirmed that there are no active faults within the boundary of the project site. The closest active fault zone is the. Sierra Madre -San Fernando Fault Zone, which is located 0.2 miles from the project area Other significant active faults are within 26 miles, •thy closest of which are the Clamshell- Sawpit Fault and the Raymond Fault. Although the project area would experience strong seismic ground shaking due to the proximity of the previously mentioned faults, there is no risk of ground rupture within the boundaries of the project site (Source Nos. 7, 11, and 12). ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1 1 [X1 Any development on the project site would unavoidably be exposed to significant seismically induced ground shaking. The project site is within 0.2 miles of the active Sierra Madre -San Fernando fault zone and other significant active fault zones are within 26 miles. The Sierra Madre -San Fernando fault zone is considered to have the most significant seismic effect on the project site and would be the primary factor in the grading design and construction design of the project. In addition, many other faults and fault zones, including the Mojave section of the San Andreas fault zone are capable of generating earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking that would affect any development in the project area. Implementation of the project would unavoidably expose people and structures to significant adverse seismically- induced ground shaking effects that could result in loss, injury, or death. However, as the proposed structures would be designed to accommodate minimum horizontal accelerations pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, the adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant (Source 12). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 9 6/06 Issues: iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project would not be exposed to significant adverse ground failure or liquefaction because the site is underlain with solid quartz diorite bedrock material and there is no ground water. Additionally, according to the Mt. Wilson Quadrangle Seismic Hazard Zones map released on March 25, 1999, the project is not located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of liquefaction, or where there is a potential for permanent ground displacements (Source Nos. 11 and 12). iv) Landslides [X] There are no existing naturally- occurring landslides present on the project site, which is underlain by solid quartz diorite bedrock and covered for the most part with a thin mantle of residual soils or slopewash. The project is within a region of steep, unstable slopes where landslides have historically occurred or where local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. However, the grading plan for the project would reduce the steepness of the slope and includes site preparation measures that would minimize the risk of landslides (Source Nos. 11 and 12). b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [X] Although topsoil would be removed during the grading phase of the project, the drainage and landscaping for the project would reduce any soil erosion to a less than significant level (Source No. 12). c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. Any strata, soil, or slope instability resulting from the project would be mitigated to a less than significant degree through the mitigation measures recommended by the applicant's geotechnical engineer (Source Nos. 11 and 12). d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The proposed project is not located on expansive soil and would not result in any substantial risks to life or property (Source No. 12). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [X] The project would connect to the existing public sewage system. Therefore, no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would be necessary (Source No. 4). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [Al [X] [X] 10 6/06 Issues: VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? According to the applicant, the proposed project would not use or dispose of any potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic or flammable substances or explosives (Source No. 4). b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? g) The proposed project would not release any hazardous materials into the environment (Source No. 4). c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed project would not emit any hazardous emissions and does not involve any hazardous materials, substances, or waste (Source No. 4). d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The proposed project area is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Codc section 65962.5 and therefore would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Source Nos. 1, 2 4). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is the El Monte Airport, situated approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site in the City of El Monte. Since there are no public airports within two miles of the subject site, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing in the area (Source Nos. 1, 2 11). f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [X] The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a known private airstrip (Source Nos. 1, 2 11). Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? A Although the proposed project is located in a high fire hazard zone, implementation of the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposal would comply with all Fire Department requirements (Source Nos. 1, 2, 12 18). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [X] [X! [X] [X) [X] 11 6/06 Issues: h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [X] The project site is located in an area that has been designated as Very High Fire Hazard Zone 1 due to its steep slopes, native vegetation, and proximity to the Urban Wildlife Interface. The development of residential projects within Fire Zone 1 must be in strict compliance with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. The proposed project would be carried out in compliance with these regulations. Therefore, any risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from wildland fires would be less than significant (Source Nos. 1, 2, 12 18). [X) Construction of the proposed project would not create runoff water in violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Any potential impacts would be less than significant through the implementation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (Source No. 6). [1 [X] The grading: work associated with the proposed project would not significantly alter drainage patterns on the site. The roughly 3 -acre area to be developed currently drains onto Canyon Road and then into the City's stormwater drainage system. Additionally, since the project is a single family hillside residential development of more than one acre, a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) must be prepared and implemented to ensure that the newly created runoff water does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (Source Nos. 6 18). [X] The completed project would not include any delivery areas, loading docks, or other areas where hazardous materials, waste, or equipment would be stored or handled. Vehicles would be stored in the driveways or garages of the proposed residences and would not create additional sources of polluted runoff. During the grading and construction phase of the project, construction vehicles would be parked on flat surfaces away from the public right -of -way and waste containment and stockpile areas would be covered with plastic sheeting to reduce polluted runoff to a less than significant level (Source Nos. 4, 6, 8 19). 12 6/06 Issues: d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? g) Substantially deplete, groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [X] [l The project proposes storm drains, catch basins and V- gutters on manufactured slopes in accordance with City and Los Angeles County Flood Control District standards. Implementation of the proposed drainage plan would control runoff water so that it would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. No other beneficial uses as listed above would be affected by the proposed project (Source Nos. 4 6). e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? [X] Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the discharge of stormwater to cause significant harm to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies, including municipal and domestic water supplies, water contact, or non contact recreations and groundwater recharge (Source No. 12). [l [X) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the violation of Regional Water Quality Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements through compliance with standard water quality practices established by NPDES (Source No. 12). [l [Xl [l The proposed project involves the creation of impervious surfaces for driveways and residential structures that could interfere with groundwater recharge on the 2.82 -acre development portion of the project area. However, given the fact that over 80 acres of the site would be preserved in its natural state, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table level in the local area. Additionally, the project would not adversely affect the production rate of any existing wells in the area and would not create a drop in well water production rates to a level which would not support existing or planned land uses (Source Nos. 1, 2 5). [l [Xl The project proposes grading that would alter drainage patterns on the 2.82 -acre development portion of the project area. However, any increase in erosion or siltation on- and off -site resulting from the grading work would be less than significant. The project would not alter the course of a stream or river (Source Nos. 5, 6 12). 13 6/06 Issues: i) Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? j) As previously stated, the site may experience a short -term increase in erosion on- and off -site due to the required grading for the project; however, any increase would be less than significant. In the long term, the use of retaining walls, concrete swales, and slope stabilization practices could actually reduce erosion at the project site (Source Nos. 5, 6, 12). Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? The project would alter existing drainage patterns on a portion of the site and may increase the rate and /or amount of surface runoff. However, the inclusion of storm drains, catch basins, V- gutters, etc. would ensure that any increase in runoff would be less than significant (Source Nos. 1,2,5 &6). k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? The project proposes storm drains, catch basins and V- gutters on manufactured slopes per City and Los Angeles County Flood Control District standards. Implementation of the proposed drainage plan would control runoff water so that it would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems (Source Nos. 4 6). I) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? [XI... The grading work associated with the proposed project would not significantly alter drainage patterns of the site. The roughly 3 -acre area to be developed currently drains onto Canyon Road and then into the City's storm water drainage system. Additionally, the proposed development would incorporate the minimum project requirements of the Public Works Department (Source Nos. 6 18). m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [X] The proposed project would be required to implement a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Implementation of this plan would reduce potential impacts to water quality standards to a less than significant level (Source Nos. 5 6). n) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The project does not propose to locate housing within a 100 year floodplain as mapped on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map (Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 6). o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [X] The project site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain. The proposed project would not place structures in such a way that would impede or redirect flood flows (Source Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 6). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [1 [X1 1 11 [X! [Xl 1 [X1 14 6/06 Issues: P) q) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [X] The project site is not located within the inundation area of any levees or dams Source Nos. 1 4). Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 [X] Due to the long distances between the proposed project site and the Pacific Ocean or any sizable lakes, there will be no seiche or tsunami impacts. Any increase in mudflow resulting from the project will be less than significant as less than 3 acres of the project site will be affected by grading work. Additionally, retaining walls, concrete swales, and slope stabilization practices will minimize erosion /siltation at the project site (Source Nos. 5, 6 12). IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [X The project site is located toward the extreme northern edge of the City of Arcadia and the proposed two (2) new single family residences would be situated between existing single- family residences off of an existing road (Canyon Road). Additionally, roughly 80 acres of the project site would be left in its natural, undisturbed condition. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community (Source Nos. 1, 2 5). b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not Iimited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [X The project site's General Plan Land Use Classification is Single- Family Residential (SFR -4). The project site's Zoning Classification is Residential Mountainous Single- Family Zone (R -M). The design of the proposed two (2) single- family residences would comply with all applicable zoning standards with the exception of the minimum setback from the side property lines. The designs of the proposed two (2) single- family residences have been conceptually approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Highlands Homeowners' Association, which has architectural design review authority over the subject property (Source Nos. 1, 3 15). [X] The project site is not within the boundaries or vicinity of an adopted or proposed habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [X] The project site is not located in or near an area known to contain mineral resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource (Source Nos. 1 2). 15 6/06 Issues: b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [X) The project area does not contain locally important mineral resources and has not been identified as a mineral resource site in the Arcadia General Plan (Source Nos. 1 2). XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: [l [X] [l The proposed project would produce short-term construction- related noise which could potentially exceed the City of Arcadia General Plan Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for residential zones. The noise would result from the grading work necessary to create the pads and manufactured slopes for the two (2) single- family residences, from the construction related traffic driving to- and -from the site, from the truck trips necessary to export the graded earth material from the site, and from the actual construction of the two (2) proposed residences. There are no long -term noise impacts associated with the proposed project. The construction- related noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by regulating construction hours and days (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 12). [X] l Although adjacent residents may be exposed to groundborne vibration and groundbourne noise during the grading and construction phase of the project, these impacts are not expected to be excessive or louder than expected from typical grading and construction activities (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). [l [l [Xj The short-term construction- related noise associated with the project would be a substantial increase from the existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; however, such noise levels would not be permanent. In the long term, implementation of the proposed project would result in a marginal increase in residential and traffic noise on Canyon Road (Source Nos. 1 2). d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? El [Xl l [l The project would create substantial short-term (temporary) increases in ambient noise levels during the time necessary to complete the grading and construction of the two (2) single- family residences. These effects would be mitigated by enforcing limits on construction hours and days (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 12). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [X] The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Source Nos. 1, 2 11). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 16 6/06 Issues: f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police protection? CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [l [Xj The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not be subject to excessive noise levels from airstrip operations (Source Nos. 1, 2 11). [l [l [Xl The addition of two (2) new single- family residences at the designated portion of Canyon Road would not exceed the density of the existing single- family residential developments adjacent to and in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, as over 80 acres of the project area would be designated as permanent open space through a zone change and General Plan amendment, implementation of the proposed project would deter any future development in the project area (Source Nos. 1, 2 3). [l [l [l [Xl No existing housing would be removed as part of the proposed project (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 4). c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [l [l [l [X) Because no existing housing would.be removed as part of the proposal, the project does not have the potential to displace any individuals (Source Nos. 1, 2,3 4): Fire protection? 1 1 [X} 1 Although the project site is located in an area of very high fire hazard, the two proposed residences would be required to comply with the Fire Department's construction standards for the high fire zone and would not substantially increase the demand for fire services (Source Nos. 1, 2, 12 18). [l [l [Xl The project represents an incremental increase in the number of dwelling units and population that would require police services. Existing police services will be able to adequately serve the two (2) proposed residences (Source Nos. 1, 2, 12). 17 6/06 Issues: XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? XV.TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Schools? l l [X) The project represents a marginal increase in the population that would not adversely affect the local school district (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). Parks? 1 l [X] The parks and recreation services provided by the City of Arcadia and other entities would not be significantly affected by the proposed project. Existing parks and recreational facilities should be adequate to support the two additional dwellings (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). Other public facilities? l l [Xl l The proposed project represents an incremental increase in population such that other public services provided by the City of Arcadia and other entities would not be significantly affected (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). [l [l [X] The proposed two (2) new single- family residences would incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. The payment of park and recreation impact fees would help prevent the physical deterioration of the City's parks and recreational facilities (Source Nos. 1, 2 3). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adversephysical effect on the environment? l .l [XI No recreational facilities would be built as part of the proposal. The two (2) new single- family residences would not require the construction or substantial expansion of recreational facilities. Existing recreational facilities in the City are adequate to serve the two additional residences (Source Nos. 1 2). [l [X] [l The proposed project would generate both short-term, construction related traffic and long -term resident, guest, and services traffic impacts. Short-term traffic would result from vehicle trips associated with site grading and construction. It is estimated that the grading for the project would require 108 truck trips to transport the graded earth material to the Puente Hills Landfill. Truck traffic would begin at the project site, continue south on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, continue west to Santa Anita Avenue, and travel south to the 210 freeway. The truck traffic impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by limiting the hours and days during which hauling could occur. Traffic associated with construction, as well as the long -term traffic impacts, are anticipated to be less than significant (Source Nos. 12 19). 18 6/06 Issues: b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [X] l In the short term, implementation of the proposed project would result in increased traffic on the affected streets and highways; however, implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that these traffic impacts are less than significant. Long -term residential and services traffic to and from the two (2) new residences would represent a marginal increase in the area's traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would not individually or cumulatively exceed a level -of- service standard established by the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, and Caltrans (Source Nos. 12 19). c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns (Source No. 4). d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [X) [l [1 [X] The project scope is fairly limited and does not include new streets, roads, or intersections. The driveways for the two (2) new residences would comply with the City's vehicular visibility standards for driveways. Staff does not anticipate any increased hazards due to the project's design features or uses (Source Nos. 3 8). e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [X1 The schedule for the export truck trips and the construction staging plan would ensure that adequate emergency access is available at all times during the construction and grading phase. The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access for the two (2) new residences as both dwellings would front Canyon Road (Source No. 19). f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [X1 l The schedule for the export truck trips and the construction staging plan would ensure that adequate parking is available at all times during grading and construction. In the long term, the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. The two proposed residences will both have a two -car garage and a flat driveway area large enough to accommodate two additional vehicles (Source Nos. 8 and 19). g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project does not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative methods of transportation. The proposed residences would be located within an existing single family residential neighborhood (Source Nos. 1, 2, 3 5). XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 [l [l [X1 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [X] The two (2) new residences would be served by the existing sewer line in Canyon Road. The project is not anticipated to exceed wastewater treatment requirements (Source No. 18). 19 6/06 Issues: b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project would generate a minimal increase in demand for wastewater treatment services. The wastewater flows generated by two (2) new residences would not trigger the need for new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities (Source No. 18). c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [X] The subject site currently drains onto Canyon Road and then into the City's storm drain system. Construction of two (2) new homes would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. The only "expansion" of existing facilities would be the laterals to the existing sewer line in Canyon Road (Source No. 18). d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). Current water resources are sufficient to serve the proposed two (2) new units. No new or expanded entitlements are required (Source No. 18). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? g) The wastewater flows generated by two (2) new units would not trigger the need for new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities (Source Nos. 1 2). f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? During the grading phase of the project, graded earth material will be transported to the Puente Hills Landfill, which has an adequate capacity to accommodate the graded material. In the long term, the amount of waste generated by two additional dwelling units would not adversely affect landfill capacity, especially with the implementation of standard solid waste disposal practices (Source Nos. 1, 2 ,12 19). Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? l l l [Xi The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste treatment and disposal (Source Nos. 1, 2 12). CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact [l [l [X7 [l [l [l [X] [l [l [l [X) [l [l [l [Xl 20 6/06 Issues: XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of Tong -term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact j j [X1 j Although the proposed project would require the removal or encroachment upon eleven (12) Oak trees and one (1) Sycamore tree, implementation of the project would not result in a substantial loss of habitat. Over 80 acres of the project site would be preserved in its natural state, and the City would require that this area be permanently designated as open space to ensure that no future development will occur within the project area. There is no evidence that implementation of the project would eliminate a plant or animal community or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels. Furthermore, field surveys have verified that the project area does not contain any rare or endangered plant or animal species. Due to the lack of prehistoric or historic resources at or near the project site, such resources would not be adversely affected by the project. [j [j [Xj The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. Many of the environmental impacts associated with the project would be short- term construction- related impacts that would have marginal long- term environmental consequences. For example, most of the impacts to air quality would occur during the grading phase of the project due to the truck trips required to haul the graded earth material to a landfill. In the long term, however, the two new residences would have little to no impact on the region's air resources. As previously noted, implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that any environmental impacts would be less than significant. [j [j [j [Xj As implementation of the proposed project would result in a net increase of only two (2) new dwelling units, staff does not believe that the project's environmental impacts would be cumulatively considerable. The vast majority of the project area would be set aside as permanent open space; therefore, the long -term environmental impacts of the project would be less than considerable even when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, and future projects. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. 21 6/06 Issues: d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? File Nos.: TPM 09 -08 RM 07 -01 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact CEQA Env. Checklist (Form "J Part 2 j j [X] j Implementation of the proposed project would directly affect human beings in the form of noise, air quality, aesthetic, and traffic impacts. However, implementation of mitigation measures during grading and construction would ensure that these impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The long -term affect of two additional residences would not be substantial. The project's impacts on water quality, geology and soils, and plant and animal resources could affect human beings indirectly, although such impacts would also be less than significant. 22 6/06 City of Arcadia Environmental Checklist Form Information Sources for Evaluation of Potential Impacts 1. City of Arcadia General Plan 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Arcadia General Plan 3. City of Arcadia Municipal Zoning Code 4. Environmental Information Form for Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) filed August 5, 2009 and R -M Permit Application No. R -M 07 -01 filed October 1, 2007 5. Tentative Parcel Map 71182 dated July 29, 2009 6. Grading and Drainage Plan Demolition Erosion Control Plan for Tentative Parcel Map 69775 dated September 5, 2007 7. "Report of Geotechnical Engineering and Geological Investigation for Proposed Two Single Family Residential Development at PM 69775, Canyon Road, Arcadia, California" prepared by Environmental Geotechnical Laboratory, Inc. (Project No. 07- 177- 002EG) dated September 20, 2007, updated September 23, 2009. 8. Conceptual Architectural Plans with submittal date of September 28, 2007 9. "Report on Existing Trees" by Pieter Severynen dated November 15, 2007 10. City of Arcadia Oak Tree Preservation regulations (Ord. No. 1962 adopted January 21, 1992 and amended by Ord. No. 2207 adopted on July 5, 2005 11. USGS Map, "Mt. Wilson, CA." 1966, photo revised 1988 and State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map Mt. Wilson Quadrangle Preliminary Map Released: March 25, 1999 12. Final Environmental Impact Report Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 (SCH# 2001051034) dated November 1, 2004 13. Technical Appendix for the Draft Environmental Impact Report Highland Oaks Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 51941 (SCH #20030298) dated August 4, 2004 14. Photographs of development site taken on November 7, 2007 15. Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) conditional approval of the designs of the proposed two (2) new, single family residences ARB file no. 2007 -026 date of ARB action: June 2, 2007 16. Highland Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) conditional approval of the tree removals discussed in item no. 9 email from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman sent on January 25, 2008 17. City Council Resolution No. 5289 for the Highland Homeowners' Association 18. Responses to requests for comments: Police Dept. No recommendations Public Works Below SUSMP threshold. Project must implement Minimum Project Requirements Water Division see memorandum dated November 1, 2007 (no extraordinary requirements) Building Services All work to be in compliance with the 2007 California Building Code and the Construction Requirements for Fire Zone No. 1 Public Works No special requirements for sealer connections Fire Dept. see Project Requirements dated 11/13/07, updated February 2, 2010. 1S Engineering Services See memorandum dated November 21, 2007 for standard conditions of approval Preliminary Construction Staging Plan for Rough Grading for Parcel Map No. 69775, dated March 6, 2008 Date Filed: Rev. Q\'‘ c,S *0 Vkti n to 9 5. Zoning: N 6. General Plan Designation: (THU)JUL 30 2000 11 :31IST. 11:28 /Ho. 7S4OS4s370 P ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: U %n £'o U r rc e--004 f CA P. LLB 9 607 2. Address of project (Location): CANYON V 4 1 6 f'O\A 1 cPc Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Or' ve. Arce4c, LA 2-5 0 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6 -09 Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): P t knItV• l ok A-0 2 l r ov4 k t7 Vj Z fvn.Ak G�/•+t "`�4A3t 3 Zs9,o3 d 8. Site size: Sq. R. l 90 `A5 9. Square footage per building: q SkAl 10. Number of floors of construction: 11. Amount of off street parking provided: N/ies 12. Proposed scheduling of project: 611 v 0 13. Associated projects: -14: incremental development: f /P‘ N NrA i\r/A (THU)JUL 00 2005 11: 01 /ST. 11725/No. 7640545070 P 5 Acre(s) 2 5 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: \JINJA bvtq «j r 49D 1{ /i* z b,,,►tb r (t D 5f 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: 20. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21. ar ge in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. la 5:1 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly-why the application is required: (THU >JUL 30 2009 11:32 *T. 11:29/No. 7640949070 P 7 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. L 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? 121 cia 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) a 31. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) ‘P 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects ca 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? 34. If you answered YES to question no. -33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? 6-09 PROM (THU)JUL 30 2003 11 :32, *T. 11: 23 /No. 7640043370 P 3 Environmental Setting 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) set R '7z AA1AEN.7 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 5e P r\ 7cC tC� Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date 00 /Ohi d 9 (Si4 4 Related Fees Certified Regulatory Program "$941.25 Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declaration $1,993.00 Environmental Impact Report $2,768.25 6-09 PROM CTMU)JUL 00 2000 11 0 2 /3T.11:20/Mo.75400400T0 R 0 :Environmental Setting: 35. The project site is located on Canyon Drive. It is vacant currently. There is an oak tree located on the project site. The topography of the site is steep. No known cultural, historical and scenic elements are located on the site. 36. The subject is located in a low- density residential area. The land uses at the site's vicinity are mostly single- family houses. No animal and cultural, historical and scenic aspects were observed at the site's vicinity. Date Received for Filing: CEQA Negative Declaration (Form "E CITY OF ARCADIA 240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Thomas Li, Associate Planner Staff File No.: TPM 09 -08 and RM 07 -01 1. Name or description of project: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) and Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01 2. Project Location Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7'A' topographical map Identified by quadrangle name): An approximately 90 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue, and north and northwest of Canyon Road in the northerly foothills of the City of Arcadia, adjacent to the Angeles National Forest, in Los Angeles County, on the westerly side of Canyon Road between 2109 and 2127 Canyon Road (see attached map). 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Hank Jong of EGL Associates, Inc. (2) Address: 11819 Goldring Road, Unit A, Arcadia, CA 91006 The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a siginificant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Planning Commission's findings are as follows: The applicant will be implementing construction mitigation measures to ensure that air quality, noise, and transportation /traffic impacts are minimized. The Planning _Commission hereby finds that .the, Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgement. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5423 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5423 6 /06 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01 This Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for Application Nos. TPM 09 -08 and RM 07 -01, has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. A master copy of this MMRP shall be kept in the Planning Services office and shall be available for viewing upon request. The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 90.45 -acre undeveloped property in the foothills of Arcadia into two (2) parcels to be developed with new single family dwellings. Two (2) applications are necessary for consideration of the proposed project: Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182); Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01; and This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on the following pages that correspond to the final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. The matrix lists each mitigation measure by environmental topic and indicates the frequency of monitoring and the responsible monitoring entity. Mitigation measures may be shown in submittals and may be checked only once, or they may require monitoring periodically during and /or after construction and grading. Once a mitigation measure is complete, the responsible monitoring entity shall date and initial the corresponding cell and comment on the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. Wherever the term "project applicant" is used in the MMRP, it shall be deemed to include each and all successors in interest of the project applicant. Failure to implement any of the mitigation measures may result in corrective action by the City. Penalties may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) A written notification and request for compliance, (2) Withholding of permits, (3) Administrative fines, (4) A stop -work order, (5) Forfeiture of security bonds or other guarantees, and (6) Revocation of permits or entitlements. I HEREBY AGREE TO PAY THE CITY MONITORING FEES AND IMPLEMENT THESE MITIGATION MEASURES, AT A MINIMUM, IN THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT. APPLICANT DATE PROPERTY OWNER DATE Impact Air Quality 2.1 The project contractor shall water the grading site at least twice a day (morning and afternoon, or as deemed necessary) using reclaimed water or chemical soil binder, where feasible. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09 -08 (71182) Residential Mountainous Development Permit Application No. R -M 07 -01 Mitigation Measure 1.1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and throughout grading and construction, the project applicant shall comply with the recommended tree protection measures identified in the certified arborist report dated November 15, 2007 (see attached), or as amended by an updated arborist report to be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 1.2 The project applicant shall plant indigenous low growing plant cover and acorns obtained from nearby Oak trees into the slope. The acorns shall be planted 5 -8 to a hole in widely spaced holes (at least 25' apart). A certified arborist shall supervise the planting and submit a report to the City following its completion...: 1.3 The project applicant shall agree to a General Plan Designation and Zoning of Open Space of that portion of the property beyond the rear property lines of the adjacent existing parcels and the owners of the new parcels shall maintain the entirety of their parcels including the open space area within their properties in compliance with fire and building safety requirements. Mitigation Monitoring Timing Duration of construction and grading Following completion of grading and construction activity and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy General Plan Designation and Zoning Prior to Final Inspection of new homes Maintenance is continuous Responsible Monitoring Entity Impact Aesthetics Biological Resources Planning and Building Services Planning and Building Services Planning Services Mitigation Measure Complete? Effectiveness 2.2 The project contractor shall wash off trucks leaving the site and cover dirt in trucks during on -road hauling. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.3 During grading operations, the project contractor shall spread soil binders on the construction site, unpaved roads, and parking areas at least every 4 hours and at the end of the workday. Duration of grading operations Planning and Building Services 2.4 The project contractor shall apply chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all previously graded construction areas which remain inactive for 96 hours or more. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.5 The project contractor shall re- establish ground cover within the construction site through seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for a period of two months or more. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.6 The project contractor shall sweep streets to prevent silt and other debris from being carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.7 Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall not exceed 15 miles per hour. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.8 The project contractor shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.9 The project contractor shall suspend grading operations, apply soil binders, and water the grading site when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 2.10The project contractor shall keep construction equipment engines tuned to ensure that the air quality impacts generated by construction activities are minimized. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services Impact Geology Soils 3.1 The project applicant shall follow all recommendations listed in Chapter 6 of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation dated September 20, 2007, and as outlined in the updated report dated September 23, 2009 (see attached). Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services Impact Noise Transportation/Traffic 4.1 Grading and construction activities shall be limited to the following hours: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction and grading activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 4.2 The project contractor shall ensure full compliance with the construction staging plan for rough grading, including the placement of waste containment and stockpile areas and the proposed truck haul route. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 4.3 Hauling of graded earth material shall only occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays to avoid school and rush hour traffic. Duration of construction and grading Planning and Building Services 4.4 Grading activities shall not last more than 6 months and shall occur between April and October to avoid the rainy season. Duration of grading Planning and Building Services Photographs of Subject Property Looking north on Canyon Road (subject property to the north [behind homes] and west) Looking south on Canyon Road (subject property to the west Photographs of Subject Property Photographs of Subject Property Subject property existing native vegetation Subject property Photographs of Subject Property Photographs of Subject Property Subject property Large oak tree to be preserved Photographs of Subject Property Photographs of Subject Property Across the street from proposed parcels 1 and 2 Across the street from proposed parcels 1 and 2 Photographs of Subject Property RESOLUTION NO. 1776 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RESIDENTIAL- MOUNTAINOUS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. RM 07 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07 -05 (69775), AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. TR 08 -04 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXI- MATELY 83 -ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF VISTA AVENUE AND NORTH AND NORTHWEST OF CANYON ROAD. WHEREAS, on October 1 2007, a Residential- Mountainous Development Permit application was filed by Studio R, Inc. on behalf of Nevis Homes, for approval of two, new, single- family residences, Development Services Department Case No. RM 07 -01, in conjunction with 411 the related subdivision, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07 -05 (69775) and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08 -04 for an approximately 83 -acre property generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road;;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. "CEQA and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Residential- Mountainous Development Perinit Application No. RM 07 -01, Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 07 -05 (69775), and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08 -04 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2008, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data .submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of such Residential- Mountainous Development Permit will not result in any of the following: a. Excessive or unnecessary scarring of the natural terrain and landscape through grading or removal of vegetation; or b. Unnecessary alteration of a ridge or crestline; or c. Unnecessarily affect the view from neighboring sites; or d. Adversely affect existing development or retard future development in this zone; or -2- 1776 e. Be inconsistent with the provisions of Division 0 of Part 5 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 2. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and that based upon the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project, if implemented in accordance with the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission hereby approves and adopts that certain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) -prepared for Tentative Parcel Map Application No TPM 07 -05 (69775) Residential- Mountainous Development Permit Application No. RM 07 -01, and Oak Tree Permit Application No. TR 08 -04. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves Residential- Mountainous Development Permit No. RM 07 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07 -05 (69775), and Oak Tree Permit No. TR 08 -04, for the subdivision and development of an approximately 83 -acre site generally located north of the terminus of Vista Avenue and north and northwest of Canyon Road, subject to the following conditions: -3- 1 1776 1. The applicant shall sign the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), thereby agreeing to pay the City monitoring fees and implement the mitigation measures at a minimum in the design, construction, and maintenance of the project. All mitigation measures shall effectively be conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall grant any easements deemed necessary by the City for utility or roadway maintenance activities. 3. The truck haul route for graded earth material shall be as follows: South on Canyon Road to Elkins Avenue, west to Santa Anita Avenue, south to the 210 freeway, east to the 605 freeway, south to the 60 freeway, and east to Puente Hills Landfill. 4. At least 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall hand- deliver written notification to all property owners residing along the haul route between the point of activity and the 210 freeway, detailing the proposed construction staging plan, haul route and schedule, and other pertinent grading and construction information. 5. All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, landscaping, water supply and water facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and NPDES 11111 measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which PP tY 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. 1776 approval for RM 07 -01, TPM 07 -05 (69775) and *TR 08! 04 shall be grounds for invnediate suspension and/or revocation of any approvals. 8. Approval of RM 07 -01, TPM 07 -05 (69775); and TR 08 -04 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final I inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the.residences. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Passed, approved and adopted this 26th day of August, 2008. Resolution. 7. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions' and conditions of ATTES tary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attomey 1 -r) LAvAA Chairman, Planning Commission January 27, 2010 MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: THOMAS LI PLANNING DIVISION 2111 -2125 CANYON ROAD TPM 09 -08 AND RM 07 -01 The following are our comments on the above referenced project. 1. Fire protection requirements, including fire hydrants, shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department. 2. The designation of the fire sprinkler system is NFPA 13 -D. A separate backflow preventer shall be installed at the point of connection between the domestic water supply riser to the house and the fire sprinkler system. Minimum fire flow shall be stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department. 3. Backflow preventers on the fire sprinkler system shall be as approved by the Public Works Services Department, Utilities Section. Installation location shall also be as approved by the Public Works Services Department, Utilities Section. Backflow preventers shall be installed only in the orientation for which they are approved. 4. New water services and water meters are required. The installation shall be by the Developer. Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Section. 5. Backflow prevention devices on the irrigation system shall be as approved by the Public Works Services Department, Utilities Section and shall be installed as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code with California amendments.: A Water Meter Clearance Application, filed with the Public Works Services Department, Utilities Section, shall be required prior to permit issuance to ensure adequate water meter /service size. 7. No water service lateral, meter, flush -out, backflow prevention device or fire hydrant shall be located in any driveway, nor may be closer than 3 feet from the top of "x" of any driveway or other utility. 8. All backflow devices shall be screened from public view. The screening is subject to Planning Division approval. 9. All pipe, valves, hydrants, meters, fittings, and appurtenances, including disinfection and flushing, shall meet the specifications of the Arcadia Public Works Services Department, Engineering and Utilities Sections. 10. Water services and water meters shall be installed in the location marked on the curb by the Public Works Inspector, or as otherwise indicated. Any deviation from this requirement must be approved by the Public Works Services Department in advance of installation. 11. Based upon the finished floor elevations shown on the TPM, it appears that the water pressure at both houses will be marginal due to the proximity in elevation to the reservoirs and should be addressed by the engineer. TOM HIGHAM PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT February 23, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY SITE AREA: Arcadia Planning Commission Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner STAFF REPORT Development Services Department Consideration and Recommendation to the City Council of Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 at 728 W. Huntington Drive. The applicant, Mr. Charles Huang on behalf of the property owner Mr. Cheung, is requesting to rezone the subject property from C -O D (Professional Office Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential at 24 dwelling units per acre. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of proposed Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Charles Huang on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Cheung LOCATION: 728 W. Huntington Drive REQUEST: Rezoning of the subject property from C -O D (Professional Office Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family). 19,166 square feet (0.44 acre) FRONTAGE: 80 feet along Huntington Drive with a 20 -foot wide alley at the rear EXISTING LAND USE: The subject site has two single family residences, a garage and swimming pool. ZONING: C -O D Professional Office and Design Overlay GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple Family Residential (24 du /acre) SURROUNDING LAND USES ZONING: North: 721 801 W. Huntington Drive C -2 (Bank and Offices) South: 727 Southview Road R -3 (Multi Family Residences) East: 700 W. Huntington Drive C -O (Bank) West: 738 -740 W. Huntington Drive R -3 (Multi Family Residences) BACKGROUND In 1996, the update to the General Plan changed the land use designation of the subject property from Commercial to Multiple Family (24 du /acre), however the zoning was not changed to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 were mailed on February 1, 2010 to the property owners, tenants, and occupants of those properties located within 300 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). The notice was published in the Arcadia Weekly on February 4, 2010, and posted at the L.A. County Clerk's office on February 2, 2010. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting to re -zone the subject property from C -O D (Professional Office and Design Overlay) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential at a density of 24 dwelling units per acre. The R -3 zone permits multi- family housing at a density of one unit per 2,000 square feet of lot area, which is equivalent to 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zone change will make the subject property consistent with the residential properties to the west and south. The subject property is difficult to develop commercially because of its width and the zoning requirement that any commercial structure be setback 10 -feet and at a 45- degree angle from the adjacent residentially -zoned properties. It is staffs opinion that a residential use of the subject property will be Tess intrusive and more compatible with the neighboring uses. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department completed an Initial Study for the proposed zone change. The Initial Study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area ZC 09 -01 728 W. Huntington Drive February 23, 2010 Page 2 affected by the project. Staff has determined that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends, and the California Department of Fish and Game has issued a No Effect Determination. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 and adoption of the Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Regardless of staffs recommendation, the Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations and comments on Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 and the Negative Declaration to the City Council for their consideration at a public hearing. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the February 23, 2010 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or by email at Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved Jim =*ama, Community Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo and Zoning Vicinity Map General Plan Land Use Map Survey Map Photos of Site and Neighborhood Radius Map Negative Declaration Initial Study Part 1 Environmental Checklist Form (Form "J Part 2 Environmental Information Form Fish and Game No Effect Determination ZC 09 -01 728 W. Huntington Drive February 23, 2010 Page 3 728 W Huntington Dr Arcadia Zone Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, February 2010 728 W Huntington Drive ZC 09 -01 Aerial Photo Zoning Development Services Department Engineering Division 728 W Huntington Drive ZC 09 -01 Vicinity Map HUNTINGTON DR Land Use Commercial Horse Racing Industrial Mixed Use Comercial Industrial Mixed Use- Comercial Multi Fam MultiFamily Res 12DU /AC MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Public Facility Single Family Res 0-2 DU Single Family Res 0-4 DU Single Family Res 0-6 DU Ell Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.Gonza/ez, February 2010 HUNTINGTON DR MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC MultiFamily Res 24DU /AC Commercial 728 W Huntington Drive ZC 09 -01 General Plan Land Use Map 16 VD 'VIav3av 110 NO1DNI1N11H 'M BEL Vf z aW1,JPIL0ANM MO" El kd >Zs1 6696`692 (929) :XV1 399L-LZ(9Z9) :131 L0018 VD viavoav 'of 'aa 0NIV0100 6101. 311 'NO±JNI1Nf1H 2131X34 1 1 x s IS 1 tl ooh Laos 7 Iwo— �l 1 I I m r 1 r p r k W M 1 f -1 4 1, 1 jO N�� 1 .1 }I ,�J} 1 1 1 r MO. 1131111.1111.1 tl 90016 V 'YIUYJ11Y V JJNII 'avow 9N140'IO9 61RI1 •aui 6 sarepossV 'IJa11 66SC ..tl RRCCt92929 'NL 1 m r r 1 1 r otxua m as N019NLLN1IH Survey Map an VICINITY M P i i 16 VD 'VIav3av 110 NO1DNI1N11H 'M BEL Vf z aW1,JPIL0ANM MO" El kd >Zs1 6696`692 (929) :XV1 399L-LZ(9Z9) :131 L0018 VD viavoav 'of 'aa 0NIV0100 6101. 311 'NO±JNI1Nf1H 2131X34 1 1 x s IS 1 tl ooh Laos 7 Iwo— �l 1 I I m r 1 r p r k W M 1 f -1 4 1, 1 jO N�� 1 .1 }I ,�J} 1 1 1 r MO. 1131111.1111.1 tl 90016 V 'YIUYJ11Y V JJNII 'avow 9N140'IO9 61RI1 •aui 6 sarepossV 'IJa11 66SC ..tl RRCCt92929 'NL 1 m r r 1 1 r otxua m as N019NLLN1IH Survey Map Pro'ect Site: 728 W. Huntington Dr, Arcadia, CA 91007 Photo 1: Existing Bank. (Viewing SE'ly on Huntington Dr. 'u Photo 2: Ex. Residential Buildin_. (Viewi SW'ly on Huntin on Dr. Photo 3: Ex. Commercial Building. (Viewing NE'ly on Hunti on Dr. Photo 4: Ex. Commercial- Buildin_. (Viewing N'l. on Huntin on Dr. Photo 5: Ex. Commercial and Residential Buildin_s. Viewin NW'l on Huntin on Dr.) identi Ere SUE MORENO o (626) 350 -5944 OWNERSHIP I OCCUPANTS UST RADIUS MAPS LAND USE PLANS MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING 12106 LAMBERT AVEEL MONTE, CA 91732 •fAX(626)350-1 PROJECT INFORMATION 728 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA. 09 -248 SCALE 1" 200' 1. Name or description of project: Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 2. Project Location Identify street 728 W. Huntington Drive The subject site is located between two address and cross streets or major cross streets Michillinda Avenue and Baldwin Avenue. attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 3. Entity or Person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name: Charles Huang Dexter Huntington, LLC (2) Address: 11819 Goldring Road #C The City Council /Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project and having reviewed the written comments received during the comment period and the recommendation of the City's Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the findings are as follows: The City Council /Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at: City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Phone No.: (626) 574 -5445 The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner City of Arcadia Development Services Department Community Development Division Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 Phone No.: (626) 574 -5445 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Date Received for Filing: Negative Declaration \City\2009 FORM "E" ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Department/Planning 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner (626) 574 -5445 4. Project Location: 728 W, Huntington Drive, Arcadia. CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dexter Huntington, LLC Attn: Dexter Huang 11819 Goldring Road #C Arcadia, CA 91006 6. General Plan Designation: Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) To change the zone of the subiect property from C-0 D (Professional Office) to R -3 (Multiple Family) so the underlying zone will be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, which is Multiple Family. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) North: 801 and 721 W. Huntington Drive; C -2 (Office Use) South: 727 Southview Road; R -3 (Multi Family Residences) East: 700 W. Huntington Drive; C -2 (Chase Bank) West: 740 W. Huntington Drive; R -3 (Multi Family Residences) Multiple Family 7. Zoning: C-0 D Professional Office with Design Overlay 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Department of Fish and Games ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics 0 O Biological Resources 0 O Hazards Hazardous 0 Materials O Mineral Resources O Public Services O Utilities Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology Water Quality Noise Recreation O Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 1 of 21 O Air Quality O Geology Soils O Land Use Planning O Population Housing O Transportation Traffic FORM "J" DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. El 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Lisa Flores. Senior Planner Jim Kasama. Community Development Administrator Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: January 27. 2010 Date A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or Tess than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross referenced). ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 2 of 21 FORM "J" Earlier analyses may be used when an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources supporting the analysis (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The subject site is not located near a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project will not create any impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? El There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated state scenic highways it the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will be no impacts to state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project would be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review procedure to assure that the changes complement the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 3 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECRLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above impacts. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non agricultural use? Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The Arcadia Municipal Code has a provision to prohibit glare upon any neighboring properties; any future changes in the lighting arrangements for the subject sites must comply with this provision. Therefore, the project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non agricultural use? 0 There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the zone change will not convert farmland to non agricultural use. Page 4 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: ID. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which funded the development of the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. In 1993, the City of Arcadia adopted Resolution No. 5725, accepting the principles of the plan and agreeing to use the plan in the development of a local air quality program. Such a program is promoted through different approaches as outlined in the City's General Plan under Public Information and Community Involvement, Regional Coordination, Transportation Improvements and Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management, Land Use, Particulate Emissions Reduction, Energy Conservation, and Waste Recylcing. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) continued the trend of long -term improvement in air quality; however, air quality measurements within this region exceed both the State and Federal air quality standards on a regular basis. In Arcadia, local air quality problems are largely the result of pollutants upwind of the City. The project will accommodate existing and approved uses on the subject site, and would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a non attainment area for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter, Respirable Particulate matter, and Carbon Monoxide, and is in a maintenance area for Nitrogen Dioxide. The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant as the project will not increase the intensity of the existing and approved uses. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 5 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Ash and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The subject property does not contain uses that are listed as uses that emit odor and dust under the SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Document. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: In Arcadia, biological sensitive areas occur along existing creeks, upper watershed areas, existing flood control and infiltration facilities, and in natural hillside areas within the northerly portion of the city. These areas have generally been preserved as open space for public safety purposes or as wildlife habitat areas. The subject properties are located within a fully developed area that is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources, and is known to not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the zone change will not create any impacts. There are no designated riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The subject property is located within a fully developed area that is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not create any impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 6 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The subject property is located within a fully developed area that is not close in proximity to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not create any impacts. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Arcadia has an ordinance to protect oak trees within the city. ordinance as it does not interfere with the enforcement of the ordinance. in a significant adverse impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? There are no known historic resources on or adjacent to the site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact 0 There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 7 of 21 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The project will not conflict with that Therefore, the project will not result Less Than Significant No Impact Impact FORM "J" Issues: The subject property is within a fully developed area and is not known to contain any archaeological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any unrecorded archaeological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified Archaeologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The subject property is within a fully developed area and is not known to contain any paleontological or unique geological resources. Should any construction activity encounter any such unrecorded paleontological resources, all work in the area would cease and a qualified paleontologist or geologist shall be retained by the development sponsor to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations, and prepare appropriate field documentation. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? There are no known human remains on the subject property. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that development be halt. Should any remain be encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted and has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the project would not result in impacts in disturbing human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 8 of 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ►1 FORM "J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to the property when an area settles to different degrees over a relatively short distance, and almost all properties in this region are subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The subject property is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other earthquake hazard zone. Nor are they located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Since the subject property is located in a fully developed area, the project will not have a significant impact or expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, ground failures, and landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 The project will not involve any activity to create unstable earth conditions. Prior to construction, soil studies are required to evaluate the potential impacts of the construction upon the soil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project will not result in on- or off-site landslide as it does not include any excavation, grading, or fill. d) Be located on expansive soil, El as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential as defined in the Uniform Building Code. The project will not result in a significant adverse impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The subject property is in a fully developed area that utilizes the local sewer system. Alternative waste water disposal system is not applicable to this project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 9 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The project does not include the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and will not have the above impact. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ►�I The project does not involve hazardous materials and will not create a significant hazard to the public or release hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project does not involve hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The subject property is not included on a list of hazardous material sites and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Page 10 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: The subject property is not located within an airport public use airport. Therefore, the project will not result for people residing or working at the subject property. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The subject property is to accommodate a new use, but it will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan and is not located near wildlands where there is a high fire hazard. Therefore, there will be no impact. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Potentially Significant Impact land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or in a significant adverse impact related to safety hazards Pagel 1 of 21 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact FORM "J" Issues: g) c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater. supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES\CITY\2008 Page 12 of 21 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 0 FORM "J" Issues: h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems? 1) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? n) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Potentially Significant Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 13 of 21 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 0 0 0 FORM "J" Issues: p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact the project is to accommodate a zone change to eventually allow a new multiple family residential use. It will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and it will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the planned storm water drainage systems. Dam failure may be caused by a seismic event or an unprecedented intense storm that lasts over an extended period of time. Such an event could lead to the inundation of that portion of the project, but is highly unlikely to occur. Also, the City is not located within close proximity to any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean, therefore there will be no impact. However, any future development on this property would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) requirements. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed zone change will make the zone consistent with the General Plan land use designation (Multiple Family), which is consistent with the surrounding uses, therefore, the project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. The proposed zone change will be consistent with the Multiple Family land use designation and it will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. c) Conflict with any applicable El habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject property. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 14 of 21 FORM "P° Issues: X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? There are no known mineral resources on the subject property that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and the property is not designated as mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not create any impacts. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\L.A LARGE NPDES CITY \2008 Page 15 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would,the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 0 The site currently has an existing single family residence. Therefore, no replacement is necessary. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a Any future development of the site as a result from the proposed zone change could create short term noise impacts resulting from construction. Construction hours are limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Allowable uses from the proposed zone change would be limited to multiple family residential uses, and it would include any uses that would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The site is not located within an airport land use plan; therefore the project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to noise. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 0 The project is to accommodate a new multiple family residential project, however the increase in growth will not indirectly affect any of the infrastructure since the existing General Plan land use designation, which is Multiple Family Residential (24 du /acre), already accounted for growth on this property. The project is to make the zone consistent with the GP land use designation. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to population and housing. The site currently has an existing single family residence. Therefore, no replacement is necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY \2008 Page 16 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 0 The project will not create any future development that would substantially create an adverse impact to any of the above public services. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: The project will not increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional park or other recreational facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 17 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: XV. TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 The City's Engineering Services has deemed this arterial servicing the subject site to be LOS C, and the increase in density on this property will not cause an increase in traffic in relation to the existing load and capacity of the street system. The project will not obstruct or reduce access to emergency services, and any future development will be required to provide adequate parking. Therefore, the project will not create any of the above impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 18 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is the local board with jurisdiction over Arcadia. Based on the Basin Plan, the project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements and any future development will be subject to the requirements set forth in the Plan. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 19 of 21 FORM "J" Issues: f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 9) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, or the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Any future development on this property will be required to comply with the requirements in the Basin Plan, therefore the project will not create any impacts. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact The project will become consistent with Plan land use designation, will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will wildlife species since it is located in a fully developed area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? The project will become consistent with General Plan land use designation, Multiple Family Residential. Any future development will not create any impacts to the environment since the existing land use permits multiple family residences. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY \2008 Page 20 of 21 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Multiple Family Residential, and it not reduce the habitat of a fish or FORM "J" Issues: c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact The project will become consistent with the General Plan land use designation, Multiple Family Residential, and it will not have any negative impacts on the environment; neither individually limited, nor cumulatively considerable since it is located in a fully developed area. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project will become consistent, with the General Plan land use designation, Multiple Family Residential, and any future development on this property will not have any environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST\LA LARGE NPDES \CITY\2008 Page 21 of 21 FORM "J" Date Filed: I I o f Filing Fee: $75 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: Pextew fit,017rOn (Iglq t•1(4 R4. G, Aavttu, 2. Address of project (Location): q (4 i� UhtI �fcw, Dv, v(ai, CA (o)o— 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: d aIvIPS /4 Marl HOC/ 601011 d .t C, Ayc,40 G,, Ci(ob‘ 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: NI A 5. Zoning: (JO CON') ine/ j 6. General Plan Designation: P (5 tAliris roll do 07 rr Project Description 7. Proposed use o of site (project description): (�t/17 k fl T ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Cll cr(00.6 File No. 7C OQ 01 Recce 4 10242p 03/09 8. Site Size: 1 ?i /SV Sq. Ft. C1 C Acre(s) 9. Square footage per building: N/A 10. Number of floors of construction: 11. Amount of off street parking provided: WA 12. Proposed scheduling of project: grip 13. Associated projects: N/As 14. Anticipated incremental development: N/A 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: 1\ 16. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: (4f 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: NlA 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/k EnvironlnfoForm -2- 03/09 20. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21. g 22. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Et L �f d La ra' Environmental 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more? 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services sewage, etc.) 31. Substantial increase etc.) 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects 33. Has a prior environmental impact report been prepared for a program, plan, policy or ordinance consistent with this project? 34. If you answered YES to question no. 33, may this project cause significant effects on the environment that were not examined in the prior EIR? Setting (police, fire, water, in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, 35. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. (Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted.) 36. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses EnvironlnfoForm _3_ 03/09 EnvironlnfoForm (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date t2/1S /aAoo I (Sign ure) For 2e K tei/ qtArrirreon, L L Related Fees Certified Regulatory Program $941.25 Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declaration $1,993.00 Environmental Impact Report $2,768.25 -4- 03/09 Environmental Setting: 35. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structure on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs o the site. The existing property contains one single family house, detached garage, swimming pool, and pool house. There are no cultural or historical or scenic aspects. Please see attached photos. 36. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.). intensity of land use (one family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage set backs, rear yards, etc.). Attached photographs of the vicinity. The surrounding properties are multi family residences and commercial buildings. No historical and cultural plants, animals or scenic aspects. Most of the single family house area one -story building. Please see attached photos for detail. CALIFORNIA 4100, IiSHEZ,4 California Natural Resources Aaencv DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Environmental Review and Permitting 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1260 Sacramento, CA 95814 http://www.dfg.ca.gov ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor CEQA Filing Fee No Effect Determination Form Applicant Name: Charles Huang Date Submitted: February 1, 2010 Applicant Address: 11819 Goldring Road #C, Arcadia, CA 91007 RECEIVED Project Name: Zone Change No. ZC 09 -01 FEB 0 8 2010 CEQA Lead Agency: City of Arcadia Development Services Department PLANNING CEQA Document Type: (ND, MND, EIR) Negative Declaration SERVICES SCH Number and /or local agency ID number: N/A Project Location: 728 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia Brief Project Description: To change the zone of the subject property from C -O D (Professional Office) to R -3 (Multiple Family) to make it consistent with the General Plan land use designation Multiple Family Residential (24 du /acre). Determination: Based on a review of the Project as proposed, the Department of Fish and Game has determined that for purposes of the assessment of CEQA filing fees [F &G Code 711.4(c)] the project has no potential effect on fish, wildlife and habitat and the project as described does not require payment of a CEQA filing fee. This determination does not in any way imply that the project is exempt from CEQA and does not determine the significance of any potential project effects evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Please retain this original determination for your records; you are required to file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk after your project is approved and at the time of filing of the CEQA lead agency's Notice of Determination (NOD). If you do not file a copy of this determination with the County Clerk at the time of filing of the NOD, the appropriate CEQA filing fee will be due and payable. Without a valid No Effect Determination Form or proof of fee payment, the project will not be operative, vested, or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(3). DFG Approval By: /Z-( C.es/e4_ Aie, 4 -geed Date: 2 20/0 Title: imvinrimeeda l ScienMsJ- CALIFORNIA DEPT: OF FISH AND GAME 4949 EWRIDGE AVENUE C onserving Cat fornia s Wi&tT fe Since 1870 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 -1662 MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Arcadia City Council Chambers The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive with Chairman Parriile presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille ABSENT: None MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Hsu to read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full body of the Resolutions. Without objection the motion was approved. OTHERS ATTENDING Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None 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 CONSENT ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -09 RESOLUTION NO. 1801 510 -512 E. Live Oak Ave. (between Hempstead Ave. and Lenore Ave.) Michael Hsiao (designer) A Conditional Use Permit was granted on October 27, 2009, for a 960 square -foot expansion to an existing 2,040 square -foot restaurant. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Chairman Parrille asked if the applicant wanted to speak in support of the project. Mr. Chen, the business owner, offered apologies for his lack of compliance with the conditions of approval. He said that he expected his architect to see that the business was in compliance. Mr. Chen also said that his sign contractor did not adhere to city guidelines either, but that he would follow up with the sign contractor to make the necessary modifications that will ensure compliance. He asked for an additional two weeks. Chairman PerriIle asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments. Commissioner Baderian noted that Mr. Chen was present at the October 27 meeting when the Conditional Use Permit was approved. He pointed out that, at that meeting, the Commission asked Mr. Chen if he was aware of the conditions of approval and if he would comply with them and Mr. Chen had agreed to comply with all conditions. Mr. Chen explained that he expected his architect to take care of these requirements. He said that he would like to meet all city requirements and that his non compliance was not intentional. Once again, he asked for a couple of weeks to make all necessary arrangements to ensure compliance. Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Chen when he first became aware of the sixty day deadline and Mr. Chen said he first realized there was a deadline about three weeks ago. Commissioner Hsu asked Mr. Chen who would be responsible for securing the parking covenant. Mr. Chen said that he would take care of the parking covenant himself. Commissioner Beranek asked what steps are taken in the revocation hearing process. Mr Kasama explained that the permittee is given five days notice before a revocation hearing so it would probably be scheduled for the beginning of March. Chairman Perri lle explained to Mr. Chen that he will have to work with Planning Services to resolve these issues and at a later hearing the Commission will determine whether, or not his Conditional Use Permit should be revoked. Mr. Kasama advised Mr. Chen that he should begin working on meeting these requirements immediately. Commissioner Baderian asked what the Commission's options are at present. Mr. Kasama explained that he will schedule the revocation hearing for March 9 and at that time, the applicant will have an opportunity to present a progress report. Based on the information presented, the Commissioners can decide to revoke the Conditional Use Permit, or ask for further follow up at a later meeting. Commissioner Baderian pointed out that the Commission also had the option to instruct staff not to go forward with the revocation hearing. He also said that he would appreciate hearing some more background on this project. PC MINUTES 2 -9-10 Page 2 2. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 08 -11 RESOLUTION NO. 1785 1201 S. Baldwin Ave. (Arcadia Hub Shopping Center) Bao Kim Coleman (on behalf of Huntington Learning Center) A Conditional Use Permit was granted on December 9, 2008, for a 3,505 square -foot leaming center with a maximum enrollment of 60 students. Assistant Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Chairman PerriIle asked if anyone wanted to speak in support of the project. There were none. Chairman PerriIle asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments. There were none. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1811 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -19 to operate a tutoring center with a maximum of one hundred fifteen (115) students in an existing two -story, 4,409 square -foot classroom building and a one story, 2,336 square -foot social hall at an existing church complex at 1741 S. Baldwin Avenue. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to adopt Resolution No. 1811 as presented. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Perri Ile NOES: None There is a five working -day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 4. RESOLUTION NQ. 1812 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-20 to operate a tutoring center with a maximum of forty (40) students in an existing 2,255 square -foot commercial building at 222 -224 S. First Avenue. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to adopt Resolution No. 1811 as presented. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None PC MINUTES 2 -9-10 Page 3 There is a five working -day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. 5. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2010 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to approve the minutes of January 26, 2010 as presented. Without objection the motion was approved. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Chairman Parrille reported that Modification Application No. MC 10 -01 for a reduced side yard setback was approved by the Modification Committee today. MATTERS FROM STAFF Ms. Kasama briefly reviewed the upcoming projects for consideration by the Commission. He listed a Zone Change for 728 W. Huntington from Commercial to Multi Family Residential, an Appeal on a Homeowners' Association approval of a second story addition and another Conditional Use Permit for a tutoring center. ADJOURNED ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission PC MINUTES 2 -9 -10 Page 4